NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pa/presidentialRatings.cfm
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Associated Press/Ipsos poll 9/6-8/05
Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? (IF APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, ASK:) Is that strongly (approve/disapprove) or somewhat (approve/disapprove)? (IF HAVE MIXED FEELINGS OR NOT SURE, ASK:) If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?

39% approve
59% disapprove
2% neutral


This is the first real poll to have his approval rating below 40%. Other polls had it bottom out just above 40% so this is a statistical fluctuation downward. Still, the approval rating is down to the percentage of the population that supports him no matter what.

Part of me would like to see him just lose his $%&! and go Howard Hughes. Have him take a whiz off the balcony of the White House, starting ending every sentence with the word "f--ko", start sending lengthy handwritten dirty notes to random world leaders...whats he got to lose at this point?

i guess people finally woke up and realized dirty Bush stinks......

That’s great, but it's meaningless.

It wouldn’t matter if is approval rating was 99% or 1%, the voting population of the US will never again hold George W. Bush to account for his second term actions, because he can't be re-elected as President.

Also his actions will have an insignificant effect on whoever follows Bush for the top job for the republicans in 2008, as they will be given a "clean slate" as they can't be blamed for Bush's actions (unless that person is chosen from Bush's current advisory team, which is unlikely).

And of course be that the Republicans will probably hold on to most of their representative power post-bush as well, as (i'll bet) the last year of the Bush administration will be about "pork barrelling". Except for the fact that all of the Republican politicians currently holding political office must be holding between 8% & 15% of their vote as perconal votes (ie. A vote for the person, not for the party) based on approval vs. notional party results.

As unfortunate as it is for both the Democrat supporters, and the democratic political process as it is, Bush is in charge now, and it is more then likely that the next US president and government will also be Republican. These results mean very little, I'm sorry but it's just the way it is.

Semar

Doesn't matter. It's not about "approval" It's about a "New World Order" It's coming, and theres no way to stop it. Better hope your on the "voted for Bush" list when it comes! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BUUUUUUWWWWHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
I'm cool, I voted for the winning team! :D

Doesn't matter. It's not about "approval" It's about a "New World Order" It's coming, and theres no way to stop it. Better hope your on the "voted for Bush" list when it comes! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BUUUUUUWWWWHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
I'm cool, I voted for the winning team! :D

I applaud you mature approach...........

Also his actions will have an insignificant effect on whoever follows Bush for the top job for the republicans in 2008, as they will be given a "clean slate" as they can't be blamed for Bush's actions

Hmm... You expect American voters to make a rational distinction between their approval of Bush and their opinion of his party.

Optimistic, but unrealistic.

Which is not to say that Bush's approval ratings can predict the outcome of the next election. Many other factors are involved. But to say that his performance is "insignificant" is to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that American voters are... well, stupid.

;)

:rolleyes: It doesn't really matter. Polls don't mean a thing to me or those in my family.

The next logical course of action for Bush would be to realise that the majority of his people do not support him and that it would only be democratic to have a re-election now.

It happened in Germany, why can't the 'most democratic' country in the world not do the same?

The next logical course of action for Bush would be to realise that the majority of his people do not support him and that it would only be democratic to have a re-election now.

It happened in Germany, why can't the 'most democratic' country in the world not do the same?
Bush is too evil to do that. ;)

Dont worry all, it will bounce back up to popular by the time his term ends, and the republicans will win the next election, you can all count on that.

Dont worry all, it will bounce back up to popular by the time his term ends, and the republicans will win the next election, you can all count on that.

And the basis for this supposition is...? Oh yeah, I forgot, Diebold.

The next logical course of action for Bush would be to realise that the majority of his people do not support him and that it would only be democratic to have a re-election now.

It happened in Germany, why can't the 'most democratic' country in the world not do the same?
that isnt the way the US government is set up

even if he resigned, which he wont and shouldnt, he would be replaced immediately by his vice president DICK CHENEY.

this is what happened when nixon resigned, his vp gerald ford became president. the only president that no one voted for. (ford became vp by appointment to replace the elected vp spiro agnew who resigned his office)

The next logical course of action for Bush would be to realise that the majority of his people do not support him and that it would only be democratic to have a re-election now.

It happened in Germany, why can't the 'most democratic' country in the world not do the same?


well you see we cant do that, you see we are in our take over the world phase much like yall were awhile back

When Clinton had an extramarital affair, a lot of people who would have voted for Democrat Al Gore voted instead for Bush. Since Bush screwed up, I think a lot of people will vote for the Democrats if the Democratic Party opposes the Republicans and doesn't agree with them on many issues, like they did in the 2004 election.

