English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

if not, which president would you relect or elect? (dead or alive)

.

2006-06-24 19:27:38 · 46 answers · asked by altpro9 2 in Politics & Government Politics

46 answers

thank God he cannot run again. I think the country would implode if it had to go through yet another fixed election.
I would vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The man was a giant.

2006-07-03 07:34:01 · answer #1 · answered by arcayne_1 3 · 0 1

I wouldn't mind Bush for a third term, I would vote for him over anyone the is comming from the other side.

But if I had the power to chose any past President, I would go with Lincoln. Lincoln understood what being in a time of war was really about. Those that pubically dissented from his policies were imprisoned. If a newspaper had the balls to reveal secret information on the tactics of that war, they would have been shut down and imprisoned.

I also wouldn't mind bringing Kennedy back, because he was the last great Democratic President who stood by his principles and believed in the greatness of America. I would bring him back merely because, perhaps he would be able to get the modern day Democrats back to reality. Of course even for one that got us to the moon, fixing the Democratic party might simply be to big a job, he'd probably just become a Republican.

2006-07-03 04:22:29 · answer #2 · answered by tm_tech32 4 · 0 0

I have never and would never vote for him. If he were elected to a 3rd term, I would move to another country, and that's not a joke or an exaggeration. I know some who already have. I would love to see this country thriving as it did in the Clinton era. The economy was in the black, it was peacetime, jobs were up and educational, environmental and social issues seemed to be progressing forward in a positive direction. I personally had great healthcare, a good job, great college opportunities and my stocks were booming. That all changed after GW. Now I'll be lucky to retire by 70. Damn Bush to hell.

2006-07-06 12:46:24 · answer #3 · answered by Jane D 4 · 0 0

No!!! I live in Texas and he was a good Governor and that's all.
I would have FDR because he was President at our worst economical time and during war. This President changed our country and rebuilt it.

I always wonder what kind of President Robert Kennedy would have been. He was a person so in tune with America at the time of his death. This was a man America missed having as a leader. His brother John was an OK president and seems great to people because of unfulfilled potential...he never finished the job.

2006-06-24 19:46:24 · answer #4 · answered by scoutaboutpack26 2 · 0 0

Are you crazy? Americans should be straight-jacketed for giving him a 2nd term. Get that lunatic out of the oval office and into a padded room.

I wouldn't elect another President at all. I'd set up a direct democracy instead of settling for representative democracy like we have now, which doesn't work.

2006-07-03 08:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by OneMadSquid 3 · 0 0

I think that electing Mr. bush again (were it lawful) would be re-electing the whole package. Mr. Rove leaps to mind. All of the really bad stuff that this administration has done and is doing would just be expanded. These people WANT the Apocalypse, literally, and in their minds -the sooner the better. If you are not appalled, you are not paying attention.

2006-06-24 19:38:53 · answer #6 · answered by roscoedeadbeat 7 · 0 0

Voted for Reagan, GHW Bush, Perot, Dole, GW Bush, Kerry.

As a Christian, I am terrified to think that I will have to account to the Almighty for having voted in 2000 for GW Bush, and for having successfully directed others so to do.

During his first 100 days in office, Bush committed treason (aiding and abetting a nation that had committed an Act of War against the USA). Ignoring the Act of War that was the downing of the EP-3E Aries II, China committed a 2nd Act of War when it kidnapped the crew (24 people) of the downed aircraft.

Bush not only ignored those overt Acts of War, but was conciliatory towards the Chinese, trading after 11 days an official apology for the return of the crew. Bush further gave the Chinese 3 months and 3 days to dismantle and inspect the hardware of our most secret ELINT apparatus.

In the grand scheme of things, Chinese examination of the specific electronic components probably isn't that big of a deal -- but what is absolutely unforgivable is that they were allowed to learn both (a) what we were listening for, and (b) how we were listening for it.

By allowing the Chinese to perform that most thorough disassembly and inspection, Bush made absolutely certain that US hardware encryption efforts are compromised in the current generation of computer technology (and almost certainly in the following two generations of computer technology).

When the Peruvian air force slaughtered a missionary's wife and infant child, and strafed his aircraft after it crashed in a river, Bush grounded for 5 days the US "anti-drug" aircraft that first alerted Peru's combat command complex and directed the fighters to the missionary's plane.

Although neither the plane nor the missionary were ever associated with drug trafficking, Bush played it off as a harmless error, took no action against the crew of the target-identification aircraft, and didn't even demand an apology from Peru.

Also in his first 100 days, Bush launched an assault against the Bill of Rights (which, until GW Bush, had always been part of the US Constitution) that continues to this day, and it's only gotten worse, as he and his rubber-stamp Supreme Court seem hell-bent to eradicate all meaning from the Amendments.

Moreover, Bush is given a free pass when he flouts sections of the Constitution not contained in the Amendments.

In all likelihood, GW Bush is the most bloodthirsty man to ever occupy national office in the USA; in modern times, he is certainly the most bloodthirsty man to occupy national office in the USA.

The GW Bush Whitehouse directed US fighters responding to the first attack against the WTC to stand down, thus ensuring the success of the second (preventable) hit and helping to guarantee that the assault against the Pentagon would be successful.

The rubber-stamp FISC ("FISA court") hands out warrants like they're candy, and the Bush Administration (despite having THREE DAYS AFTER beginning surveillance to obtain such a warrant), has REFUSED to even ATTEMPT to get a warrant.

Thanks to GW Bush, we now have a "shadow government" not constrained by the Constitution, comprised of unelected officials having undisclosed titles and job descriptions.

Thanks to GW Bush, we are now spied-on by our own government, which continually conducts warrantless domestic surveillance against ordinary Citizens, monitoring telephone calls and scrutinizing banking and credit records.

The GW Bush administration is characterized by conspirators in two illegal wars (the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq), and he's cultivated the Public's anxiety over terror for political gain.

I could go on for many pages. GW Bush is the closest thing we have to Satan incarnate (he is an antichrist, if not THE Antichrist) -- and if he started rotting in hell today, it wouldn't be soon enough. He's ruined MY country!

Maybe JFK would be a nice change of pace.

2006-06-24 21:00:43 · answer #7 · answered by wireflight 4 · 0 0

I will not vote for the President but I will vote for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton if she run for 2008 or Ex Vice President Al Gore.

2006-07-04 18:29:48 · answer #8 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 0 0

I'd rather take my chances with a new president.

Hopefully, W won't figure out some loophole in the electoral process (again) like he has with all of his other presidential powers, to get himself a 3rd term.

2006-07-05 12:21:37 · answer #9 · answered by Jacida 2 · 0 0

NO Way!!! I wish we could kick him out now. If Arnold Swartzaneggar was running I would vote for him in a heart beat or Clint Eastwood.
If Teddy Roosevelt or Washington was alive one of them.
Better than Bush Beans and the reason I call him that is because he is nothing but full of rotten gas.

2006-06-24 19:46:50 · answer #10 · answered by shawngthgirw 2 · 0 1

No, support him or not there should be a special circumstance for a person running a country for over ten years, I don't think that's the way american government was intended.

I'll be on the lookout for candidates closer to 2008- no one so far looks all too appealing to me.

2006-06-24 19:33:18 · answer #11 · answered by Rachel a 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers