following the events of 9/11 Bush has often been viewed as a hero by many and an idiot by a lot more.... in 2004 a lot poeple expected him to loose his bid for re election but to many people's surprise he was able to win. Now the question remains, would we have been better off with kerry or is it good that Bush won again? Personally despite the fact that i am a republican i do believe that making Bush the U.S president was a huge mistake and re electing him was a slap on the face of good sense and wisdom. it has become painfully clear that the interests of this administration do not include the well being of the United States or the world as a whole not to talk of democracy. It is sad that most people view loyalty to a political party to be more important than loyalty to the United States and continue to believe that we are better off with Bush as president than we would have if kerry had won. Nevertheless i will want to see your opinions and see if you can actually prove me wrong.

Well, since it is a hypothesis you can't prove yourself right either. No one will ever know if Kerry would have done better. But I do agree that I find the notion of someone doing worse than Bush Jr. to be far fetched.

I think Bush winning the election means one of four things:

1) The people who voted against Bush were too divided on their choice of candidates,

2) people who didn't like Bush didn't bother to vote,

3) the people who didn't like Kerry simply voted for Bush to keep Kerry out of office,

or 4) the election was rigged.

I guess I could be wrong, as a few people that I talked to around voting time felt that it was not appropriate to change leadership of the country in the middle of a war, so maybe all these people voted Bush back in, but the people I talked to with this opinion were very few indeed.

My state voted for Kerry, overwhelmingly, well over 60%. Part of why I think the electoral college should be replaced with the counting of every single vote.

I think the reason Bush won was:

More Americans would rather have a Retarted Druggy Cheerleader than
having someone that supported the DNC's political platform!

More people voted in this last elections than normal, so your "people didn't
vote" doesn't fligh. And Nader or other third parties did not get that may
votes, So America is still left with "The Lesser of Two Evils"

But your #4 reason is right. Maybe not for the reasons you are implying,
but rigged none the less.

The DEMS&REPS have the system rigged so "ONLY" a DEM or REP can win!
Last election (2000') Gore had more of the peoples votes but lost!!!!
That proves that the system is rigged (or critcaly flawed).

Now think why didn't the DEMS (DNC or anyone) try to fix this error?
Because if they did it would lead to fair voting, and that could/would end
the DEM&REP monopoly!

The electoral college is not the problem, the problem is the lack of a viable platform and candidacy from a third party candidate. A true independent candidate has a fair shot of winning any election, especially when considering that approximately 30% of registered voters are Democrats, and 30% are Republicans, that means that there are 40% who are not declared or independent. That means if a third party candidate would come along that actually has a legitimate platform, they have a great chance of picking up those 40% of the votes.

Your contention that the electoral college is rigged shows you little understanding of the constitutional republic in which we live. The President is the leader of the republic. The republic is made up of the 50 individual states that make up the United States. The electoral college was devised so that no one state would have more power than any others. The college gives 2 votes each to each state, and then the remaining votes are distributed to the states according to population, represented by the number of elected representatives each states have, thus there are 535 electoral votes.

In each of the preceeding two elections, President Bush has carried 30 and 31 states respectively. Would it be right to the country had in the 2000 election the candidate that carried only 20 states be the winner. Clearly, 30 states make up more of the nation than 20, thus the electoral college provided the winner.

Before you make a statement, you need to check your premise. Here endth the lesson.

dmk

Great opinion, but based upon what. You are unhappy with the President which is your right, but you offer not basis for your statement regarding loyalty to a political party over loyalty to the country. In what ways have you determined that the President does not have the best interest of the country in mind. You say it is painfully clear, so why don't you explain it better. Vague generalities serve no purpose.

dmk

I find it amazing to even have to post on this thread, since it's obvious that just by fighting the terrorists the world has become a better place by default. However, what we do tomorrow is critical. Do we continue to protract this war against those that harbor and support the brand of Islamofascism that seeks to dominate the globe, or do we call it off?

