What If Bush Wins

chewy

Predictions on the likely consequences of a second term for President Bush.

By a panel of 16 writers


thisi s very good a range of views all nearly coem to similar conclusion though

its interesting to see that they all wrote these articles independent of each other but all touch on the same historical points

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.bushforum.html

Hobbes

"If"?

It may look like he will win considering the voting machines can be rigged and the CEO of that company has gone on record saying "He will deliver all votes to Bush" as well as being a big contributor to Bushes coffers.

Then you have the US military are being denied secret ballot but can fax into a company that also supports Bush.

Then you have the mess from last year of the Felons list, which yes you guessed it created by a company that helps Bush in the election.

US is turning into a plutocracy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

"If"?

It may look like he will win considering the voting machines can be rigged and the CEO of that company has gone on record saying "He will deliver all votes to Bush" as well as being a big contributor to Bushes coffers.

Then you have the US military are being denied secret ballot but can fax into a company that also supports Bush.

Then you have the mess from last year of the Felons list, which yes you guessed it created by a company that helps Bush in the election.

US is turning into a plutocracy.

I read an article recently by Greg Palast . Evidentally the Supervisor of Elections of Palm Beach, Florida was putting party affiliation on the OUTSIDE of the absentee ballots in her own election.
Hmmmmm I wonder where the ones marked "DEMOCRAT" are going to end up.

Hobbes

lol.. I got neg rep with "Lies" comment.

Well if they are lies, prove it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DublinWriter

What if Bush wins? He'll re-introduce the draft.

Nuttzz

He will doing well in the polls at the moment, but he might peak too soon.

Complain all you want about different companies but the biggest problem in the states in the millions of uninterested unregistered voters, in my experience a lot of these are black "voters" in southern states who dont see a difference between democrats and republicans.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

He will doing well in the polls at the moment, but he might peak too soon.

Complain all you want about different companies but the biggest problem in the states in the millions of uninterested unregistered voters, in my experience a lot of these are black "voters" in southern states who dont see a difference between democrats and republicans.

Don't worry, Puffy's on the case.

'When he said the group would charter a jet to travel to swing states to make an impact, he added: "We will have mimosas on the jet. We're going to have the sexiest jet!"'

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

Complain all you want about different companies but the biggest problem in the states in the millions of uninterested unregistered voters, in my experience a lot of these are black "voters" in southern states who dont see a difference between democrats and republicans.

Do you have some of facts to back up your statements?

Or do you feel, that because a person is black it doesn't matter about their vote?

ionapaul

I feel increasingly certain that GWB will win in November. The Kerry campaign is so lackluster, I am almost starting to believe the conspiracy theories that the Democratic leadership want another 4 years of Bush in order to gaurantee Hilary in 2008! The Kerry team have made some amazing and awful mistakes. The man has 3 purple hearts but allowed weeks of attacks on his record to stick. They have refused to agressively attack GWB on his war-time record. They have allowed many attacks, most obvious lies and misinterpretation (par for the course in politics), to go on without response. They (and anyone who has lived through the past 4 years) have enough ammunition to nail GWB to the wall - but are holding back? Why?
Kerry'll probably start stuttering during the debates and may faint once or twice...I can't believe they are being beaten so easily at this stage.

ixoy

ionapaul wrote:

I feel increasingly certain that GWB will win in November. The Kerry campaign is so lackluster,

Agreed. The 11-point lead that Bush is currently enjoying may erode, but probably not by enough. The Bush campaign is full of vigor and fire-branding rhetoric. The Kerry campaign is dull, spear headed by a dull man who it's hard to feel passionate about (other than the fact that He'sNotTheBush).

They have refused to agressively attack GWB on his war-time record. They have allowed many attacks, most obvious lies and misinterpretation (par for the course in politics), to go on without response. They (and anyone who has lived through the past 4 years) have enough ammunition to nail GWB to the wall - but are holding back? Why?

I know. When those "delightful" Swiftboat people are making all their enraged malicious attacks, I keep wondering why they're not making the same pointed attacks on Bush if they're so concerned with military service (and not - as if - their political ideologies only).

The Democrats can't afford to be above mud-slinging at this point. I'm still constantly befuddled as to what George Bush has done that's actually good (once the rhetorical bull is swept aside) and they should agressively seize on these matters. Wasn't there some damning indictment of the economy a couple of weeks ago? Why aren't the Democrats talking about this - the *number one* priority with the electorate?

Of course there's a gnawing doubt, ever growing, that the Democrats wouldn't be all that much better either. Far too much talk about equalling, or suceeding, Bush on the very matters - homeland security and the war on terror - that have made him the vilified figure he is already. The Sunday Times did a good article recently, in their News Review section, which basically pointed out that - currently - the prevailing flavour of politics in the U.S. is conservative. The Democrats will only offer a mild variation, slightly more liberal, than what the Republicans did. At least, I guess, they'll be doing it without the goofy frontman...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Batbat

oh christ dont even joke about Bush winning, if that human garbage wins again we re all ****ed

Hobbes

Didn't bush loose the electorial vote in 2000?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Batbat

Hobbes wrote:

Didn't bush loose the electorial vote in 2000?

