Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on January 26, 2003, 10:23:15 PM
-
Next year is supposed to be a presidential election year. Think the President will call one? Or find a reason not too?
-
Because unless he figures out how to do his job right, he doesn't have a chance at a second term.
"It's the economy stupid."
He needs to take that quote to heart.
-
LOL. Like he has a choice? Lincoln was re-elected in 1864. FDR had to run in 1944. Truman elected not to run in '52 because he knew he'd lose. Same with LBJ I think. Nixon ran and was re-elected in '72.
There is no precedent for not holding an election during war time in the USA. You guys have been watching too much Star Wars II or something.
President Bush gets granted emergency powers, and holds onto office for 10 years of war with Iraq, and establishes the New Order and declares himself Emperor... yeah... I can see that happening. :p
-
in the USA the president does not "CALL" a election , but being from canada you would not understand, you people only have a "prime minister" who is a subject of the crown.
-
Weazel,
Most of America knows that he is doing his job right and his approval rating in the national polls show that. If an election was held today he would surely receive my vote. Wars cost money and most Americans understand that fact. You need to look at the big picture. Fix worldwide security first, the economy will come back.
-
Originally posted by WpnX
Weazel,
Most of America knows that he is doing his job right and his approval rating in the national polls show that. If an election was held today he would surely receive my vote. Wars cost money and most Americans understand that fact. You need to look at the big picture. Fix worldwide security first, the economy will come back.
This is far too complex for him to understand.
-
Originally posted by WpnX
Weazel,
Most of America knows that he is doing his job right and his approval rating in the national polls show that.
You mean, in the way that his approval rating is currently sinking to pre-9/11 numbers, and his disapproval rating the highest it's ever been during his entire presidency?
-
I think GWB is doing a fine job and I think the repuglicans suck worse than the dumbocrats, but if he tried to stop an election next year I would take up arms. Pretty sure hundreds of millions of other 'murrcuns agree.
-
Most retarded thread of the week. Congrats Pongo! :)
SOB
-
Originally posted by WpnX
Fix worldwide security first, the economy will come back.
That's a pretty good point.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
That's a pretty good point.
Gee thanks guys.... you just tripped the "War for Oil" kneejerk answer alarm.
-
I don't see a problem with waging war to ensure future prosperity. I thought that was the whole idea of war, at least the offensive type of war.
-
Well, Funked, that sounds very much like the definition of colonial war to me.
-
I mean global prosperity more than local prosperity.
Of course you are a descendent of those who elected Chamberlain...
-
I mean global prosperity more than local prosperity.
An argument over semantics. A war over resources is still a war over resources, no matter how it's dressed up or who prosecutes it.
Of course you are a descendent of those who elected Chamberlain...
Not necessarily. I've no idea how my great grandparents voted, if they voted at all. I doubt it would be conservative given where I'm from and where they worked. I'm pretty sure my grandparents weren't 18 when Chamberlain was voted in.
My other relatives were German, so perhaps they voted for Hitler in 1933. That must make me a nazi by your flawless logic.
Sieg Heil!
-
there were plenty of German Communists too
-
Is a similar way to how there are friends of the BNP in the States at the moment.
Posted by Wotan some time ago:
I actually was present at an American Friends
of the BNP meeting outside Wash DC where Mr.
Irving participated in a teleconference prior to that "trial".
The BNP is a transparently fascist organisation that until very recently advocated the forced repatriation of all ethnic minorities to their country of origin.
Just watch where you throw those labels of political extremism - you never know where they might land.
-
I'm with SOB on this one. Y'all musta run outta things to whine about playing Aces High. So now you gotta complain about the President.
Les
-
in the hope Wotan replies.
I'm interested in how much of a 'Friend of the BNP' he is.
-
Reply to what? you have said more about immigrants in your country thats more inline with the BNP then I have.
Something about them ruining your community etc........
Also punt the whole thread up
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16134
Read the first line in that post......
Read the thread, my posts are clearly just pulling your chain through out. Count the number of smiley faces.........
Well I replied...........Dunno what for ................... but here ya go.........
-
I would take up arms.
as would be your duty. tree of libery watering time.
-
I claim no political party!
But I voted for Bush.
I am sobor now and rethinking my choice LOL.
Look I think Bush should go after al quedda and get the boogers who hit the world trade tower and pentegon.
Iraq and soodumb insain are but a small wart on the butt of the waorld right now.
You should worry N Korea.
There are much stronger than Iraq.
And much more of a threat!
Just my 2 cents worth
-
Fix worldwide security first, the economy will come back.
Overly simplistic. Implies that the economic downturn is a direct result of the terrorist attacks. The economy was on a sharp decline before 9/11.
Historically, there have been many times when the economy has been bad - and it hasn't been caused by terrorism. Terrorism aggravated the situation, but it did not cause it. And the war on terrorism will be an indefinite one, so with that mindset we have many yers of squalor ahead of us.
Polls indicate that Americans are worried more about domestic issues. Voters memories are very short and tied to their purse. Bush stands strong as a 'war commander' but less so as a 'civilian administrator'. The American public will decide which is more important soon enough. Of course he could pull a Sharon (and I think he will) near the end of elections, get the focus back on terrorism and win the day. I expect to see some kind of military intervention in the weeks before the election.
-
Why would he need to start a war to win the election?
The Democrats don't have anyone who can beat him so why worry?
-
Originally posted by john9001
in the USA the president does not "CALL" a election , but being from canada you would not understand, you people only have a "prime minister" who is a subject of the crown.
You are correct. I thought he had some flexibility like they have here...