I suppose I shouldn't be too amazed. The mainstream press has not treated this war with the seriousness and the context that it needs to be presented. It has perpetuated myths that only served to undermine the war effort, such as the notion that Bush lied about WMDs, or that this war was fought to make Bush's oil buddies rich, yada-yada-yada. So let me do something for you guys that should put this all in proper context.

We have actually been at war with Islamofascism since 1979. Starting with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Islamic extremists have been waging non-stop war against the US and the West. From 1979 to 2000, they have launched attack upon attack, from the US Marine Barracks bombing in 1983, to the Aquile Laurel hijacking, to Pan-Am Flight 109 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Throughout the 90's, we have had incessant attacks upon us by al-Qaeda. From the first WTC bombing in 1993 to the USS Cole in 2000. And through all that time, the only one to treat it with the proper response has been President Ronald Reagan, but even then he only launched one air-raid on Libya in response to both their provocative actions in the Mediterranian and the discoteque bombing in West Berlin, killing American servicemen partying there.

Then 9/11 happened.

You know, at this point, I could very easily lay this event squarely on the shoulders of President Bill Clinton and his pathetic lack of a response during his tenure as commander-in-chief, but that's problematic, since some of you would give him a pass anyway no matter how criminally negligent and corrupt he was. I digress.

9/11 taught us that we cannot ignore islamofascism anymore. We can't ignore the evil that plots against us throughout the world. With al-Qaeda cells laying in wait for their orders from on high, the next attack could be far more devestating. Over 3,000 lives lost and billions, possibly trillions of dollars spent recovering from 9/11 should be an adequate lesson for anyone with a brain between their ears that we should do everything in our power to prevent it from happening again. President Bush has been the first president to take this threat with the abject seriousness that it warrants.

At the time of 9/11, we really didn't know how dangerous the world had become since the fall of the Soviet Union and the continual defiance of Saddam Hussein. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had been bribing the UN, Russia, France and Germany in an effort to mitigate the UN Weapons Inspectors and the sanctions, and to thwart both the UN and the US into launching another war on his country. The instant he violated but one of the 17 UN Resolutions, particularly the one regarding the 1991 Cease-Fire that ended the first Gulf War, we should've resumed hostilities. Saddam was playing the UN for the fools they were in the hopes that one day the sanctions on his nation would be lifted and he could resume his goals of developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This is outlined in the Duelfir Report.

Saddam Hussein was harboring and supporting Islamic terrorism. He was giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and he was providing money and training to numerous terror organizations, to include al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. He was fomenting further acts of violence against both the US and Israel.

At the same time, the Kay Report indicates a Hussein regime that was extremely corrupt and unstable. Rife with graft throughout the regime, Saddam's own government was disorganized and deceitful, and it was possible that his own advisors were lying to Saddam in order to both stay alive and get rich through schemes of their own. Saddam himself believed that he had large stockpiles of WMDs, which is why he kicked out UN weapons inspectors in 1998, and didn't cooperate with them again in 2002-2003. The UN Oil for Food program was merely a way for him to get rich while at the same time a vehicle for which he could bribe key officials thorughout Europe and the UN itself to further his own schemes. Meanwhile, his people had suffered tremendously under his iron heel. Rape rooms, torture rooms and mass graves, alongside his over 40 palaces throughout Iraq are a testement to the evil of Saddam Hussein and the Baath regime.

Since the start of the War on Terror, President Bush has toppled two oppressive regimes that harbored terror and were threats to the US and the western world. Together with our coalition partners, we have liberated millions of people and have transformed both Iraq and Afganistan into democratic nations. Hopefully, the addition of and spread of capitalistic policies will enfranchise these nations and will serve as beacons of hope for Middle-Easterners who wish to make a better life for themselves rather than turn to terrorism for a purpose in their lives. The recent Iraqi elections were a good step in the right direction.