NO he won the Electoral vote but lost the actual numerical vote if that makes any sense (which is does not), its not like USA is an actual democracy

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Batbat

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

man i do I really have to explain? anyway lets keep OT, regardless I think most people would agree that the florida vote was rigged

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

Didn't bush loose the electorial vote in 2000?

IIRC he supposedly won but then the recount wasn't allowed by the Supreme Court. That's forgetting the shady election practices in Florida.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DublinWriter

Nuttzz wrote:

Complain all you want about different companies but the biggest problem in the states in the millions of uninterested unregistered voters, in my experience a lot of these are black "voters" in southern states who dont see a difference between democrats and republicans.

I'm white and I don't see much of a difference either. You'll have to be a little more forgiving of people who don't get excited about getting to choose between corporate puppet A and corporate puppet B.

There's plenty of non-voting 'white trash' in those southern states too. Your comment just sounds racist to me.

Hobbes

USA is not a democracy. It is a "Representative Democracy", although TBH it is more a plutocracy.

Batbat

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Im not going to explain the difference between proportional representation and the American Electoral college voting system if you dont already know

so its ok to rig an election on a small scale?, anyway the topic is "What if bush wins" and the answer is were ****ed for another 4 years

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I would call 100,000 illegally stricken from the voting rolls to be large scale.
I could speculate all day what the Dems would do in the same situation, but I'm not going to.

Redleslie2

I think it's only a matter of time before veterans begin mobilising and start criticising the war publicly. Another 7 killed today and 1,100 wounded last month.

Sand

Kerry has his work cut out - With some polls placing Bush in the lead by 10 points! A lot of that is post-convention bounce, that Kerry didnt get, and will tighten up as the election looms but Satans representive on Earth isnt going down without a fight. Maybe it will be like The Return of the King, victory won when the forces of darkness seem unassailable?

The ironically comforting thought given the championing of the PR system is that the US operates an electoral college so even if the polls have Bush leading by 10 points it doesnt mean a thing. The electoral college elects the U.S. president, not the popular vote - a measure to ensure broad support for a President. I think we could see some grudging respect for the electoral college system if Bush wins the popular vote ( which the polls say he might) but loses the electoral vote - which he very definitly can.

I could speculate all day what the Dems would do in the same situation, but I'm not going to.

Well, they might try and have rival politicians stricken from the ballot paper. Oh wait - They are. Far more efficient than denying thousands of voters their chance to vote, you get the same effect by removing just one candidate. Those Democrats are taking the Republicans to school on shady electioneering practices.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Iraq and 'Stan veterans not Vietnam Korea or WW2 veterans.

Hobbes

Not sure how it can show an increase for support from vets when Bush seriously screwed over the Vets.. or do the US voters have such a short attention span?

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Do you have some of facts to back up your statements?

Or do you feel, that because a person is black it doesn't matter about their vote?

I had the pleasure of living in New Orleans for a few months in 2000/01 and my "facts" are from my personal experience in talking to people there, I dont give a monkeys about your race, colour or creed. I'm just telling you what people told me four years ago.

Is that good enough Sir or will I ask a few of them to post here..........?

Batbat

I must say I will be sitting up all night glued to the TV on election night, I really feel like this is an imporant event in hostory, getting rid of that maniac bush administration is so important for the world

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

I had the pleasure of living in New Orleans for a few months in 2000/01 and my "facts" are from my personal experience in talking to people there, I dont give a monkeys about your race, colour or creed. I'm just telling you what people told me four years ago.

Is that good enough Sir or will I ask a few of them to post here..........?

Yea sure ask them to post. Although your comments (or your friends comments) are not reflective of the US as a whole. I've lived in the US over three years (east and west coast) and opinions vary from state to state and none as racist as yours sounded.

Nuttzz

Right, let me spell it out for you, I was in the US at the time of the election, I have an interest in politics, I asked the people who worked with me who did they vote for, most of the white people I worked with voted (Bush or Gore) most of the black people said they didnt bother to even register as they didnt see a difference between Bush or Gore. My point was that if these people had of voted they could have made a difference not that they were black. They told me that they didnt vote and neither did a lot of the their friends and family.

Where do you get off calling me a racist anyway?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Well, they might try and have rival politicians stricken from the ballot paper. Oh wait - They are. Far more efficient than denying thousands of voters their chance to vote, you get the same effect by removing just one candidate. Those Democrats are taking the Republicans to school on shady electioneering practices.

I find illegally denying a large group of people the right to vote in a different league than the shady methods (but legal IIRC) used by the Demos to keep Nader off the ballot.
It took both the RNC and the DNC to keep him off the Texas ballot (****ers). Even though there's an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court...I doubt he's going to be on by Nov.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The fact that Kerry declared that he's for more killing in Iraq (and Israel for that matter) didn't do himself any favors either.

Sand

The fact that Kerry declared that he's for more killing in Iraq (and Israel for that matter) didn't do himself any favors either.

