Well now if you didn’t want this to be an argument thread, why did you phrase it like an argument with such openly partisan and hostile statements in your opening comment? In fact, whether Bush has a mandate or not has little to do with what you are trying to accomplish, so why even bring it up? Especially since it is not true?
I brough it up because we’ve heard that in the 2000 election we have heard that W does not have a mandate and should not go hog wild, so to speak. This election being a lot more decisive, takes this argument away, and the picked up seats should ease trying to get things through.
I don’t know where you define a mandate, and perhaps you don’t see it as I do (actually I am sure you don’t). But W sees it as a mandate as well as a large percentage of the population, wather it really is or not. This may effect what W does, which can be a factor as to what W will try to do.
So in short, I mention it because it does matter.
I also started this because I have heard lies, I personally beleive most to be on the left. One such item is the draft, I have stated that I can’t see how it can help anything and is a democratic desprite lie to get Kerry in. Again this is how I see it. But I understand that I could be wrong and am willing to state what I beleive openly to challelge myself and perhaps change my views in the future, if things don’t turn out as I expect.
I am hoping others can contrubute to this, and curious what people will be willing to state they beleive is true.
Well I certainly hope things work out in that troubled region.
But I still don’t see why you think the established Governments, supported by oil money, will change to democracies.
Do you expect women to be elected in Saudi Arabia?
Sorry, you confuse me. Because a terrorist makes threats to the US, this justifies the US doing the same?
Freedom of speech is not compatible with foreign Governments interfering in elections.
Does this really matter?
I am glad to read your last post kanicbird. I did not participate in this thread because of the reasons Boringdad put to you & for the record the added gratuitous “the get over it he has” comment was particularly pit inducing and not particularly on thread as you have since claimed to want it used – which was a totally cool & interesting idea BTW.
You know who disagrees with you on the mandate issue? Pat Buchanan. He noted that he was with Nixon, and with Reagan when 49 of 50 states were taken and when Reagan took almost 60% of the vote. Those were mandates. 300,000 voters in Ohio would have made this a different thread. But most importantly, as you seem to note, W gathered the most votes EVER in a U.S. election. Guess who is no.2? John F. Kerry. Yep. Kerry got more votes last week than Reagan in ‘84, almost 10 million more than Clinton in ‘96. Are you willing to re-look in the weight of evidence and back off the mandate stuff, as you are asking us to do? The voters have spoken, fair and square, but there is no crazy blank check.
As to the Draft, I have heard Liddy say that the DNC was using it to fear monger and scare soccer Mom’s. I don’t pretend to know if that was true or not – I certainly saw no ads or literature, just stuff on the “internets”. What I do know for sure is this – It got into the news cycle in October because the Newhouse News Service broke the story about a specialized draft of Medical Personnel. It had nothing to do with the DNC or Democrats, they ran with the story when someone at the Pentagon leaked that they were updating plans for a medical, aka “specialized skills“, draft and the head of the Selective Service confirmed that on the record:
“We’re going to elevate that kind of draft to be a priority,” Lewis Brodsky, acting director of the Selective Service System, told Newhouse News Service.
So that we are clear on all that now I expect that:
Bush will make good on his promise to allow people to put a portion of their Social Security into Investments. I am guessing that ”portion” will be about 10%. That is $53 Billion, per year, pumped into the Stock Market inflating the market and pushing down Interest rates. Housing will stay high. There will be a bigger deficit in Social Security by the % loosed (BTW GWB agrees about the deficit but thinks the benefits outweigh any downside)
(This depends on others and not necessarily solely on GWB) If he can appoint 1 “net” justice Roe v Wade will be overturned and within weeks Abortion will be illegal in some places - like AL or MS and very restricted in many others. Same big **IF ** Affirmative Action of any kind will be gone. Voluntary Prayer in Public School public assemblies will be legal.
There will be no federally funded Stem Cell Research beyond the current allowed for the next 4 years
The Tax Code he passed, in the previous administration will be made permanent
He will fund No Child Left Behind
He will propose a constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage. It may pass and be sent to the States.
