Bush is screwed. People will blame the economy on him and he will lose the next election for this. Most people are too ignorant in economics to realize the president doesn't run the economy, but rather the people that work, buy and sell products in america. All economies have a boom time and a bust time. Bush ran when the economy went bust. It sucks for him. I must say cutting the rates is just a stupid move at this point. It really has no effect as the rates are so low that it will not make a difference. Increasing taxes would also be a stupid thing to do. Laws of economics would say decrease taxes and increase government spending creating a deficit to get the economy going. But in my book we run into another problem. THere must be a booming business to carry the economy after the government and decreased taxes help it out, otherwise it will go back in the hole. I don't think it can be computers because the technology is good enough right now. No companies need faster computers really. Who ever can think of a new market to create a boom is going to be rich. People need to think outside the box right now. The economy will improve, but it will not be as good and properous as it was if there is no booming market.
It's war time...
- Thread starter TheGrimReaperKD
- Live activity
- Replies 737
- Views 13K
- Status
is it just me, or is the stock market up 20% since the fist of the year? or are you guys referring to the economy as a whole?
-nate
-nate
The stock market has been quite unstable. I'm speaking of the economy though.
1zenlunatic
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
I dont think Bush is necessarilly screwed.
The democrats dont seem that organized. They dont seem to have any one person who's really anting up to
play the leadership role for them. Sen. Kerry might be the closest one to attempting to carry the pulpit.
I dont see any of them as that strong. I havent really been paying much attention though.
I think Bush will get another 4, that is, unless he really f**** up in Iraq over the next year.
The democrats dont seem that organized. They dont seem to have any one person who's really anting up to
play the leadership role for them. Sen. Kerry might be the closest one to attempting to carry the pulpit.
I dont see any of them as that strong. I havent really been paying much attention though.
I think Bush will get another 4, that is, unless he really f**** up in Iraq over the next year.
this next election will be similar to the one where nixon got elected. the democratic party is split up into too many pieces, and none of the pieces are well-known/popular enough to do anything effectively. the democratic votes will get spread out throughout all of the party, and not all to one candidate. bush will win fairly easily IMO. not that i want him to, but the democrats are too disorganized too pull this one off.
-nate
-nate
1zenlunatic
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
Dont they take care of that in the primarys though?
I'm not trying to be mean but you guys are way too optimistic for Bush. Remember he is in the Republican party. Republicans and their supporters just ****. Democrats could come up with anyone within a month of the election and still win. The democratic party gets respect from me for this. They are very skilled at campaigning and attacking their opponents, where as republicans tend to be sissies that don't really tell their side very well, they just take the attacks and don't respond.
well looks like the Republicans won the last election...so no clue what you are talking about. Just as you are accusing them of being optimistic of Bush and the republican party...you obviously are a radical deomcrat. so basically your opinion on the republican party means absolutely nothing. honestly im more republican than democrat and i really hate some things that democrats believe in....but u dont see me complaining about it. so unless you have something unbiased to say....then dont say anything concerning political inerest.
Actually I'm being unbiased. In fact I'm not a democrat at all this is just something that I have observed. They are much better at campaigning. Bush barely won. He actually lost the popular vote. The economy is bad, people will say it was him. Now the democrats are great a feeding off people's emotions and they will gain support, by one attacking the war effort, and two talking about the economy and how the school system is suffering right now. In my opinion I wouldn't need nearly as many resources as teachers need today. Give me a math book, don't give any to the students, I will teach them at school, rather than sending them home for their parents to teach them and I would assign them some homework problems that I made them write down on their binder paper. No need for a lot of books. It is not so much funding in the school system as much as bad teaching in the school systems. Teachers are not being taught good enough on how to teach others.
a very weak, weak win at that....
-nate
This was an accurate assessment prior to 9/11. The average American 5 yrs ago couldn't find Iraq in a map.
The nation is in a more conservative mood and pro military than it has been in my lifetime.
To do the recent history of Presidents:
1-Billy Jeff Clinton won twice without ever gaining a majority thanks only to Mr Perot. The country never really liked or trusted him but a strong economy, no war, and the opposition being split made him the luckiest person ever to hold the office.
2-Bush I was elected solely because of the Reagan connection. When the nation found out he was a closet liberal the conservatives turned on him and the party was over. After reneging on "no new taxes" it was all downhill.
3-Ronald Reagan was a straight shooter and probably the most popular President ever. If not for term limits he might still be there. Whether you agreed with him or not nobody argued that the man had the best interests of the nation guiding him.
4-Jimmuh Cahtuh was elected because after Watergate the populace was ready to vote for ANYONE without a DC connection. When it was found that he was just LBJ v2.0 he was on the bus back to the peanut farm. Possibly the most honest and intelligent person to ever hold the office but an abysmal leader. The people trusted him but didn't believe in him.
5-Gerald Ford. Never elected. Couldn't walk and chew gum. Pardoned Nixon. Nuff said.
