Burgold Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I liked Jack's question and thought it deserved its own thread. For those of you who support the President and think he's done an admirable job so far... What would he have to do to disillusion you or force you to vote otherwise? Has he done anything or not done something that makes you falter in your commitment to him as leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 If he lies under oath, I wont vote for him. If he lessens our power in the world and allows terrorists groups to flourish and grow, I wont vote for him. If he fails to respond adequately if we are attacked, I wont vote for him. If a country offers Bin Laden or Saddam on a platter and he worries about international opinions, I wont vote for him. If he puts global objectives above US objectives, I wont vote for him. I do understand that sometimes those can be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If he lies under oath, I wont vote for him. If he lessens our power in the world and allows terrorists groups to flourish and grow, I wont vote for him. If he fails to respond adequately if we are attacked, I wont vote for him. If a country offers Bin Laden or Saddam on a platter and he worries about international opinions, I wont vote for him. If he puts global objectives above US objectives, I wont vote for him. I do understand that sometimes those can be the same. You better hope Funeralgate doesn't break big - your #1 would already be taken care of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If he lessens our power in the world and allows terrorists groups to flourish and grow, I wont vote for him. We don't know if terrorism will rise yet because of the Iraq situation. How many will grow up hating the US and become terrorists because of their loved ones that died, or becasuse of the WMD that havent been found? When It's all said and done, will terrorism be less than before or worse is the question, and I don't think we can answer that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 If ASF's theory turns out to be true Seriously, if Bush falls flat on everything he is doing, we go back to a recession and do not feel safer from terrorism. The big thing also that some other Democrat steps up to run for president since they current ones are nothing special. I love how people cry about the deficit, if I recall haven't we had one since WWII? Our national government can not be run like local government. If anyone works for local or state you will know that you must balance your books every year so you can not be plus or minus at the end with your budget. The federal government couldn't work like this because it is their to bail out the states, and in case of emergencies it is where the money comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama We don't know if terrorism will rise yet because of the Iraq situation. How many will grow up hating the US and become terrorists because of their loved ones that died, or becasuse of the WMD that havent been found? When It's all said and done, will terrorism be less than before or worse is the question, and I don't think we can answer that yet. No one can answer that. If Bush's plan of a palistine state works then that would be a huge blow to terrorism since that is where it came from. There will always be people who hate our country, but at least now we are acting on it unlike a decade ago. You also have to at least give some credit now Saudi Arabia is against terrorism and helping same with pakistan, etc.... that is a major change when you have countries who used to sponser it now against it fighting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma No one can answer that. If Bush's plan of a palistine state works then that would be a huge blow to terrorism since that is where it came from. There will always be people who hate our country, but at least now we are acting on it unlike a decade ago. You also have to at least give some credit now Saudi Arabia is against terrorism and helping same with pakistan, etc.... that is a major change when you have countries who used to sponser it now against it fighting it. There is a difference in everyone hating our country, which in a sense, I agree with, and hating our country enough to dedicate your life (and possibly give it) to killing Americans. That's a huge step between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 "but at least now we are acting on it unlike a decade ago." Every US President in my lifetime has struggled with the Middle East issue. The only one so far who did anything lasting and worthwhile was Carter. Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have all tried to build off that and each in their ways made some progress, but ultimately failed. Of course, it isn't fair to blame any of them because the ultimate control and responsibility is out of their hands. They can at most act as arbitrators, unless they wish to pressure using millitary or economic might. Even then, their ultimate power is as a neutral party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I have been thoroughly disgusted with the government's profligate spending, which actually began in '98-99 when Hastert became Speaker of the House, and has continued to balloon out of control without so much as a peep of protest or restraint from the White House. I am also disappointed with Bush's retreat from free trade, namely the imposition of new Steel tariffs which benefit union workers in swing states in the midwest, but disadvantage American manufacturers and have hurt the economy on the whole. I am most angered by his signing of the bloated agricultural bill, which not only undid all of the progress made on reforms in the mid-90s, but surpassed all of its predecessors in pure excess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I will vote republican, because it is the lesser of the two evils( I was to young to vote last time). It depressing when the republican party is supposed to be the party of capitalism, but govnt spending goes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 How about this though: what if you