If people are so against Bush or Blair why didn't they vote in someone else?

Question

They started the iraq war long before the last elections. Why not put up and shut up until the next elections?

Answer 1

Because in a war, we all need leaders like this, with guts..decision makers...not afraid to take chances... talk and with actions...this was the reason..

Answer 2

Bush is not the true president.

Bush was not voted into office.

Bush lost the 2000 elections.

Gore won, plain and simple.

This has been widely documented by many credible news organizations.

Bush is president because the US Supreme Court decided he was the president.

The Supreme Court took away the voters' choice and replaced it with the loser.

We have now seen what happens when an amateur tries to play president. He is the emperor with no clothes. No one wants to tell him this (like Blair), so all of the leaders and their minions play along like everything is fine and Bush looks like a viable president. What's the alternative? Announce to the world that Georgie boy is a bust and he really has no clue?

The political world doesn't work that way, little one. Blair would not dare to stab George in the back, and visa versa. They need the other to support the lies.

Were the 2006 elections not a clear indication of how Americans feel about the Bush Administration and the decrepit, pederastic Republicans in Congress?

And, if memory serves me right, Blair is not having a very easy time of it since his Labour party got pummelled in their elections last year.

So, in the end, I am not sure where you get this idea that people are not voting the bastards out of office, or why we should "put up and shut up".

That's not how democracy works. Shutting up is for wimps, corporate lackeys and communists.

Answer 3

Most of the voting public do not follow predictable trends BEFORE an election. Those who voted for Bush or Blair probably did so because AT THAT TIME they believed their direction to be the right one.

Folk change and times change and as the 'war' became less and less popular and news of questionnable tactics to get the public to buy into the war became more evident, support dwindled. And let's not forget that FATALITIES play a heavy role in this. It is hard for some to envision how many, if any, will perish in a war until the numbers roll in.

Answer 4

I contend that most people did, but the systems are terribly corrupt, allow me to explain...

I cannot speak for the USA, I'll let rolling stone magazine do that for me, as they have done some wonderful research into the last general election in 2004 and uncovered a vast array of evidence that suggests massive voter fraud.

In the UK however, the electoral process is much much more transparent than in the USA. Ballots are cast on paper, placed into a sealed box infront of independent observers, transported independently, under supervision, to the counting hall, emptied in full view of all the candidates, hand counted in public by independent specialist volunteers and the results open to immediate scrutiny and recounts at the request of any candidate.

In the USA your votes are counted in secret by a piece of propietary encrypted computer code. There is ZERO independent analysis or proof that any vote cast is counted correctly or counted at all!

So how did the Labour Party and Blair still win?

The constituency boundries are decided by the boundry commision. they know hwo most people in any given area vote, so they set the boundries to favour one party or the other.

Currently the Labour party have an in-built bias meaning that if the Conservative and Labour party got an equal number of votes, that means that labour would win the election with a 60 seat majority.

at the last election their was a low turnout, and of thoes people that did turn out to vote, labour only got 36% of the vote, but because of the inbuilt bias, that was enough to win enough seats in Parliament to have a 66 seat majority. The Current boundries mean that the Conservative party need 41%+ to secure an overal majority in the Commons.

Out of all the eligable adult voters in the UK though, only 60% ish voted. So this means that labour actually only got 22% of the whole adult population to support them at the election. a MASSIVE 78% did NOT support Blair, or Labour at all.

Labour is even MORE unpopular now. infact I would be surprised if they get even 15% support at the next election.

So I really wish people would stop regurgitating the incorrect idea that the country voted for Blair's Labour Party at the last election. A small and delusional minority voted for Blair's Labour Party at the last election, and now many of them are regretting it!

Only one in five adults supported labour, that is not any where close to a majority, anyway you slice it.

Answer 5

Well the 2004 election here in the states may have been the most corrupt ever, or at least since the 2000 fiasco. In other words we did vote somebody else in, in both cases.

I can't speak for Blair, but all the Englishmen I know have been anti-Blair since before he was elected.

Answer 6

We did, actually.

Remember Al Gore? Yeah, neither does anyone else.

Try to remember the first Bush/Gore battle. The one where Gore actualy WON by a ********* landslide, but strangely, never got actually elected.

George 'dubya' Bush's dad was once President of the good ol' U.S... He was also Director of the C.I.A. for 8 yrs or so.

His kid wanted to be the new Prez... so guess what?

He got what he wanted.. In fact, the little puke always gets what he wants...

But, yes... we did vote for someone else.. sadly, the system doesn't work the way we planned.. The Constitution has become a very mighty joke.

Answer 7

This just might be the most abhorrent question ever. Hello, people did vote for the other canidate's. But when people's vote's are not counted or in some district's a canidate had negative vote's (HAHAHAHA WTH IS THAT??) what are we to do? I would love to know myself. All we can do is get to the poll's and cast our vote's for whom we think is best suited for the job. And pray that there is no tampering with american's vote's.

Answer 8

I don't know how bushy got back in office but I think New Orleans would be a lot better off had we had someone else, and New York's World Trade Center would be better off, and the Mexican border issue, and..... everything. I did not vote for that pinche cabron estupido, hijo de la chingada.

Answer 9

Bush fooled many people with his lies, that, combined with the fact that the elections were corrupted was the reason. My friends & I never voted for him either time, but his dad promised him the election as long as he finished what daddy started, now we are living with the results.....scary, huh?

Answer 10

Because the people who complain the most, vote the least. They figure if they don't vote - they can conplain about either side.