SOB.
Really? I think it raised some interesting discussion. Its funny that you cant even concieve of it happening.
-
There's an economic down turn? Someone should tell Canada, we have the fastest growing economy of the G8. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Really? I think it raised some interesting discussion. Its funny that you cant even concieve of it happening.
Americans can't conceive of it happening because it won't happen. Not in this lifetime and certainly not with this president. Popular support for Bush would disappear instantly with such a move, and he'd undermine the constitutional basis for his authority. He'd be arrested, impeached, convicted, and thrown in jail in a heart beat.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
exactly
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
I would take up arms.
as would be your duty. tree of libery watering time.
Better get 'em now. By the time you need 'em they may not be available.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Americans can't conceive of it happening because it won't happen. Not in this lifetime and certainly not with this president. Popular support for Bush would disappear instantly with such a move, and he'd undermine the constitutional basis for his authority. He'd be arrested, impeached, convicted, and thrown in jail in a heart beat.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Was your constitution written to handle the concept of your country waging an unpopular war of aggression on the other side of the world to either secure the supply of oil for a generation or to restrict that country from having weapons that you yourselves have? How relevent is your constitution to the situtation that is emerging?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Was your constitution written to handle the concept of your country waging an unpopular war of aggression on the other side of the world to either secure the supply of oil for a generation or to restrict that country from having weapons that you yourselves have? How relevent is your constitution to the situtation that is emerging?
These are entirely different questions than the one you asked earlier about the possibility that Bush would not "call" for elections in 2004. The fact is that no president would succeed in "calling off" elections, and doing so would both destroy his constitutional mandate and ensure him a quick trip to jail. If a dictator ever emerged out of American politics, he would be one by popular choice and not by personal edict.
The rest of your questions are obviously leading and essentially irrelevant to the first one, unless you're suggesting that unpopular international wars for whatever motives lead presidents to circumvent the constitution. I'm sure Truman and Johnson would disagree with you there after both chose not to run for reelection when it became obvious that they would lose their own party's nomination.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
You mean, in the way that his approval rating is currently sinking to pre-9/11 numbers, and his disapproval rating the highest it's ever been during his entire presidency?
Let's see a source for this cheap talk
-
We should perhaps distinguish for purposes of this discussion between the precidents set in previos wars that started out with a base of popularity because of thier defensive nature in Trumans case, Wars that sort of dribbled to a start where never put to the popularity test till they had plumited out of credibility in Johnsons case and this potential war.
This action would have none of those characteristics
There will not be long hisorical study to try to poke holes in the reasoning behind it. It will go down in history as naked aggression.
A strange place for the land of the free to be in.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
It will go down in history as naked aggression.
I think it will go down as what it is. A continuation of the 1991 war that never officially ended.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Let's see a source for this cheap talk
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
-
Originally posted by Pongo
A strange place for the land of the free to be in.
Not really. First of all, unpopular wars aren't uncommon. Korea was never popular, and Eisenhower ran almost exclusively on the promise of getting out of Korea ASAP. Vietnam started with popular support which diminished slowly over time. Domestically, there is support for military action against Iraq, albeit waning, so I'm not sure what you mean by unpopular. Do you mean internationally? If so, America's surely been involved in plenty of internationally unpopular wars through throughout the 19th century.
I'm curious how you'd classify the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War on your aggressiveness measure. Remember the Alamo! Remember the Maine! Hell, Old Hickory Jackson wanted to attack both Mexico and England in Oregon to faciliate western expansion, but the thought of a two front war dissuaded him.
To go back to your original question of constitutionality: There is nothing unconstitutional about what Bush has done at this point. The constitution does not attribute motive to war but rather places obstacles in the path of its easy pursuit. Bush has obtained the constitutionally-required approval for military force by Congress regardless of his motives, so constitutionally speaking he is fine. Statute requires periodic review of the war effort by Congress, which may as it sees fit remove this mandate for military action.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
You mean, in the way that his approval rating is currently sinking to pre-9/11 numbers, and his disapproval rating the highest it's ever been during his entire presidency?
His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.
-
Originally posted by WpnX
His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.
According to some polls it is at it's lowest.
One example.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Latest: Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=1,025 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
.
"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"
Approval / Disapproval / Don't Know by %.
1/19-21/03 54 40 6
12/7-9/02 62 33 5
10/18-21/02 63 31 6 RV
9/3-5/02 64 30 6
7/19-21/02 67 27 6
6/8-10/02 69 23 8
5/18/02 75 18 7
4/5-7/02 74 20 6
1/18-21/02 82 13 5
12/8-10/01 85 11 4
11/9-11/01 88 7 5
9/15-16/01 82 12 6
6/23-25/01 50 35 15
4/21-23/01 56 30 14
3/1-4/01 57 22 21
There is a general trend being shown in all the polls though.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
-
A pretty good graph of Bush's slipping support here. (http://www.dailykos.com/images/poll_1-23.html)
-
Im thinking on it Levi. Thanks for the points.
-
No President has ever been re-elected when the Misery Factor has went UP. The misery factor is a rise in unemployment and inflation. Well, I take that back, Regan was re-elected, but the economy was just getting warmed up.
-
The Democrats don't have anyone who can beat him so why worry?
And this is the problem. We'll be stuck with GW for another four years. Help us all!
:(
-
Originally posted by WpnX
His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.
I did my homework, so maybe you should take a look in the mirror, pal. I was refering to the data that Thrawn and Nash have given links to above. Bush's support among the American people is slipping, and will continue to plummet unless he can drum up some kind of success, foreign or domestic.