currently support Bush, but still plan to vote against him? I certainly fall into this category. I support his efforts on many of the International fronts, but just can't stand many of his domestic issues. I didn't vote for him in 2000, I won't vote for him in 2004, but you don't see me trolling on a football message board about finding a new country to live in. One of the many great things about this country is that we get to pick new leaders every few years. This seems to escape certain members of the board though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by Canyonero! I didn't vote for him in 2000, I won't vote for him in 2004, but you don't see me trolling on a football message board about finding a new country to live in. One of the many great things about this country is that we get to pick new leaders every few years. This seems to escape certain members of the board though. Good point, but who on the democratic side would you vote for??? Hopefully more will jump into the ship but is seems the party is just sending someone into the race to get beat bad, unless someone else steps in Bush is still better than what is currently there. Reminds me a lot of another Mondale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 It's a tough question to answer because you're asking me in large part to anticipate something that has not happened yet. For example, if I'd posed the same query ten years ago to you about Clinton, how many supporters would have mentioned blow jobs with interns, lying under oath, or even something more substantive such as reduced security against international terrorism? Moreover, do you mean by the question, "What would it take to criticise Bush?", or "What would it take to vote for another candidate over Bush?" The question is somewhat ambiguous. If it relates to voting, it would take an extremely serious transgression to vote for a Democrat over him, given that my politics are overwhelmingly in line with the Republican party, and overwhelmingly out of line with the Dems. I've already faulted Bush in this forum for not taking a strong stand against corporate accounting fraud. That should have been done at least 12 to 18 months ago, and the 9/11, the War on Terror, and Iraq don't excuse that. For the first time I'll admit that I have concerns about the Patriot Act. As Burgold (I think) said in another thread, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on it - for now - because I trust him. If it was someone else, I'd be more suspicious. I like the tax cuts as a matter of policy, but I don't love them. I agree philosophically in supply side economics, but the key is targeting the right parts of the economy. I also think that the middle class needs to be as prominant of a target of cuts as those households making six figures or more in income. Frankly, I'd love to see a flat tax system combined with a consumption-based tax, but that's too much to ask of this Administration, and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Well, it appears that even brother Jeb has reservations when it comes to George's proposals. States resist health plan By Robert Pear | The New York Times Posted May 25, 2003 WASHINGTON -- After two months of intense secret negotiations, governors and Bush administration officials have been unable to agree on a plan to rein in the soaring cost of Medicaid, participants in the talks say. Governors of both parties are resisting a proposal offered by President Bush this year to set firm limits on federal Medicaid spending in each state during the next decade. "I am extremely wary of that approach," said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat on the bipartisan team of 10 governors negotiating with the Bush administration. Negotiators emphasized that it was not just Democrats resisting Bush's proposal to give each state a fixed allotment of federal money to cover all Medicaid costs in each of the next 10 years. Republican governors, including Jeb Bush of Florida and John G. Rowland of Connecticut, have also expressed reservations, the negotiators said. The negotiations have been conducted privately, but details of the talks were obtained in interviews and from documents exchanged by the negotiators. The basic concern, set forth in documents from the National Governors Association, is that the president's proposal does not protect states against unforeseen costs that might result from changes in the economy, natural disasters, outbreaks of disease or the development of drugs and treatments. Some of the 10 governors have come under pressure from advocates for the disabled, hospitals and other health-care providers lobbying against caps on federal Medicaid spending. Negotiations continue, governors said, because they see Medicaid costs as growing out of control, and they desperately want more authority to manage the program. The governors readily embraced Bush's proposal to give states power to alter Medicaid benefits, modify eligibility rules and charge higher co-payments. But the governors said they had reached no consensus among themselves or with the administration, on the financing of the program, which provides health insurance to 50 million low-income people. Medicaid, the nation's largest health-insurance program, pays for one-third of all births, covers one-fourth of all children and finances care for two-thirds of nursing-home residents. It is also the fastest-growing item in most state budgets, rising 13 percent last year, even though state revenues were virtually flat. Medicaid is expected to cost $277 billion this year, of which $158 billion is the federal share and $119 billion comes from the states. Having rejected elements of President Bush's proposal, the governors are trying to devise an alternative that would make federal costs more predictable while still allowing Medicaid to respond to economic fluctuations and other unforeseen events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I can not vote for pure evil. That being said, I can never vote Republican! Dubya might be the antichrist, I'll have to consult Nostradomous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.