You know that abroad we have difficulty in understanding why American people re-elected Bush. Some of you said to me that it is because they had no really choice, that J. Kerry was the even worse than Bush. I admit not to know so much about John Kerry, what can you tell me about him? Was he really worse?
2006-08-21 20:53:30 · 9 answers · asked by Agathe 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
There was a time when large U.S. companies had the power to go into a foreign country and rig the elections in favor of the candidates that would support their agenda. In many cases, they were able to put up their own candidate from among the population. With their huge assets of money and resources they would use this power to get their man in place. Once in place, new laws could be made to make it easier to get more of their people in place, next time. This cycle would continue, until they would have near total control of the government.
Well This time the targeted country was no other than the great U.S.A. It would seem that the 2004 election was so important to those with the power, that they took no chances of losing. They put one of their own in each major party. So you see, the people had a choice between a smart devil or a dumb devil. I don't have to tell you which was which.
Either way, the people would lose.
I hope we can fix the problem soon, before those in power hurt any more people. Sorry if this condition has hurt anyone in your part of the world: A thousand pardons.
P.S. J. Kerry was not worse, He was just to complex for the average American. The people wanted someone they could understand, a simple man that could think in terms of black and white. Also, the people believed we had been attacked, and Pres. Bush told them what they wanted to hear (Yeeha! bang, bang, shoot em up !).
2006-08-22 08:14:08 · answer #1 · answered by Joe_Pardy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think Kerry would have been Worst than Bush but hey after September 11th we cant really trust anybody in our government...
More people Voted to Get bush Out of Office, there were record number votes...but just how he shouldnt have won that first election against Al Gore, he shouldnt won this one...
Kerry may have been a good President, but if Gore was President, i think so much would be different...
by the way check out www.loosechange911.com
the truth about Sept 11th
2006-08-22 05:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by T@J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because there are a lot of morons in this country that have the right to vote and there are a lot of other people who really don't vote that should. people here talk a lot of talk but when it comes to going down and voting, they never have time or a million other excuses. they really shouldn't complain if they didn't vote. another thing is we have this thing called the electoral college. so in reality, your vote doesn't actually count. but primarily the electoral college will go along with the district. which is funny because most of the people in florida live in south florida. south florida overwhelmingly voted for kerry. however, because of the way the districts are drawn, and florida is such a large state, people in the sticks voted otherwise, therefore, bush won the state.
2006-08-22 04:02:59 · answer #3 · answered by anonymous 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just like the first election, the 2008 election was stolen. Minorities in certain districts were either prevented from voting or there votes werent counted. Because they are now using electronic voting Booths from a company called Diebold that does not product a paper count, the election has become much easier to steal.
2006-08-22 04:17:08 · answer #4 · answered by alyxnyc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No kerry was not worse but the media portayed him that way, the media is controlled by the same people who are in bush's circle of friend. Either way the American people and the world are stuffed. Bush and Kerry were in Skull and Bones. l liked thar other guy who ever he is.
2006-08-22 04:01:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, we'll never know.
However, keep in mind that more people actually voted for Gore than for Bush in 2000, but because of the intricacies of the electoral college, Bush won. Also, the popular vote was evenly divided in 2004 - so only half of Americans voted for Bush, and if you consider how many people actually voted compared to how many are eligible, then an even small proportion of Americans voted for Bush.
2006-08-22 03:58:50 · answer #6 · answered by Colonel Sturgeon 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither candidate was worse in my opinion. Bush was unwavering on the central issue of the campaign: the war on terror. With the position the US is in concerning Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and now Lebanon a warrior leader was percieved to be needed. Bush showed that leadership role better than Kerry did.
2006-08-22 04:01:12 · answer #7 · answered by Rocky 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it was that at all. I think it was more of the older population that was afraid to swich during a war. Now they are regreting it. Look at NOLA and how long it took for him to get the Americans out of Beruit? He is rediculous, anyone would have done a better job then he is doing.
2006-08-22 09:55:29 · answer #8 · answered by michiganwife 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have trouble believing that we would elect someone who doesn't put Eroupe's interest first.
2006-08-22 04:04:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