PDA

View Full Version : Question about U.S. election


tlr online
03-11-04, 01:48
There's something I've been wondering. If Bush does succeed in winning a second term, do you think he'll consider this victory an endorsement of his behaviour, or do you think he'll realise that just under half of the population of the U.S. are against him.

tazmine
03-11-04, 01:51
I fear he would take it as an endorsement of his behaviour.

Draco
03-11-04, 01:57
I think in reality both of them would be doing about the same thing foriegnwise, neither will leave Iraq.

Isabella
03-11-04, 02:15
His ego is the size of Texas, he will take it as an endorsement.

Olvidarse
03-11-04, 06:28
Oh geez, I can picture this in my mind from hearing so many of his speeches... so generic I want to choke.

"Thank you, people of America, for your support in this election. (Pause, looks around, bites lower lip) We have been facing hard times, and our nation is still standing strong. Uhhhh... As you all have elected me as your President, I will try my best to fulfill this duty."

Someone shoot me if I hear "Eraquis" or "People of America" in his next speech.

Olvidarse
03-11-04, 08:23
Argh... "The People have spoken."

(Vomit)

Neteru
03-11-04, 09:20
I feel sure he'll take it as an endorsement.

Draco
03-11-04, 19:44
Just out of curiosity, how else should he take it?

Anubis_AF
03-11-04, 19:54
Originally posted by Olvidarse:
Argh... "The People have spoken."

(Vomit)LoL!

Neteru
03-11-04, 20:34
Originally posted by Draco:
Just out of curiosity, how else should he take it?Rather than letting his ego believe it's a vote of confidence in him, he could view it as symbolic of a lack of confidence in the opponent.

Draco
03-11-04, 20:39
What is the effective difference?

Neteru
03-11-04, 21:06
Well the affective difference would be that it should make him more conscious of what others consider his failings and should make him all the more prepared to question himself.

Draco
03-11-04, 21:17
And he doesn't now?

Neteru
03-11-04, 21:27
People rarely consider themselves objectively, those in positions of power even less so I think.

Draco
03-11-04, 21:39
I don't necessarily believe that. At least not for the Presidency.

Being the President is not like being a Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, or Commissioner. You are the most watched individual person on Earth for the entire time that office is occuppied.

The Presidency isn't something I think can be taken lightly, even if Clinton convinced us it could be done.

I also think the main reason people are so against Bush is they got used to Clinton, 8 years is a long time, even by international standards.

Clinton wasn't a bad President, but neither is Bush. Bush is just more willing to act than talk about acting, and that is usually a commendable attribute.

tazmine
04-11-04, 00:13
Originally posted by Draco:
Bush is just more willing to act than talk about acting, and that is usually a commendable attribute.[/QB]I'm not so sure about that, Draco. I think Bush should have done a lot more talking with his allies before invading Iraq. Perhaps more talk with CIA & Pentagon types would have revealed more of thier concerns that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Draco
04-11-04, 00:42
Iraq was going to get invaded eventually, even the UN would find out about the black market dealings with certain members of the Security Counsil.

Flipper1987
04-11-04, 02:06
Originally posted by Neteru:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Just out of curiosity, how else should he take it?Rather than letting his ego believe it's a vote of confidence in him, he could view it as symbolic of a lack of confidence in the opponent.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually Bush's victory is both an "endorsement" (for Bush) & a "lack of confidence" in his challenger.

Don't forget that the Democrats & Sen. John Kerry transformed the election into a referendum on Bush's first term. That's how the media framed it in the closing months of the 2004 campaign.

As a result, Bush was the first candidate to win a real popular majority since 1988. He received more popular votes in U.S. election history (Reagan held the record in 1984), & his party gained 4 seats in the Senate & about 4 seats in the House.

IMHO, this election was more of an endorsement. I'm not sure if it's a mandate as some pundits have forwarded, but it's pretty close.

FLIPPER

[ 04. November 2004, 03:34: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]