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge and possibly Powell, Rice & Woflowitz won’t be in DC by 11/07/2006. God knows how that will affect the strategic thinking
The ABM will continue to be deployed in Alaska and research heavily funded
ANWAR will be opened to more drilling, as will the Louisiana Coast
The Shuttle schedule will be scaled back.
The Deficit will be less than we thought. Not quite halved like Bush and Kerry Promised, but reasonably close. This will come from an improving economy and not lowering spending or cutting entitlements
kanicbird:–seems its gone without comment so far, but…
Talking of beyond pitworth, take a look at your shiny, brand newpitting
Okay, honest assessment of Bush’s likely actions in the new term?
There will be no draft. The war in Iraq may (or may not) deteriorate until a draft would be necessary to successfully finish it. If that’s the case, Bush will cut and run rather than institute a draft or leave his would-be successor (whoever that is) to defend an unfinished war and a draft. Look for a pull-out to start in 2002, whether or not Iraq’s ready for it. Kerry, I should add for the sake of fariness, would do largely the same, after he failed to bring in significant help from other nations. There will be no WMDs found in Iraq, unless they are supplied to the current insurgents from other places, and used against our troops.
Osama may or may not be found. It barely matters anyway. With the US providing such a convenient scapegoat, terrorists will continue to pop up worldwide. Bush has a golden chance to forge a peace in Israel/Palestine with the apparently immenient death of Arafat. He’ll probably blow it (not that Sharon will be much help).
Domestically, Bush’s tax cuts will be made permanent. But that’s about all that is certain. The Democrats will form alliances with moderate republicans to block Bush’s most outrageous legislation, and will filibuster what they can’t get allies from. The Democrats are under siege, look for them to close ranks.
Social Security will be partially privitized, and benefits reduced. This will cost him or his successor big, and be the biggest issue for the Democrats in 2006 or 2008 (depending on how soon it occurs). The gay marriage amendment is probably still dead, frankly I doubt Bush has any reason to try it again. He can tell the base to do it on the state level, since that’s worked so well in the past. States rights GOP and Democrats will block it in the senate, even though the Democrats themselves will distance themselves from it.
All in all, I think Bush will do less, not more. I think he’ll get lazy. The Republicans will bring home a lot of Bacon, but that’ll probably be about it.
If Bush has his eyes toward Iran and a middle east conflagration…there will be a draft. Same with score settling and “Bush reckoning” with all of the other axis of evil countries. Only escalation is possible.
Social programs in our country will suffer.
Rights weakened and revoked.
Three words…
Deficit. Deficit. Deficit.
I am far from a political scholar. Just an average joe 40 hour bluecollar worker here. Here’s what I see happening in 4 years.
-No WMD ever will be found.
-Iraq situation doesn’t change at all.
-OBL dies in hiding.
-SS gets even worse because bush cannot find a way to fund the estimated 2 trillion dollars over 10 years to privatize it because of…
-The deficit doubles and he leaves it for the next guy to take care of.
-He selects a new conservative judge to replace Rehnquist and ultimately one/two more to tip the balance in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
-The rest of the free world hating us even more.
-Christian Social Engineering in schools.
New federal law makes it a life term offense to confuse ‘loose’ and ‘lose’ in an SDMB thread tool.
No, I guess not.
That would be title, not tool. What a brainfart. :smack:
If this happens there are more than enough Red states to achieve the two-thirds majority needed for ratification, which will occur post haste. The same would be true of banning abortion, but such a measure would be much more difficult to get through Congress.
I’ll never understand why, in this situation, ~2.7M Kansans can cancel out the vote of ~35M Californians.
I think its funny how people view things differently… I think because Bush has a “mandate and nothing to lose” that he won’t get much good stuff done. He is basically the big guy now and will go ahead with his religious agenda… your OP obviously is very optimistic and you feel that since Bush is all powerful that he can now accomplish a load of good stuff. (whatever that is too you).
I started a thread on what Bush supporters expect from Bush… and I got a whooping 2 responses ! Those against Bush don’t expect much from him… and that is an easy anwer. I want to know what his voters will “demand” from him besides moral values !?
Now back to your original thinking... if Bush despite his "mandate" accomplishes very little or loses too much time trying to satisfy his religious right constituency... shouldn't he be judged that much harsher ?Hmmmm. I’ll play.
