Would we be better off, if...?
 

If John Kerry/John Edwards had gotten into office in the '04 Election?

Seriously when you think about it, all of the shit that has happend AFTER the second election, would it or would it not be better to have Kerry in office right now over Bush? I know some people still think Kerry would NOT have done a good a job as bush is doing.. Just want to hear some opinions.



Do it, do it.

Of course we'd be better off. I was a Bush supporter and I can see that.

I was talking to a guy at work yesterday and politics got into play and he tried to say that we'd be 100x better off with Bush being in office still over Kerry (he's one of the 32% that still support bush). Pretty horrible.

I can't see how someone could think that even if they used to support bush. I kept supporting him even after all of his screw ups, but it gets to the point that you have to re-evaluate.

The worst thing about Kerry was he was a flip-flopper and a liar. Big whoop. So was Clinton, he was decent enough.

Hell, most politicians are flip-floppers and liars.

Yea, I think we'd be better off with Kerry/Edwards.

I don't see what's so bad about flip-flopping in light of new evidence anyway.

Well MJ is right reguarding the Flip-flopping. When Kerry found out about new information reguarding the WMDs, i'm sure of him changing his views, I mean making the best decision on the information that is presented to you is all that you can do, Bush had lied about the WMD documents etc etc and got the whole country to follow.

Even Cheney flip-flopped for the worst, ..http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation..._cheney29.html

He said back in '92 that invading Iraq would be quagmire etc, and he had no problem pushing for it right after 9/11.

I think the phrase 'having a good president' is completely contradictory these days.

Well Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, even doing so fixing the problems that George Sr left behind.

I would be considered a flip-flopper by those standards too. I don't see what is wrong about reversing a decison in light of new evidence, I suppose it might be bad for a politician since most people (morons) think that anyone qualified to run the country should be above making mistakes...

No one can really answer that question because we don't really know what John Kerry would have done in office. We could still be at war, or there could be world peace, no one knows.

I feel that neither of them should have been elected, and while we're on the topic of elections, I don't like anyone running for '08 either.

Educated guesses can be made.

Preach it, brother. I was one of the few people who spoke out in favor of them at my highschool. Geez, I hate living in a conservative bible touting state. Dear God, say "I think abortion should be the choice of the mother ...I don't feel right telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body" and you're automatically the anti-christ.

If there were no abortions there would be 40 MILLION more people in the U.S.

There are already too many people in the country as it is so I'm definitely for abortion.

Liewise.


I was the biggest supporter of Bush, eventhough he had massive scewups. I still think he would have done better then Kerry, but thats based more on a personal opinion and not fact. I still think that going to war was a bad idea, but now that we did, i say let him finish what he started. You cant just go into another country, bascially destroy it, start to rebuild and then say fuck it were out. I dont like the idea of our boys being hurt over there, but what else should we do, pull out and let Iraq turn into shit. Plus, we need the oil haha.

Taking their Oil is only delaying the inevitable, we're still relying on a nonrenewable source of energy as it's still believed to be formed via ancient organic materials, the odds of finding petroleum on another planet after we've run Earth dry are low to begin with. We'd long have been cured of our Oil addiction by the time we likely found another source of it.

Regarding Iraq and such, I'd rather we halfassed a mistake rather than stuck to our guns and finish the judgement we've rendered over most of the country.

I agree with this sentiment.

I agree with this sentiment too.

I don't think we should continue to occupy that country. I do think we owe them massive amounts of money to help them rebuild.

Look at Vietnam. We left and they're doing relatively great. We can't hope to bring Iraq back together. That's something only -they- can do, and by the looks of it, the iraqi people in general do not care enough to step up and do something great. We just need to leave because they do not have the heart to make a stable democracy. Being murdered and ruled is what they seem to favor.

Alternately, the only real word we have from that direction would be via the media, so we're subject to their bias and opinions regarding events.

I would be less than truthful if I said that I trusted the media to report the news in an unbiased and fair manner.

Well, when the news is coming from a variety of sources and they all pretty much agree on the facts I feel fairly safe with that.

Like I said, I'd rather we left but poured a bit of money into it.

Yea. Oh yea, and about information being right ...ask SYG and others who have been there. I did on the Dragoon forums and he said "they hate to love us and love to hate us" or something like that. It seems to be a minority that appreciate what we're doing. Let them settle this shit themselves ...we can't win their heart. That's already been proven.

I've never really trusted the media being completely seperate from the government, as you'd not find a better tool to manipulate public opinion. Perhaps I'm a little more paranoid than others, but I certainly don't take our government at face value.

Edit:
Yeah, I hear that. I'm not saying that I don't believe what's going on over there, but I don't think we're being told everything that we need to know.

I really hate that we've created a new haven for terrorists, but it's past the point of no return. The only way we'd be able to finish this any time soon is if the iraqi people get off their asses as a majority and turn in these extremists. However, if you were and Iraqi would you? Between Blackwater and stray bombs, I'm sure there's a certain amount of animocity towards the Americans. Besides that there's an extremist element lurking in every city ready to strike down American supporters whenever possible to hurt anyone who would help us.

How do we solve this? I can't say I personally believe there's a way to solve this currently. This is something only the Iraqis can do unless we're to send millions of americans over and occupy there for many years. Can we do that? No. Our dollar grows weaker every year and our country grows weaker relative to the world as a whole. We need devote more of our resources domesticly so we can compete economically with the new powers in the future. Our dominance is in mortal peril.

I wouldn't say MORTAL peril, but we certainly are slipping. I'm sure our general attitude the past few decades isn't going to be of much help if someone like China decides they've had enough of us.

Iraq isn't very cut-and-dry, as we could be called negligent if we went in, overthrew the government, then said "oops lol", but I don't think our going in and making it into a fascimile of America would be a very good option either. I'd rather we kept things stable enough for a few to get their government going and then wish them luck.

Our currency is going down the shitter quick, fast, and in a hurry. A lot of our jobs are based in handling other peoples' money. I'm no expert but I'd think if our own currency goes in the shitter then that may have some repercussions there.

Me either, but when I hear Mortal Peril, I hear that everyone involved would be aware and freaking out about it. I suppose that would be a bit unrealistic of me to expect that kind of attitude from most people in the country. :p

We would be better off without a President.

I'm down with every state governing itself.

We tried that already. It only lasted about 15 years.

QFT

There are so many problems with confederacies, there's a reason why you don't see them anymore.

Ahaha. No but really, Most states really do run themselves now-a-days, the State just have to basically ask for permission for almost everything through the big chiefs in Congress.

Federal Law is superior to State Law. States only run themselves within the boundaries that Federal Law allows.

They've always run themselves, under the supervision of the Federal Government. Could you imagine if half of the US decided that they didn't really want to get involved in WW2 because they didn't feel justified or simply didn't want to get their boys killed?

A Confederacy has a very loose and powerless central government, largely a glorified Polling House for seperate sovereign nations, which is what the states would be.

I'm not down with that at all.

Maybe? Who catres..