• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you could go back in time to 2004 would you still vote for Bush?

If you could go back in time would you still vote for Bush over John Kerry?

  • Yes I would still vote for Bush!

    Votes: 25 73.5%

  • No I would change my vote!

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Tear up my bollot paper!

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • Total voters
    34
Higgins86 said:
Quick poll for everyone that voted for Bush back in 2004! Not attacking Bush at all ( before navy pride wets his bed) just curious if you would still vote for Bush?
Click to expand...
I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, but let's be honest, the financial collapse would have happened in exactly the same way had Kerry been president. We'd probably have about the same amount of debt. I really don't think things would be much different at all. Except we'd have a President McCain and Vice President Lieberman at the moment, and the Clinton-Obama ticket would annihilate them in November.
 
lunchbox said:
Yes, because Al Gore might have had us 99 percenters living in caves until green technology would become affordable for the masses.
Click to expand...

Yes... that is a possibility. And if Obama got elected... we'd all be paying our jizya tax. Sometimes I wonder where people get the hyperbole from. Is there a market I can go and pick it up at?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I would hope that hindsight would have changed enough minds to keep that horses ass from a second term.
Click to expand...

Well, I thought clear sight would have prevented Bill Clinton from getting a second term...turned out I was wrong. Much like you are.
 
If I could go back armed with some data about the performance of specific stocks, I'd go back in a flash. As for the election, I'd probably vote third party once again, secure in the knowledge that California would certainly go Democratic and my vote wouldn't count anyway.
 
Higgins86 said:
or as Soth Park put it "sometimes you have to choose between a Douche and a Turd sandwich"
Click to expand...

The most scathing aspect of that episode is what people tend to forget about it. When Stan finally does make his choice between the douche and a turd sandwich, he learns that his vote really didn't mean jack **** anyway. The entire debate about the douche and turd sandwich is all a big distraction from how meaningless our individual vote is to begin with.
 
Dittohead not! said:
... secure in the knowledge that California would certainly go Democratic and my vote wouldn't count anyway.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me how many people fail to realize this fact. There are maybe 7 or 8 states where one's vote kind of counts...sometimes.... but only just barely.
 
Tucker Case said:
It always amazes me how many people fail to realize this fact. There are maybe 7 or 8 states where one's vote kind of counts...sometimes.... but only just barely.
Click to expand...

Yep. Now, if we ever do get around to splitting California into a North and a South, leaving SF and LA in the "south", or the west would be more accurate, then the rest of us might have a chance at being one of those "swing" states.
 
i was a libertarian then; voted Badnarik.

if i had it to do over again with my views today, i probably would just vote down ticket and leave the president vote blank. that was one lousy election choicewise, as was 2000.
 
I didn't vote for Bush in '04.... I didn't vote for Kerry either.... I voted for Badnarik

that said, if i had to choose between Bush or Kerry... Bush would win hands down.

Bush, however, got my vote in 2000 over Gore... and no, I don't regret that vote either.
 
Higgins86 said:
Im not sure where the world would be if AL Gore had won, he's an intelligent man no doubting that but I dont think he could of handled 9/11 the way Bush did. For all Bush's faults I thought he handled 9/11 pretty well considering.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely, but... we also got the Patriot Act, which I am none too happy about. Though I think we probably would have gotten it anyway, or something very close, regardless who was in the White House. Simply as an example of our propensity to overreact when serious stuff happens.

Really, Bush II could have gone down as a great President if he served only one term.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The only positive I can really say about Bush and 9/11 is that he appropriately dedicated more resources to the intelligence community and national security structure, however I think now there was such an overreaction that the bureaucracy is now completely bloated.
Click to expand...

The only thing that 9/11 did was show us the weaknesses of our security and intelligence. That needed to be fixed. Unfortunately, Bush went way overboard and that damnable Patriot Act destroyed the liberty of Americans.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is the propaganda the leftwing spews. How many people do you know were high placed members of the administration that can confirm or deny that claim of yours?
Click to expand...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
 
I do not think Bush's second term was of much consequence. We were already up to our necks in Iraq. No one was serious about the growing Housing Bubble. Had they been, efforts to curb it would have begun in his first term, and they did not. Bush claimed he had the "political capital" to reform Social Security with his win over Kerry, and found his bag empty. Kerry would have followed essentially the same trajectory in those years. The only thing that would have been different with Kerry is that we probably would not now have Obama.

Now THAT offers some interesting hindsight ;)
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I doubt you have access to the classified material as to what was being done to find OBL. I don't either but since two of the guys I work with were over there at the time and my nephew just returned from the area after doing 14 months in the SF as a Captain I can tell you that the search for OBL was intense even after the Iraq offensive started
Click to expand...
The divided focus made catching him much more difficult. Obama did not seem to have that problem. They may well have been looking but he managed to elude the forces who were looking. Now he is no longer a problem. But it was Bush's problem and he certainly handled the mission for OBL poorly at best.
 
I never voted for the nimrod to begin with, but I gaurantee things would have been way better under Gore. Kerry wouldn't have done much better than Bush though probably. But Gore would have continued Bill Clinton's policies and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Click to expand...

there are suckers born every minute
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The divided focus made catching him much more difficult. Obama did not seem to have that problem. They may well have been looking but he managed to elude the forces who were looking. Now he is no longer a problem. But it was Bush's problem and he certainly handled the mission for OBL poorly at best.
Click to expand...

Nothing more than partisan hank rantings that you clearly don't have any real information to support that claim. You seem to think Obama had our special warfare operatives do something different. In other words, you have no clue. what happened under Obama was a continuation of efforts started under Bush.
 
Justice For All said:
I never voted for the nimrod to begin with, but I gaurantee things would have been way better under Gore. Kerry wouldn't have done much better than Bush though probably. But Gore would have continued Bill Clinton's policies and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
Click to expand...

Gore has shown himself to be one giant stupid jackass. He could have been voted mayor of Podunk and been in way over his head. Your "guarantee" ain't worth fecal matter.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nothing more than partisan hank rantings that you clearly don't have any real information to support that claim. You seem to think Obama had our special warfare operatives do something different. In other words, you have no clue. what happened under Obama was a continuation of efforts started under Bush.
Click to expand...

For the most part your correct..except that obama increased drones for attacks and intelligence...and they have done good stuff
 
Higgins86 said:
Quick poll for everyone that voted for Bush back in 2004! Not attacking Bush at all ( before navy pride wets his bed) just curious if you would still vote for Bush?
Click to expand...

Yes.The past on a national level shouldn't be changed.There is no telling how different our country would be today.The results of a Kerry White-house could be very disastrous and caused voters to vote for McCain in 2008 thus causing 20 million plus illegals to be made citizens
 
TurtleDude said:
that has never been proven. Lanny Davis-a Yale Law Grad and Clinton white house counsel said Bush is very bright and called him a genius in getting along with people and understanding how people work and what motivates them.
Click to expand...
Yea drunken style is very effective.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yep. Now, if we ever do get around to splitting California into a North and a South, leaving SF and LA in the "south", or the west would be more accurate, then the rest of us might have a chance at being one of those "swing" states.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but your vote would still only count if you voted for the winner of the state-wide election.

An even better option would be using proportional voting systems so that we could end the giant douche turd sandwich monopoly AND make ti so that every vote actually counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom