2007-07-23 15:42:07 · 40 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The same way the next front runner will get in through corporate support and public manipulation. Money buys votes and manipulates the public through the power of advertising and public relations. Hillary or Romney, what is the difference. Money caters to money. Has anyone out there noticed that our new America caters to 40% of the population and the 60% it does not cater to are the idiots putting these clowns in office?
2007-07-23 15:47:54 · answer #1 · answered by skycat 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He was a C student at Yale and got an MBA from the Harvard Business School. He ran against Al Gore who was a C- student at Harvard and flunked out of law school and Divinity School so that is a start--run again a moron if you are an idiot perhaps. That aside, he is compared "intellect wise" to JFK, both were lousy students, both had over bearing directing fathers pulling the strings behind the scenes. GWBush and JFK were both lazy students but had good handlers. The press and Democrats used to attack Lincoln for being stupid, a monkey, a clod, an uncouth moron, etc. President's are not always brilliant people. Bush, Kerry, JFK and Gore were all lazy rich kids who never did anything their whole lives and their puppeteers prop them up and feed them lines and zing off the the White House. Oooops, almost forgot FDR who flunked the Bar exam (sorry Hillary did too) a bunch of times, not the brightest bulb on the porch; nor was Harry Truman (a political hack) though all of these low level intellects who ran for or were elected President all had something in common they were all Freemasons so perhaps that is the key.
2007-07-23 15:58:09 · answer #2 · answered by Yahoo S 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush is not only stupid, he's evil. He is President not because he's stupid, but because he's evil.
This is diffiucult for most people in this country to accept. The majority of Americans are not the brightest bulbs in the string, but are very good, well-meaning people.
The United States has always had a deeply anti-intellectual strain, related to the Puritan movement.
American-style anti-intellectualism tends to set up a false dichotomy: good, pure, God-fearing people vs. evil, plotting, book-learned and scientific types.
It was easy to conclude that Richard Nixon was evil, because he was smart; he read lots of books and knew about foreign policy. Sneaky intellectual *******.
It has been harder for Americans to believe that George W. Bush is evil because he's dumb.
They think, "That's not possible! He couldn't be evil! He'll blunder through and save us!"
And besides, as he told them in 2004, he was already President "in a time o' war," as he said, and they fell for it.
The other reason he won the second time is John Kerry, who may be brighter than Bush, but was not much of a campaigner; he made the deadly error of thinking he had the election sewn up early in 2004.
But none of the above matters now.
SEND AN EMAIL TO OR CALL SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI AND TELL HER TO STOP *****-FOOTING AND IMPEACH BUSH!!!
2007-07-23 22:50:44 · answer #3 · answered by Austin W 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stupid is, as Stupid does. The results are that a lot of stupid people voted, and the brilliant, arrogant one's stayed home. Where were you on election day?
2007-07-24 05:48:49 · answer #4 · answered by pokerfunman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This one is easy: because people like Jeff think he's, "much more smarter." Voters like that can't get much more stupider.
Layna, too, gives some excellent political analysis. My God people, what's wrong with you? Don't you know that in a democracy you should NEVER question the motives of your leader? Thank you, Layna. You are everything Anne Coulter could hope for. (Incidentally, Layna, based upon your answer, I'm not sure you're attuned (that means 'ya know what's up') to sarcasm (that means 'I don't mean what ah'm sayin', yo), but that was not a compliment.
2007-07-23 15:50:16 · answer #5 · answered by balderarrow 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, President Truman became. He became the only person, ever to have lived, who killed those with nuclear weapons. as a substitute of conserving the unfavorable ability of nuclear weapons a secret, he chosen to sell this ability by making use of gleefully massacring rankings of harmless eastern civilians. the only reason the dummy discovered himself in workplace became that his predecessor had died. Truman, with the aid of some spies, controlled to make the atomic bomb exceptionally much as attainable to all of the international locations of the worldwide because of fact the hand grenade.
2016-11-10 05:31:26 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your guess is as good as mine but dont worry we were stupid enough to vote John Howard in twice as well he is the same as Bush as just on a smaller scale.
No wonder they are such good friends.
2007-07-23 15:58:16 · answer #7 · answered by molly 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, I think that both times that his competition wasn't all that great...Gore would have been ok, but I don't think I could stand having John Kerry as president, he would have been just as bad if not worse than Bush. I do however kinda look forward to seeing Barack as president.
2007-07-23 15:48:55 · answer #8 · answered by Jeremy J 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
In 2000, Conservatives stood up and said no to gun control, so they voted for Bush instead of Gore. Very stupid.
And in 2004, Conservatives decided to be arrogant and said no to gay marriage, so they voted for Bush instead of Kerry. Very selfish, and stupid.
Point blank; he's in office because idiots wasted their votes on terror and destruction.
2007-07-23 15:52:54 · answer #9 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the stupid people who vote for their constituents who a re elected into the electoral college which whom votes for the president
2007-07-23 15:47:45 · answer #10 · answered by tm 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