–Iraq will continue to be a quagmire. Billions more will be spent, not necessarily on the reconstruction, but to support U.S. troops. The situation will continue to disintegrate and the U.S. will eventually pull out, leaving the Iraqis to piece together whatever government they can. It will not be pretty.
–Although lofty, Bush will not have much of a chance to complete many of his goals as he’ll be blocked by moderate Republicans in Congress seeking to reclaim their party. I’ve heard rumors that now that he’s reelected, many Republicans will distance themselves from him in droves.
–SS will be ignored. The few times it isn’t ignored, attempts to reform it by threatening today’s payouts for tomorrow’s retirees will be blocked.
–The U.S. will not invade another country. We simply don’t have the resources.
–More handouts for the rich, a few concessions the for lower and middle class.
–The minimum wage will be raised due to political pressure, to something like $6 or $6.25 an hour.
–New Supremes will be appointed to the Court, maybe three but probably two. Roe v. Wade will be in no real danger as the appointees will be moderates (Congress will enforce this) who will not overturn such an established decision. There may be new decisions, however, that further restrict abortion, especially if a law that includes the health of the mother while in the third trimester is pushed through.
–The deficit won’t get as bad as the Democrats fear, but won’t be as good as the Republicans say either. It will still remain in 2008, an issue for the next guy.
–There will not be a draft. There will, however, be more stop-loss and “back door drafts” as the military seeks to find and keep resources.
So, not horrible, but not great. Probably pretty close to where we are now.
I hope.
Ah. I see. You think that since Bush is seen as having a mandate, he will more easily be able to pass his proposals. Which begs the question… just what did he fail to get passed over the last for years that you wanted passed? He got his tax cuts, his restrictions on research, his war… what else did you want? How do you see him as having been hindered before?
Oh, and there is no way Bush will fund No Child Left Behind. It was a propaganda only law that turned out to be not as popular as he had hoped, so it got no more attention.
Bush will get the “Death Tax” abolished permanently, and I will will retire, fully.
My prediction for 2008:
Republicans will think that Bush has done a bang up job.
Democrats will think that the last four years were worse than the previous four.
That’s where we sit in 2004. What makes you think this might change and we can have a reasonable discussion of it then?
I’m sorry, but the title alone dictates where this thread should have gone, and the resulting posts merely confirm it.
Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.
Further steps towards a Social Darwinist plutocracy, and consolidation of the aggressive unilateralist foreign policy.
And the electorate will be convinced that this is all normal and necessary because America is threatened.
First of all, would a mod kindly change the title to “nothing to lose”?
I can see where Bush thinks he has a mandate. After all, in one precinct in Ohio, he got 667% of the vote.
In four years, instead of halving the deficit he will double it. And find a way to blame it on the Democrats.
He will appoint 3 SC judges. Roe v Wade will be overturned.
He will push for constitutional amendments:
1- Banning gay marriage
2- Requiring the pledge of allegience to be recited in school, at dinner, and before every procreative act.
Iraq will be no closer to peace than in 2004. US casualties will be at 5000+. Iraqi cilvilian casualties will continue to be hidden.
Haliburton will save the middleman and start backing up their trucks at Fort Knox.
Castro will die and the US will use this as an excuse to invade. Cuba becomes a red state.
Freedom will be on the march in Iran as the US invades early in 2008.
If the terrorists don’t come across with some nasty attacks on U.S. soil soon, Ashcroft or his successor will launch a major anti-porn intiative, aimed at the “worst offenders” whoever they are or might be. It’ll be done as a cheap sop to the religious right, and will concentrate on some fringe sexual activity, so the mainstream won’t get worried about losing access to their favorite XXX sites and tapes. The Bush Admin may try it even if we do have a terrorist attack, but that leaves them vulnerable to using valuable Justice Dept. resources to hide pictures of naked women when terrorists are blowing people up. They’ll still be vulnerable to these charges, but not as vulnerable as they’d be with a fresh set of American corpses to content with.
Emboldened by the thought that U.S. forces are pinned down in Afghanistan and Iraq, bad guys in other countries will do some things we won’t care for at all – and won’t be able to do much about. Gonna hurt, but hey, I didn’t vote the stupid bastid into office for a second term.