It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Any Regrets voting for Bush now???

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Just wondering if by now some of you have regrets that you voted for Bush.


Some of you have said that anything was better than Kerry. Why?

Do you hope the next incumbent is Republican or Democrat?

Given the sad state of affairs these times, would you change your political affiliation?

Do you think things should remain as they are?

And finally, would you be happy if Bush remained as our leader indefinatedly?




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
No nibbles?

I thought it might be nice to know who you would hope for when Bushs term is over.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Just wondering if by now some of you have regrets that you voted for Bush.

Some of you have said that anything was better than Kerry. Why?

Do you hope the next incumbent is Republican or Democrat?

Given the sad state of affairs these times, would you change your political affiliation?

Do you think things should remain as they are?

And finally, would you be happy if Bush remained as our leader indefinatedly?


I generally prefer Republicans because of the philosophy of self-dependence they espouse (though admittedly they give it only lip service today.)

The Republicans of today are a far cry from their espoused philosophy, I would certainly agree. But that doesn't change my philosophy. It is this philosophy that ties me to my political affiliation, but I could see me drifting toward the Libertarians if these yahoos in Congress don't quit being so mealymouthed and overly concerned with re-election.

What I usually do is not vote if no candidate appeals to me. Last time I voted for prez, I was voting for Bob Dole.

As far as things remaining as they are, that would depend on what you mean by "things." That is, I'm all for change, as long as there is reason to believe that it is change for the better.

Lastly, I don't think any American from any era in our history would ever be "happy if [whatever president] remained as our leader indefinatedly..." So, no.

I will say that, IMO, Bush has been no better than many previous administrations, and no worse than a majority of them.

Harte



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
dg .. I have no regrets voting for Bush. Kerry would have been much worse.
I have no doubt about that. Of course, the only way to prove that would have been to put Kerry in .. which obviously didn't happen. But I know in mygut that Kerry would have been much worse.

What is regretable is that there were only two real viable choices for President of the United States....

Choice A (Kerry) - not good
Choice B (Bush 43) - just a bit better than choice A.

I really wish we had more viable parties and more choices.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Thanks for the curteous replies and i in no way meant to start this thread for it to become a hate thread.

Knowing what we (I) know today,

A good Republican taking office would be ok with me, as long as there is no "affiliation" with the current gang. (None to speak of)

By the same token, a good Democrat would suit me fine.

NO to Bush remaining indefinatly. A resounding NO!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I only have to remind myself of who ran against GW to remind me that of the choices I voted for the best man for the job.

The presidency is the hardest job in the world and GW has the guts to take decisive action and follow through. We wouldn't be able to say the same for John Kerry, based on the available evidence.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
NO to Bush remaining indefinatly. A resounding NO!!!


I don't know why you keep bringing this up. dg .. really ... there is no way he is going to stay past his two terms. Legally he can't be elected again and even if for some reason a law was passed to make it possible for him to run .. the people of America wouldn't vote a third term for him.

It's just not going to happen.

So you can stop worrying about Bush 43 staying in office and start worrying about what President Hillary will do in 2009.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I am not a american, nor do I vote anywhere.
But Kerry would of been worse.

You dont for who's better any more,
you vote for the one who's not 'as' bad...

while I never liked, nor agreed with bush.. he was the one whom started the eternal # mess, so fair enough he should of been the one to finish it, and its always good to see him FAIL, and all the people that stubbornly back him up, after he's failed gasping at straws on why he's the 'man'

question is, why was such a poor contender put up against bush?
surely, someone with a bit more... flare.... ability to challenge him was present...


[edit on 22-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
OK, the suspense is killing me.

Do tell.

Why would Kerry have been worse??? Everyone says that but i want to know why.

Dont get me wrong, i think we could have done better than Kerry- also better than Bushman.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
dg

During the last election I typed until my fingers were bloody on that very subject. I'm not going to go into it again. Use the search function.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I can appreciate that. But if you mean the situation where he supposedly bad mouthed the country and the armed services,........Is that the reason? Besides the fact that he looks like Frankenstein, and has an obnoxious wife???

Shall we go back and rehash Bush's past?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
MY opionion may mean little, being im a NZ citizen and not an American citizen,
But Kerry seemed to care more about the opositions failings, and his shortfalls.
Choosing onyl to counter him rather than present new idea's, new policies, something ground breaking his admin could be recognised for..

He didnt look like a positive, dominant, all knowing man...
Unfortunately looks do count.. how bush got passed this.. I do not know.

The BS about vietnam crap is pathetic.
If you look at Vietnam, as Mr sheen said
'' accusing someone of murder in this war is like handing out speeding tickets ''

But ultimately,bush won because of the mess he created.
Everyone still beleived the blind BS he was spurting out... and wernt prepared that early into the conflict to change course, because real results hadnt been presented.

Again thats my out-side opinion. I didnt see the type of media inside the US, I saw a non biased international view.
I mean, what does Helen care who wins.. either way those damn american war ships arent coming near the NZ coast.!



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
ALSO,

Diabold machines had a big hand in the voting process.


So everyone here is pretty sure we got the right man into office. Right?

No one has any reservations? WOW.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Okay, dg, I'll bite.

Sad to say, both parties are a huge disappointment these days. I always try to remember when this became and obvious event. :shk:
Or, when the last president was the guy folks wanted in office, rather than the lesser of two evils *sigh*

But, I have NO regrets about my votes for Bush.
Kerry did nothing to impress me.
I even think Gore would have been better than Kerry


As far as rigged elections, they've been around probably since 1776.
And, I'll bet back to the days of ancient Greece & Rome.
No way does the current administration deserve the rap for inventing voter fraud.
Surely, you remember Kennedy & Johnson???



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
No regrets, plus I plan to vote for a Republican Representative & Senator this November (although neither has a chance of winning).



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Out of interest, what was it about GORE that people didnt like?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Kerry was wooden and lacked charisma, but he was clearly the more intelligent of the two men. Though that ain't saying much. Edwards would have made the better president. Smart and apparently moral.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Kerry was wooden and lacked charisma, but he was clearly the more intelligent of the two men. Though that ain't saying much. Edwards would have made the better president. Smart and apparently moral.


Morals..
there it is.
How can the corporate elite maniuplate a man with morals..



[edit on 22-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Out of interest, what was it about GORE that people didnt like?


Let's see: smarmy, arrogant, doesn't come across as intelligent, his wife, he probably got into office using his father's name and not his qualifications, untrustworthy.
It is interesting to note that some of these qualities fit almost all politicians.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Let's see: smarmy, arrogant, doesn't come across as intelligent, his wife, he probably got into office using his father's name and not his qualifications, untrustworthy.
It is interesting to note that some of these qualities fit almost all politicians.


I think that sums up Gore excellently


Anyway, he tried to act moderate but was really a leftist, as can be seen by his activities since 2000. Gore made a mistake by distancing himself from Clinton because of the Monica affair, but Clinton was still popular and probably could have won him at least the 500 or so votes in Florida he needed if he was used more.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join