*POLL* - If you could make Clinton Pres. would you?

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Hell yes.

"Which is worse? Screwing an intern or screwing the country?" that's how I look at it.

^^

 

[kage69]

Clinton back in office? Please. Yeah, NK would just love that! And hey, he could pardon more of his criminal friends!

Putting Clinton back in office would make the White House more of a joke than it already is.

 

[heartsurgeon]

i would be infavor of him being president again...but only with the provision we could
impeach him again for the "presidential pardon" scandal.

only president impeached twice! yeah!!!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
clinton should have taken care of al queda when he had the chance

didn't bush have the chance? he had a general warning him about terrorists but he decided to take vacations in texas on his ranch instead if you need reminding. remember, he was the one carping about how the military was so broken it wouldn't be able to do squat and everything else was messed up to boot. and he took a vacation.

and the republicans.. oh they were for security alright eh? remember clinton pushing for more action in iraq? he even made a wmd speech before bush, and guess what repubs did? ah yes, they dogged him about the monica instead and ignored our security for their partisan games.

 

[daniel1113]

So now that Bush has learned to take threats seriously and prevent further attacks, he is called a war monger. The guy just can't win.

 

[Alistar7]

YES, in a heartbeat

maybe not replace him right now, but I would have chosen him over Bush, and would support him again as President.

 

[Pers]

i'd replace bush with hussein.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Pers
i'd replace bush with hussein.

Wow...

 

[phillyTIM]

Actually I voted yes, especially if it means diplacing Bush for the rest of his illegitimate term.

However I actually think someone new needs to get in there, I'm pretty much a believer in the 2-term system.

Hillary Clinton seems like a damn good candidate, or Ed Rendell Pennsylvania's Governor.

While they both are light on foreign-policy experience, George W. Bush really lowered the bar to the floor as to what expectations a person should come with to become President of the United States.

Things can't get any worse with anyone else.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If given a third alternative, I may have selected that person, however given the choice between the two, I would pick the liar over the killer. Clinton was nowhere near a saint, and he did screw up when attacking Iraq. We didn't have a protracted case for war which Bush got though. Clinton was just a liar and a weasel, which places him head and shoulders over Bush. Not a pretty choice IMO.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Actually I voted yes, especially if it means diplacing Bush for the rest of his illegitimate term.

Illegitimate? Are you unfimilar with the presidential election process that we have in the U.S.? Here is a good explanation:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022000a.htm

Electoral College System
Every fourth November, after almost two years of campaign hype and money, over 90 million Americans for the presidential candidates. Then, in the middle of December, the president and vice president of the United States are really elected by the votes of only 538 citizens -- the "electors" of the Electoral College.

How the Electoral College Elects the President
When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really be voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.

The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.

Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them -- 270 votes -- are required to be elected. Since Electoral College representation is based on congressional representation, states with larger populations get more Electoral College votes. [Electoral Votes From Each State]

Should none of the candidates win 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment kicks in and the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. This has only happened twice. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were elected by the House of Representatives.

While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.

So we will all go vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7, and before the sun sets in California at least one of the TV networks will have declared a winner. By midnight, one of the candidates will have probably claimed victory and some will have conceded defeat. But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 18, 2000), when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect.

Why the delay (42 days this year) between the general election and the Electoral College meetings? Back in the 1800s, it simply took that long to count the popular votes and for all the electors to travel to the state capitals. Today, the time is more likely to be used for settling any protests due to election code violations and for vote recounts.

Isn't There a Problem Here?
Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.

Bush was elected fair and square in accordance to our Constitution. The process may be flawed, but that does not change the legitimacy of Bush's presidency. I don't think the electoral college is necessary any more, but as of now, it exists and we must abide by it. Don't like the sound of that? Then change it! I'll support you.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Actually I voted yes, especially if it means diplacing Bush for the rest of his illegitimate term.

Illegitimate? Are you unfimilar with the presidential election process that we have in the U.S.? Here is a good explanation:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022000a.htm

Electoral College System
Every fourth November, after almost two years of campaign hype and money, over 90 million Americans for the presidential candidates. Then, in the middle of December, the president and vice president of the United States are really elected by the votes of only 538 citizens -- the "electors" of the Electoral College.

How the Electoral College Elects the President
When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really be voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.

The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.

Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them -- 270 votes -- are required to be elected. Since Electoral College representation is based on congressional representation, states with larger populations get more Electoral College votes. [Electoral Votes From Each State]

Should none of the candidates win 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment kicks in and the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. This has only happened twice. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were elected by the House of Representatives.

While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.

So we will all go vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7, and before the sun sets in California at least one of the TV networks will have declared a winner. By midnight, one of the candidates will have probably claimed victory and some will have conceded defeat. But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 18, 2000), when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect.

