• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Theories on why GWB was elected president...anyone?

Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
926
The US shouldn't be able to get away with switching to another president that easily. When a space shuttle blows up an investigation is always required to determine what caused the disaster. Well, administrations as bad as this one cause greatly more damage to the US than a shuttle explosion, in terms of deaths, money lost, damage to our form of government, and so on.

Not that the answer is simple or that there even is a definitite answer but I'd like to see some theories, any theories, about why it all happened and if it has a cause(s) that has not gone away yet meaning it could happen again that a new 'worst president in history' is elected.
 
Last edited:
You mean how did this guy win?



My theory is he lied.

Clinton sex scandals, a lethargic Gore campaign, general voter apathy and Ralph Nader may have been contributing factors.
 
Last edited:
The US shouldn't be able to get away with doing something I don't like. When my waiter brings me food I don't enjoy, the chef is required to bring me a new dish. Well, administrations I dislike irritate me far more than a medium steak I ordered medium rare. A dry salmon fillet can ruin an evening, but I've been so upset over the current administration it's ruined an entire season of Lost!

Not that the answer is simple or that there evein is a definite answer but I'd like to see some theories, any theories, about why people don't seem to do exactly what I want them to do, and if it has cause(s) that have not gone away yet meaning it could happen again.

Well, no tip for Bush, or that lousy waiter. Don't they know who I am?!? :mad:
 
The US shouldn't be able to get away with switching to another president that easily. When a space shuttle blows up an investigation is always required to determine what caused the disaster. Well, administrations as bad as this one cause greatly more damage to the US than a shuttle explosion, in terms of deaths, money lost, damage to our form of government, and so on.
Nice try at an analogy. Governments have more moving parts than space shuttles, and are nowhere near self contained enough, nor controllable enough, to be trouble shot in the same manner. Space shuttles are made of pieces of inanimate matter. Governments are made of people.
Not that the answer is simple or that there even is a definitite answer but I'd like to see some theories, any theories, about why it all happened and if it has a cause(s) that has not gone away yet meaning it could happen again that a new 'worst president in history' is elected.
He got the most electoral votes. It's how the system was set up. See the Constitution, if you like. See also Benjamin Harrison's victory over Cleveland.

Are you also going to investigate why LBJ's tenure was so disquieting? Are you going to rant on and on about double digit inflation in Carter's administration?

Aaaack, why don't you look to the future, and figure out how and why America should proceed once W is done with his dog and pony show? You cannot draw simple and conclusive lessons, the ones you appear to seek, by asking questions devoid of substance.

Look forward.

That's where you and I will be living: in the future.

DR
 
Last edited:
The US shouldn't be able to get away with switching to another president that easily. When a space shuttle blows up an investigation is always required to determine what caused the disaster. Well, administrations as bad as this one cause greatly more damage to the US than a shuttle explosion, in terms of deaths, money lost, damage to our form of government, and so on.

Not that the answer is simple or that there even is a definitite answer but I'd like to see some theories, any theories, about why it all happened and if it has a cause(s) that has not gone away yet meaning it could happen again that a new 'worst president in history' is elected.

It's all relative I guess to what one's political leanings are. I think Carter and Clinton were far worse Presidents than Bush.

And I'm sure I won't like anything Hillary does if she gets in there.

Wasn't it already a given if you're a liberal that you weren't going to agree with most things Bush did anyway?
 
Al Gore was a bit complacent and underestimated G.W., but he was stuck with the stench of Clinton and an economy on the way down. His inept legal strategy in Florida, and losing his home state, pretty much says it all. Do we really need to discuss why John Kerry lost? A two faced dullard of the first order.

A stronger candidate in 2000, one not associated with Clinton, and a stronger candidate in 2004, one with a pulse, would have won. The republicans made the same mistake in 1996 when they nominated "next in line" Bob Dole, a mistake they are repeating in 2008 with the foul McCain. Luckily for him, his opponent will be the unlikeable Hillary or inexperienced Obama, so he has a chance.
 
Why GWB was elected president:

Too many American voters were: venal, self-centered, not well educated, not facing reality, or just plain &^*#$&&#%@)&_+$*_)*$ &^#%(* stupid.
 
I thought the correct, truther approved answer, was 'The Jews'.
 
My theory involves his father also being President before him.

Now, if anyone disagres with me, here's a quick quiz.

(1) If W being the son of his father counted for nothing, then ... what are the odds?

(2) See question (1).
 
Last edited:
Clearly the Jews who got Big Bush elected didn't want to change the NWO letterheads.
 
My theory involves his father also being President before him.

Now, if anyone disagres with me, here's a quick quiz.

(1) If W being the son of his father counted for nothing, then ... what are the odds?

(2) See question (1).

David Letterman, the day after the general election in 2000, when everything was still up in the air.

"As soon as he realized that Florida wasn't finalized and that he was still in it, he phoned his mom and said, (kid throwing temper tantrum voice)"But You Promised!!!""
 
Last edited:
It's all Ralph Nader's fault and the ppl who voted for him. ;)
Oh, yeah, and that stupid lady who made the butterfly ballots and the people who approved it.