Hes in a tough spot when it comes to defence though - he wants to get the whole anti-war vote, but he doesnt want to look like a wishy washy pacifist who wont make the hard decisions when needed.

Mind you some of his reported musings on what he would do are mad cap....Apparently he wants to rally the world behind the U.S. in the fight against terrorism, using the U.N. - "good" - but he will not flinch to send in masses of special forces to destroy WMDs deployed by rogue states; does he plan to announce these surprise raids by Special Ops to the world by getting permisson from the U.N. security council a month in advance? Or will he just pile in and damn the U.N. if they dont like it, just like Bush? Not to mention it sounds like hes been taking Chuck Norris filims too seriously.

Hairy Homer

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No. You can top the first preference poll and not get elected, which is not the same thing.

In a two horse race, that wouldn't be the case as there would only be one poll anyway.

In a three or more horse race, under our system, if you topped the poll you would still have to get your share of transfers if you had not won enough to reach the quota on the first count.

I think that system is better. The American (and British) systems basically only work if you have two choices. Any more choice than that and they break down.

Maggie Thatcher won landslide victories with about 40 per cent of the poll back in the 1980s because the opposition was split between a very Left-wing labour party and a break-away Social Democratic Party that each got about the same number of votes from the country as a whole. With First past the post, as used in Britain, it's not about how good you are, it's about how divided the opposition is.

Boggle

In fairness it may be a democracy but only bairly. Fair enough you do get to choose which of the 2 muppets you get to vote for - but both are run by corporate influences and as such nothing will ever happen to help the population. Its more a matter of which group of busineses will get the breaks for the next few years. Maybe this is why the '''BLACK''' voters dont turn out - because they aren't as brainwashed as those silly while folk.....

Anyway - kerry appears to be an idiot but at least he doesn't SEEM to want to rule the world...

Batbat

4 more years of this if Bush wins

Big budget debate
A report that this year’s federal budget deficit will be the largest in history draws mixed reviews

http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzbudg083959358sep08,0,3905838.story?coll=ny-nybusiness-headlines

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

*Fairness is for losers. :mad:

*PD election slogan.

Hobbes

What amazes me is how anyone in their right mind would even allow them to run again, let alone vote them in.

Some of the stuff that has come to light is just astounding. For example it appears that Bush/Cheny/Arnie knew about the Enron scandal, in that Enron were shutting off CA power to fake a powercut and up the electricty bills. Had the public found out before it was too late Arnie would not of been governor and Cheny wouldn't of got his energy bill passed.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

What amazes me is how anyone in their right mind would even allow them to run again, let alone vote them in.

Some of the stuff that has come to light is just astounding. For example it appears that Bush/Cheny/Arnie knew about the Enron scandal, in that Enron were shutting off CA power to fake a powercut and up the electricty bills. Had the public found out before it was too late Arnie would not of been governor and Cheny wouldn't of got his energy bill passed.

Of course the energy extortion was known well before the CA elections. Thanks to our liberal media bias...no one heard about it.

Hobbes

Enron was certainly known about, but not the shutting down of powerplants by Enron to fake a power shortage. Although it was known about at the time, it wasn't advertised until long after the fact.

Also Davies was planning on making the energy corporations pay back the $9Billion they extortated from CA people. Something that Arnie was told to kill.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/13.html

Cork

Bush is playing on the Pro family, pro leadership, pro marriage and anti abortion platforms.


What has Bush delivered on these fronts over the last 4 years???

Kerry needs to set out his stall. Where does Kerry stand on anything?

sovtek

Cork wrote:

Bush is playing on the Pro family, pro leadership, pro marriage and anti abortion platforms.


What has Bush delivered on these fronts over the last 4 years???

Yea the Repubs tried that pro-family thing back in the 90's. Of course making it so more people have to work instead of spend time with their families is so good for the family thing.
It's just read meat to his rabid christian right base.
OH yea...and remember what a leader he was on 9/11....remember 911...please don't forget 9/11...

Kerry needs to set out his stall. Where does Kerry stand on anything?

That's a damn good question...a better question is why so many liberal democrats insist on voting for him and go cross-eyed when you tell them you're a Nader man.

pete

sovtek wrote:

a better question is why so many liberal democrats insist on voting for him and go cross-eyed when you tell them you're a Nader man.

because they're pragmatists and believe a vote for nader is a vote for bush?

ykt0di9url7bc3

If Bush wins, I could see a negitive impact on FOX news...

Having religiously supported this man where another term could see a disastorious effects on the USA thus giving the american public the wake up it needs to remove political influence from corporate media...

Fast Forward to the next election where they have to support and rally behind a right-wing candidate with no real positive support (FOX relies on blurring statistics to promote their own agnedas)

If Kerry wins, FOX will watch his every move like a hawk...and undermine the position of the president while campaining USA greatness thruough republican actions in the senate...

Fast Forward to the next election and we have a tornado of spin pushing the next republican candidate...

mycroft

Kieran Fat Label wrote:

If Bush wins, I could see a negitive impact on FOX news...

...

Just came across this

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”