We have captured and killed over 70% of al-Qaeda. We have captured and killed enemy agents who were here, plotting against our nation.

In addition, tax cuts have spurred this economy to record levels, surging us out of the recession inherited from the late-90s and exacerbated by the attacks on 9/11.

There are things that I wish the Bush Administration did better. Border security is one. All this rampant entitlement spending has got to stop, also. Nobody has spent more money than this administration and this Congress. President Bush has yet to use his veto power...ever. He and his administration are also quite silent in response to the nay-sayers and idiots that continually present false assertions and dilemmas at him; only until recently did he finally feel as though he and his administration had to speak up.


To answer, "why did Bush win," that's very easy. I should also like to ask you, "why did Kerry lose?"

Bush won because: a) he's honest b) he's likeable (I know that's incomprehensible to you, but he is very likable), c) he is a leader. Kerry lost because he's none of these things. Kerry is a traitor, he has no love for this nation or its armed forces, he never responded adequately to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth if even to discredit their own allegations, and he flip-floped on every damned issue. John Kerry is no leader, and he's a coward on so many levels, but that's another discussion for another time.

Seeing how far you have gone back with this, I did a bit of browsing around myself and found a direct connection to oil interests to the extremist Muslim sects, including al Qaeda, from the get-go.

We are involved in a resource war. Right now, we have enough oil to last us for some time, however, our resources are finite, especially the rate at which we American consumers depend on it. Rather than working on ways to develop other sources of energy, which would greatly affect our current economy and major industries, we are trying to aquire more oil and we cannot do that without having ties to nations who have underdeveloped oil surpluses. These would be found in the middle East.

While I understand the immediate necessity of this, I find it to be short-sighted. This may help us in the short term, however, we need to develop technologies that will help sustain us in the long term, and though the profits may not be as great, the benefits for all of humanity should outweigh personal greed.

(Exxon itself said something along the line of: we could develop cleaner, cheaper technologies but will not because there is not enough profit in it.)

I do not doubt that there would be a great upheavel in the structure of our society if we were to turn away from oil toward more efficient fuel sources. Implementing them would initially be expensive as well.

Some fear the changes that this would create, from our economy to the impact on our daily lives. We can't let this fear impede our progress as a nation. We can pave the way for the rest of the world, or we can lag behind.

There is a more than just oil involved in this war we are currently in, but do not doubt that oil does play a key role.

As for the terrorists, they have chosen to live with fear, fear of a change in the structure of their society, fear of a freer world. Through their actions they try to spread their fear and increase their power.

I know it may sound far-fetched, but I think that to stop them, we are going to have to find a way to ease their fears and open their minds. By showing the world that we are not afraid to change and develop as a nation, would be leading by example.

The proof is in the deeds.

So we are suppose to have repersentation by our states! So our States
should represent the people vote! So if the people were PROPERLY
represented shouldn't Gore have won in 2000'?

He carried 30 & 31 states ONLY because of the "Winner Take All" rule!
Who made the winner take all rule? Did we the people vote on it?
Or did the Dems&Reps put it in place?
It's a effective and subtle way to keep their Monopoly!

Remember
In 1992
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% (Electroial )
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30%
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0%

No candidate got a 51% vote! (A Majority is >50%)

So you don't see a flaw in the system? So you don't think that we
could make a system that reflects the will of the people and prevents
a monopoly in government?

I know that if we follow the rules of the E.C. system that the right
person won! But I also see that the system is flawed and allows corruption.

As far as viable candidates, there are a few. But it is impossible under
the current system for them to win. With exception of a +80% pop vote!
Remember the people who cast the E.C. votes are appointed and are not
required by law to vote for the candidate that the people choose!

And all the people who would want to vote for a 3rd party candidate
have been shot down so many times that they have given up and just
vote for the lesser of the two evils!

solution:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!

Hear hear! That is exactly what our political system needs. I couldn't agree more.