Why the delay (42 days this year) between the general election and the Electoral College meetings? Back in the 1800s, it simply took that long to count the popular votes and for all the electors to travel to the state capitals. Today, the time is more likely to be used for settling any protests due to election code violations and for vote recounts.

Isn't There a Problem Here?
Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.

Bush was elected fair and square in accordance to our Constitution. The process may be flawed, but that does not change the legitimacy of Bush's presidency. I don't think the electoral college is necessary any more, but as of now, it exists and we must abide by it. Don't like the sound of that? Then change it! I'll support you.

You are just bitter 2x as many choose Clinton over Bush. There you go.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush was elected fair and square in accordance to our Constitution. The process may be flawed, but that does not change the legitimacy of Bush's presidency. I don't think the electoral college is necessary any more, but as of now, it exists and we must abide by it. Don't like the sound of that? Then change it! I'll support you.
-------------------------------
Oh no, another know nothing. Bush didn't win the electoral vote in Florida, it was given to him by the Supreme Coup. The votes were never counted till long after. Gore won. He got the most legal votes in Florida. The election was stopped and stolen. You win an election by counting votes, not by stopping the count. Bush won 5 to 4 because five people were more self important than the will of the people. The will of the people was subverted by greed in the so called party of character. Such character, of course, is indicative of swine. There is no election if you don't count all the legal votes. No fact could be simpler to comprehend.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I didn't care for Clinton much.

But he wasn't quite as anti- middle class like Bush and co. are.

So yes I'd take him back in a heartbeat.

 

[Moonbeam]

What choice is this? Bush is the worst President we've ever had. It's a blessing, at least, he wasn't elected.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I can see Bush and Clinton at the local pub in a few years talking about the way they each pissed on the little people.

That's one of the problems with this country. Everyone thinks the government OWES them something. This country does more to help it's citizens than most. Stop whining and do something about your pathetic excuse for a life if you aren't happy. Those who spend all their time being victims or feeling sorry for themselves will never be happy no matter how much money you throw at them.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Okay, here's a new poll:

If you could choose a president today who would it be:

1) Bill Clinton

2) George Bush

3) Arnold Schwartzenegger

 

[daniel1113]

I'll take door number two please.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Gaard
I can see Bush and Clinton at the local pub in a few years talking about the way they each pissed on the little people.

That's one of the problems with this country. Everyone thinks the government OWES them something. This country does more to help it's citizens than most. Stop whining and do something about your pathetic excuse for a life if you aren't happy. Those who spend all their time being victims or feeling sorry for themselves will never be happy no matter how much money you throw at them.

The government does owe us something, it's our tax dollars that allow it to exist. I expect services and security for all the tens of thousands of dollars I've given to the federal government.

Regarding the poll, hell ya bring back Clinton! The country was much better off during his presidency.

 

[Zipp]

I wouldn't want Clinton back...I do want Bush for another four and I'm pretty sure that's going to happen.

 

[IJustAte]

Nader's better than both of them.. and just about anyone else. I voted for him.

 

[networkman]

Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: IJustAte
Nader's better than both of them.. and just about anyone else. I voted for him.

ah... green party follower

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

We KNOW how Clinton would have dealt with 9/11: He'd have done NOTHING, just like he did when the WTC was bombed in 1993, just like when the USS Cole was bombed, and the US Embassy in Africa...do you guys FORGET this stuff that quickly?

Bill Clinton, like Bush Sr before him, got an easy job: He inherited Reagan's economy and slowly worked on breaking all the progress that had been made. That's why we're sitting in the economy we're in NOW. In case none of you remembers, the Economy was starting to tank BEFORE Clinton left office! The job market was already slowing down and stock market growth was doing the same thing. It generally takes at LEAST a couple of years before an economy begins to see the effects of any given economic policy. This is something Republicans tell you often (And one of the FEW true things a Republican will EVER tell you, unless you get the rare exception such as Reagan...)

I would NEVER allow ANYONE to sit in the presidential office for more than their two terms. We saw what happened when FDR sat on the Throne for nearly FOUR terms, we ended up with Welfare and Socialist Security, or if you prefer, the enslavement of the young and productive to the lazy and the old, respectively.

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely; that's why we don't let people stay in high office for very damned long.

Jason

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: batmang
If you had the power to make clinton president in place of bush jr., would you, or do you think bush jr. is doing a good job?

This poll is a hard choice. On one hand, what Clinton lied about was none of my busines but I consider lying to be an unforgivable offense for the country's leaders . But I am so fed up with Bush et al that I would vote for almost anyone else to get rid of them.

I would take Clinton over Bush.