6-Slick Dick Nixon. Similar to Billy Jeff was elected in a split race. Similar to Reagan the people loved him, at first, and he won again in a landslide. Similar to Billy Jeff he was found to be a scofflaw. Dissimilar to Clinton he did the honorable thing and resigned. The last President of the innocent age of modern politics and the media.
7-LBJ. Similar to Bush I he was elected in 1964 because of the association with JFK. Seeing the writing on the wall he declined to run after the public lost faith in his ability to govern.
8-JFK. Elected in a close race against an unpopular VP. Murdered.
9-Dwight D Eisenhower. War hero. Trusted. Popular. Honorable. Elected twice. Could have won again if he wanted to.
10-Harry Truman. Got the job by the death of FDR. Unpopular in the media. Underqualified for the job. The people knew it...but they liked him AND truusted him. Everyone said he could't win in 1948...they were all wrong.
The point of this, other than being long winded, is that to be re-elected you have to be popular, or liked, and you have to be TRUSTED most of all. A majority of Americans has never re-elected a President that they did not trust.
Overall Bush II has many characteristics of Reagan such as being unafraid to take his case to the people and unafraid to combat smear tactics which the Dems rely on.
However more than any post war President he resembles Truman. Probably not the most qualified person for the job BUT people like him and trust him as a whole.
He has none of the indecisive tendencies which doomed Carter, LBJ, and his father.
He also has none of the dishonest traits of Slick Dick or Billy Jeff. The more he is accused of dishonesty the more strong his support seems to get. Without hard evidence dumping on George II is a political mistake.
IMHO Dubya is going to win by at least a 55%-45% margin, and maybe more.
PEACE
It's fine with me if he wins, but the Democrats are already bringing up their arguments. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. There was no emminent need to go into Iraq. Our country was hurting and he waisted all this money on a war. He doesn't have the skills for financing a country. The poor are suffering from social cut backs. He is for the rich. All of these comments can be struck down, but I doubt the republicans will do a good job of attacking these arguments. These attacks along with the attack that the economy is still not fixed and it has been four years, is enough to win the election for the democrats. Remember the most important part of any leader doesn't seem to be integrity, but how much money people have. People were mad that Clinton was being impeached, because they felt it was a personal issue. If his wife can't trust what makes people think that they can trust him. He lied about Monica under oath, yet this didn't matter to people. The economy did matter. Just my opinion. Also some states are blaming Bush, because they feel the federal govt. should help the states pay for their deficits. I guess these people don't realize that it is against the law for states to run a deficit. THis should never occur and there is no reason for it to occur if the state budget is ran right. It is supposed to be estimated year to year not 5 years down the line. I don't expect the federal govt. to help. But again this is another attack that the democrats are using. They are absolutely great at this stuff. The Republican need to take some critically thinking and philosophy classes so that they can attack the flaws in the opposing sides argument. My prediction Bush loses next election, but it will be a close one.
1zenlunatic
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
i cant see why on earth any democrat would want to hold the presidency at this point in time.
Economy, Iraq, terrorism, inflated budget... so many unknowns and plenty of negatives.
Let Bush sort it out and get riddled with holes by this mess. Thats what the Dems. will do.
Similar to what happened in CA last election but the other way around.
Reps. ran Bill Simon, a rich guy with absolutely NO political experience whatsoever.
Davis outspent him and let Simon sabotoge himself with his bungled campaign.
Bush wouldnt even visit the man for a photo-op.
The Reps, were smart, who wants to be governor when the state is reeling in the wake of
a 20 billion dollar loss due to the energy crisis.? Whoever gets stuck with that one is going to be
VERY unpopular-- hence the Davis recall campaign ( Davis has the worst approval rating for any Governor of CA)
Economy, Iraq, terrorism, inflated budget... so many unknowns and plenty of negatives.
Let Bush sort it out and get riddled with holes by this mess. Thats what the Dems. will do.
Similar to what happened in CA last election but the other way around.
Reps. ran Bill Simon, a rich guy with absolutely NO political experience whatsoever.
Davis outspent him and let Simon sabotoge himself with his bungled campaign.
Bush wouldnt even visit the man for a photo-op.
The Reps, were smart, who wants to be governor when the state is reeling in the wake of
a 20 billion dollar loss due to the energy crisis.? Whoever gets stuck with that one is going to be
VERY unpopular-- hence the Davis recall campaign ( Davis has the worst approval rating for any Governor of CA)
ugh i dont understand why no good politicians (if there are such things) run for CA governor.
arnold shwarzenegger...****...it's sad that he is going to be our next governor. i can't even understand him.
-nate
arnold shwarzenegger...****...it's sad that he is going to be our next governor. i can't even understand him.
-nate
Yeah that's why I'm afraid to recall Davis. Whoever takes his place will get the blame. People have a short memory for what the other politicians whoever is in power at that time gets the glory or gets the blame.
- Status
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
