• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Looking back, would you of voted for BUSH or GORE?

I would do what I did again.

I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against Gore.

Yea, I know vote for Nader if you don't like the Dem or Rep candidates, but now that's just wasting a vote.
 
Bush. For as much as I dislike the religious right, I do not believe Gore has what it takes to deal with the aftermath of 9/11. After all, the Clinton administration is responsible for the current North Korea situation, and the same administration also seriously bungled dealing with Al Quaeda before they became the threat that they now are. Gore would probably deal with Iraq in the same fashion as Clinton, that is, by doing nothing.

It seems that lately when it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats prefer to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, not wanting to admit that evil exists in this world.
 
I would have voted for Bush, just as I did before. We need a president who is willing to build up the military again, not one who will eviscerate it as the Clinton administration did.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
I would do what I did again.

I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against Gore.

Yea, I know vote for Nader if you don't like the Dem or Rep candidates, but now that's just wasting a vote.
Click to expand...

You cannot vote for no one and vote against Gore. In order to vote against Gore, you would have to vote for Bush. In order to vote for no one, you would have to not vote.

nik
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Bush. For as much as I dislike the religious right, I do not believe Gore has what it takes to deal with the aftermath of 9/11. After all, the Clinton administration is responsible for the current North Korea situation, and the same administration also seriously bungled dealing with Al Quaeda before they became the threat that they now are. Gore would probably deal with Iraq in the same fashion as Clinton, that is, by doing nothing.

It seems that lately when it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats prefer to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, not wanting to admit that evil exists in this world.
Click to expand...


If you want to talk of the past lets not forget Bush Sr.'s IDIOTIC decision to let Hussein go. Our rangers could have taken him out and we didn't. We had a chance to end Hussein's cruel regime yet we didn't.

Anyways, I voted for Nader. And its not a wasted vote cuz if he had just 5% of the vote, he would have been eligible for more campaign funds.

Bush is an idiot. Not because of all the events that he has had to indure during this short presidency (9/11, anthrax, iraq, economy, sniper..) but because of how he is handling the Iraq situation. I'm with the democrats on this one. Fix our house before we go out. We'll be spending in excess of 1 billion a day in this war in Iraq. I think we have more pressing things like... what about Bin laden? we need to finish that guy and Al Qaeda first. We still don't have hard evidence of an Iraqi link, so for us to go to war with Iraq right now is stupid IMO. finish al qaeda, rebuild economy, then war iraq. we're not even getting support from many of our allies on this one.
 
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: Kiyup
I would do what I did again.

I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against Gore.

Yea, I know vote for Nader if you don't like the Dem or Rep candidates, but now that's just wasting a vote.
Click to expand...

You cannot vote for no one and vote against Gore. In order to vote against Gore, you would have to vote for Bush. In order to vote for no one, you would have to not vote.

nik
Click to expand...

wouldn't it be awesome if you could vote against someone and negate a vote for that person? elections would be far more interesting.

would be best if you could rank candidates and the one who got the most points would win, sorta like football polls. but floriduh would never figure it out.
 
Originally posted by: Dhruv

If you want to talk of the past lets not forget Bush Sr.'s IDIOTIC decision to let Hussein go. Our rangers could have taken him out and we didn't. We had a chance to end Hussein's cruel regime yet we didn't.
Click to expand...

and those of us in the real world realize that would have been an impossibility then
 
my vote wouldn't change
i was living in georgia
bush won the state by a HUGE margin

i would vote for Harry Browne , the Libertarian candidate again 😛
 
Bradley was a good basketball player.

He would have made an amazing president. He truly cares, is very intelligent, and would never have won. Its a shame, really.
 
are there a lot of Nader supporters on here?
Click to expand...

I don't think there are very many here. While I liked Nader better than Gore or Bush, my vote was more about supporting the Green Party. I don't think any of the three would/did make a good president.
 
would you rather waste $1 billion a day on an idle military or spend $1 billion and have our military do what its paid to do. u forget when they calculate war costs, they ignore that we already paid for them to be out there on ships in salaried time. the real cost is how much we spend in missiles and fuel. fuel is neglible, and missiles are millions of bux each, assuming we replace each one we fire, although really we already paid for them so that cost might also be negligible.

so its really cost of going to war: $0
cost of not going to war: $1 billion a day since we just blew money on a military we didnt use.
 
Originally posted by: Dhruv
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Bush. For as much as I dislike the religious right, I do not believe Gore has what it takes to deal with the aftermath of 9/11. After all, the Clinton administration is responsible for the current North Korea situation, and the same administration also seriously bungled dealing with Al Quaeda before they became the threat that they now are. Gore would probably deal with Iraq in the same fashion as Clinton, that is, by doing nothing.

It seems that lately when it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats prefer to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, not wanting to admit that evil exists in this world.
Click to expand...


If you want to talk of the past lets not forget Bush Sr.'s IDIOTIC decision to let Hussein go. Our rangers could have taken him out and we didn't. We had a chance to end Hussein's cruel regime yet we didn't.
Click to expand...

It must be nice to be so ignorant of history, huh? Bush had no option to go after Sadam in '91. Not only would he have lost the support of the coalition, he would have lost use of all middle east bases and pissed off the Saudis. In other words, the option to go after Sadam was not open, and the decision to do so was not Bush's to make.

Get a clue next time you find yourself with a brainless case of diarrhea of the mouth, OK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top