Mistakes were made, but not by me.
 
Last edited:
You'd have to start with the question, "How did he get elected governor of Texas?"

He was running against popular Democrat Anne Richards, the incumbent, in a traditionally Democratic state. Not many people gave him a chance. However, in the debates he came across as young and dynamic, while Richards looked like a shriveled up hag.

It helped if you watched the debates with the sound turned down, as I'm sure many of us did.

By the time Bush was re-elected to his second term as governor, he had created a reputation for cooperation with the Democrats. In fact, Lt. Governor Bob Bullock, the most powerful Democrat in the state (and arguably more powerful than the governor himself), endorsed Bush for Governor over the Democratic rival.

This lead a lot of us Texans to believe that Bush would be great for the country, if only he could manage to take that spirit of bipartisanship into the White House.

We were a little disappointed.
 
Was he elected? In 2000, I mean? My impression was that he wasn't.

Rolfe.
He was, your impression is incorrect. Look up "electoral college" and you will find the answer to why.

Aggle rithm's post is worth a second reading. Add to that Dr A's observation that W's father's influence (his political network) put its collective energies into getting W on the ballot, nicely checking McCain into the boards.

The election was Gore's to lose. Surprisingly, to me, he lost.

DR
 
Too many American voters were: venal, self-centered, not well educated, not facing reality, or just plain &^*#$&&#%@)&_+$*_)*$ &^#%(* stupid.


America Hater! ;)

But kidding aside - I tend to think that America elects
based on gut-feelings rather than on the political issues
and the logic of the candidates individual approaches to
solve and adress those issues.

By that I mean that it seems that most parts of America
rather votes for:

"Every American should have Universal Healthcare - Woohoo!!!"

than:

"Health care is not a constitutional right. [64][85] As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.[86], Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems, by law, uninsured citizens receive emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The health care safety net, which includes free medical clinics, charity care, nonprofits and government-run community hospitals, provides necessary care to the uninsured.[16] The national Debt and the costs of current foreign policies contradict any plan for universal Healthcare without serious economic consequences."

Sure, the first Statement is more appealing for the American People,
especially the democrats and liberals point of view - even if the second
Statement may be much closer to the facts and truth.

Unfortunately, the American elections don't look in any way like a
race of Ideas and Solutions - because a huge peace of the Pie still
votes based on stupid emotional ideas, such as:

"He does not like my God/Scripture"
"He does not 'look/sound' presidential"
"He wasn't in 'teh' military"
"She's a women/men/NWO-Molech"
"He's Black/White/Red"
"He/She is a social Nazi-Communist Hitler fascist"

Now I don't know if these types of honest responses are rather
based on stupidity or just the fact that people are too lazy to
dive into the issues, but we can say for sure, that the MSMedia
appeals to this kind of sensationalism rather than airing the
admittedly boring discussions about the political Issues itself.

Another factor is the "rising like a phoenix"-phenomena in US
elections - like in case of Huckabee and McCain - which both
literally popped up over night after months of being at the very
low end of the polls.

Of course, the polls itself are questionable as well - especially the
ones performed by the parties itself - or the polls that ignore the
whole electorate by nitpicking registered "long-term" voters.

So all in all - and unless someone can provide evidence of what
is going on behind the scenes, elections in a free country like
America, are and will stay nothing but entertainment for the
people who watch the circus from outside the US.

My condolences.
 
Now I don't know if these types of honest responses are rather based on stupidity or just the fact that people are too lazy to dive into the issues, but we can say for sure, that the MSMedia appeals to this kind of sensationalism rather than airing the admittedly boring discussions about the political Issues itself.

I'm not surprised at all that an alternative never even occured to you. The "programs" most presidents propose are actually things that Congress has power over, not the president. In many respects, the most important job of a president is dealing with issues that we're not even aware of yet. 9/11 is a classic example of a situation where the electorate in 2000 never really considered Islamic terrorism a central issue and neither candidate seemed to either, but it certainly became one after the election. Even in more "intellectual" settings, the same is true: in 2000, the isse of possible supreme court nominees centered largely around Roe v. Wade, but one of the most important recent SC decisions was Kelo v. New London, an issue which wasn't even on the radar. Meanwhile, there haven't been any significant changes in Roe v. Wade, even with two new Bush appointments on the court.

In other words, the issues which matter most are often things we're not even thinking about right now. How do you judge someone's ability to handle unexpected issues and crises? That's where things like "character" start becoming very important. These are hard qualities to quantify, but they matter, a lot. And contrary to the implication of your post, it makes perfect rational sense for such qualities to form a considerable part of a voter's decision. While people are often very bad at expressing how they evaluate such qualities, that doesn't mean that they're similarly bad at actually doing such evaluations.

Another factor is the "rising like a phoenix"-phenomena in US elections - like in case of Huckabee and McCain - which both literally popped up over night after months of being at the very low end of the polls.

Is that properly considered a phenomenon of the electorate, or a phenomenon of polling? I suspect it's the latter. People frequently refuse to answer polls, and lying to pollsters is quite possibly common as well.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom