Author Topic: Voter interference. Almost forgot about this (Read 1707 times)

Stang · « **Reply #45 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:10:23 PM »

Nash, do you care this much about your own country's politics?

Nash · « **Reply #46 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:14:32 PM »

Not at the moment. Things are pretty much a-okay.

SOB · « **Reply #47 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:17:00 PM »

Kerry lost because he was a poorer choice than Bush. And that is quite a feat.

Sandman · « **Reply #48 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:30:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Kerry lost because he was a poorer choice than Bush. And that is quite a feat.

One could wonder if the bi-weekly terror alerts had anything to do with that.

Other than Bush, no one else has received more votes in the history of our presidential elections.

SOB · « **Reply #49 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:38:04 PM »

That certainly does make me wonder too. Although, I do see that the regular alerts could have gone away as a response to an increasingly negative reaction to them by the public (ie when the alerts keep coming and nothing happens).

I don't think whether the party was perceived as tough or weak on terrorism is what made the real difference though. If the Democrats had run a candidate worth voting for, I think they would have won.

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:46:18 PM »

Think back to just prior to the elections. Bush was the hands down favorite with regard to security.

SOB · « **Reply #51 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:49:54 PM »

Absolutely, Cheney played that card beautifully (the beauty here, of course, referring to how thoroughly and convincingly he spewed bull**** and half-truths to make the opposition out to be easy on terrorists). That doesn't change my opinion of Kerry or why he lost, though.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #52 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:54:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
That certainly does make me wonder too. Although, I do see that the regular alerts could have gone away as a response to an increasingly negative reaction to them by the public (ie when the alerts keep coming and nothing happens).

I don't think whether the party was perceived as tough or weak on terrorism is what made the real difference though. If the Democrats had run a candidate worth voting for, I think they would have won.

ever think that MAYBE just MAYBE that had credible information and wanted to give the public at least some warning?

Stringer · « **Reply #53 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:57:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ever think that MAYBE just MAYBE that had credible information and wanted to give the public at least some warning?

You mean like Iraq having WMD's, and acquiring yellow cake from Nigeria.

Yeah, this Admin has a real good track record with credible information.

SOB · « **Reply #54 on:** April 28, 2006, 09:00:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ever think that MAYBE just MAYBE that had credible information and wanted to give the public at least some warning?

Warning of what? That any president of this country would or could actually treat a major terrorist attack like a case of jaywalking? No, I didn't ever think that.