2006-08-20 03:55:54 · 60 answers · asked by I Know Nuttin 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'll be honest with you. I would probably do the same thing I did last time he ran~~not vote. The truth is this, I have never been president, I don't ever want to be president, I for the life of me could not imagine the decisions that they have to make daily in the best interest of our nation. With that being said my only logic is to not judge. They are NOT the final word when it comes to my decisions as a free person, what they do or don't do really doesn't affect TOO much of my life.
2006-08-20 10:02:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good GAWD, NO! Eight years of gross incompetence is 10 years too much!
But hey, if there were no term limits, he never would have been elected in the first place! Bubba C would be getting ready for his 5th run for office and would probably win. We wouldn't be in Iraq, there would be little debt, and there is a fair arguement that 9/11 would have just been another day in September though we would be marvelling about the scope of the abortive attacks, and bin Laden would be a footnote in history, buried in an unmarked cave in Afghanistan.
Thankfully there is NO WAY that he could ever get The Constitution ammended to permit a third term. Even if it could be pushed through quickly enough, there's no way that it would apply to the current occupant of the White House.
War Powers Act? Are you NUTS?? It has no such provision! Good gravy are Americans really THAT stupid?? The presidential term is set in stone in The Constitution and the War Powers Act couldn't supercede it even if the provision was in it.
2006-08-20 04:05:46 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are some scary alternatives, so I can't make that judgment yet. But ask me about his performance. In his first term which was characterized by 9/11 and its aftermath, I remember he was riding high waves of popularity mainly because he wasn't the most visible or the most vocal. His cabinet and advisors took the message to the people and my perception is that we had a real leader.
Then switch to Term 2. Characterized by indecisive blundering, incoherent ad-lib speeches by Bush, no domestic plan or policy, pro-illegal immigration, do-nothing attitude, letting the opposition party define him.
The 2 terms are a study in contrast in both leadership, dialogue, and value.
2006-08-20 04:09:04 · answer #3 · answered by snvffy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would. In these times it is almost an impossible job to have and do successfully. Plus everyone knows it is the congress that runs everything anyways. But the number one reason to keep him if it was possible is because the President is a strong Christian man and we need that in our leader. Not like the past President who was more concerned about BJ's in the oval office. But that was cool. But he forgot the cheaters creed " If the dress is a mess U must confess"
2006-08-20 04:03:12 · answer #4 · answered by theechrismartin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush and the interests that he represents have already turned this world upside down with their agendas and policies. It pisses me off that such a powerful nation like the US still seems to lack the understanding that its current role in this world has profound consequences for all of us be them good or evil. The issue lies in the choices it makes. Clearly, the choice of Bush as a president was not and has not been one of Americas finest moments. The answer is NO.
2006-08-20 04:13:18 · answer #5 · answered by Avillo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's scary to think that he might just be able to pull out another trick that will get the rules changed about electing a president to a third term. He has changed alot of other rules to fit him, I wouldn't be surprised if he did it again. Eventually we could have a dictator in our country for the first time in history.
I certainly wouldn't vote for him though, I didn't vote for him the first or second time.
2006-08-20 04:05:07 · answer #6 · answered by Friend 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO WAY! he would probably want to start a war with Iran and we can't afford to go to another war when there are others issues like immigration , unemployment and medical issues that need to be resolved especially to capture Bin Laden since bush let him get away.
2006-08-20 04:09:05 · answer #7 · answered by kikilee 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, at this point we need a "middle of the road" taht will SLOWLY remove our troops, in this way we won't suffer the same consiquences that the vietnam Vets suffered, and we won't have another Jane Fonda incident.
oh, and Bush isn't protecting your life, he's 'saving' the life of an embryo in suspended animation in liquid nitrogen, explain to me how Bush would make a speach if he was frozen in Liquid Nitrogen? They are not alive in the same sense, I hope he comes down with a disease that only has 1 cure found through embryonic stem cell research. See how he feels about it then!
2006-08-20 04:01:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush is not out yet! And he may not leave, under the War Powers Acts he is not required to leave office. I think he will be the next dictator.
2006-08-20 04:06:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not.
His lies brought us into a disastrous war. He is bad for the military. Our soldiers are dying for no reason. He is spending us into bankruptcy for the war. Tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in the conflict and millions live in fear and poverty thanks to Bush.
Bush is bad for the environment. Bush is bad for conservation. Bush is bad for the economy.
Bush is very very good for very rich people. Paris Hilton will do very well with no estate taxing. Bush is very very bad for people who work to make a buck. He keeps trying to kill Social Security.
Bush places himself higher than the Constitution. He authorizes blatantly illegal spying on US citizens, blatantly illegal torture, blatantly illegal prison camps.
He is evil. He is the worst president ever.
2006-08-20 04:09:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