I don't put much in to these, really. It's only 1,002 people with a 3.% MOE, so it's hardly scientifice evidence. The Republicans and Democrats should be taking action on pressing issues rather than trying to please everyone.

The same is true with consumer confidence; it's utterly meaningless because retail sales are pretty much the same regardless of confidence.

even if he resigned, which he wont and shouldnt, he would be replaced immediately by his vice president DICK CHENEY.


And from the chip pan and into the fire we would go. Why not elections?


this is what happened when nixon resigned, his vp gerald ford became president. the only president that no one voted for.

Saddam Hussein did that too, taking over after a forced resignation, becoming a President that no one voted for.

What do they call it?

Ah, that's right.

Dictatorship.

And from the chip pan and into the fire we would go. Why not elections?

It doesn't work that way; the Constitution specifies the process and it would require an amendment to change it. Plus, it would end up being a shame where the two parties would endlessly run elections and it would make things infintely worse.

Saddam Hussein did that too, taking over after a forced resignation, becoming a President that no one voted for.Dictatorship.

No, because he was still bound to the legislative and judicial branch and the Constitution. A dictatorship is when the executive holds supreme and total power, and there are no other real policymaking branches. Besides, we have to have a presidential succession to prevent too much downtime in the executive brance.

:rolleyes: It doesn't really matter. Polls don't mean a thing to me or those in my family.

It will if Bush and or his financial supporters decide suddenly that your country should be added to the 'Axis of Evil' and threatened with invasion.

It does if Global warming effects the area where you are, whilst Bush remains in denial of it and dismisses the Kyoto treaty.

It will affect you quite alot.

It does if Global warming effects the area where you are, whilst Bush remains in denial of it and dismisses the Kyoto treaty.

Kyoto was a sham. The countries that are producing the second largest amounts of emissions and whose emissions are growing the fastest are exempt from the thing, so any gains in the treaty members are more than offset by increases in emissions in those regions, namely India/China/SE Asia and most of the Third World. It would hurt our economy and give Asia a massively unfair advantage over us economically, because they wouldn't have Kyoto costs.

It will if Bush and or his financial supporters decide suddenly that your country should be added to the 'Axis of Evil' and threatened with invasion.

It doesn't work that way. The Congress has to approve that kind of military action, so it would require approval by both Democrats and Republicans to even pass in the first place.

It doesn't work that way; the Constitution specifies the process and it would require an amendment to change it. Plus, it would end up being a shame where the two parties would endlessly run elections and it would make things infintely worse.


Having restricted time elections (Every four years) is not exactly doing you any good at the moment is it?



No, because he was still bound to the legislative and judicial branch and the Constitution. A dictatorship is when the executive holds supreme and total power, and there are no other real policymaking branches. Besides, we have to have a presidential succession to prevent too much downtime in the executive brance.

A dictator can bend the legislative and judicial branch to his/her will through means and ways = No independent legislative and judical branch.

If not, he/she can just abolish it.

Don't think it can be done?

I say it can, and has, in other countries....Germany 1930's.

America is not immune to this happening, no matter what you may like to think.

That’s great, but it's meaningless.

It wouldn’t matter if is approval rating was 99% or 1%, the voting population of the US will never again hold George W. Bush to account for his second term actions, because he can't be re-elected as President.

Also his actions will have an insignificant effect on whoever follows Bush for the top job for the republicans in 2008, as they will be given a "clean slate" as they can't be blamed for Bush's actions (unless that person is chosen from Bush's current advisory team, which is unlikely).

And of course be that the Republicans will probably hold on to most of their representative power post-bush as well, as (i'll bet) the last year of the Bush administration will be about "pork barrelling". Except for the fact that all of the Republican politicians currently holding political office must be holding between 8% & 15% of their vote as perconal votes (ie. A vote for the person, not for the party) based on approval vs. notional party results.

As unfortunate as it is for both the Democrat supporters, and the democratic political process as it is, Bush is in charge now, and it is more then likely that the next US president and government will also be Republican. These results mean very little, I'm sorry but it's just the way it is.

Semar


Of course it matters. Throughout the first term a Bush pronouncement was like the sermon on the mount as the Republicans in Congress and the Senate fell all over themselves to support his position in the hope that his popularity would rub off on them come election time. And no doubt it helped.

Having his popularity bottom out leaves the rest of the elected Republicans actually having to come up with their own opinions on issues that may be at odds with the White House, but to the betterment of the country.


In other words, for four years the Bush policy platform ran unopposed, often to the detriment of the country (look at New Orleans and FEMA for the most immediate example).

At least Clinton had to WORK with the opposing parties to get things done which made for a far more balanced and critical approach to the problems of the country.

With Bush's popularty in freefall, we will be seeing more of that for the remainder of this term too - especially heading into the 06 campaign as many Republican candidates unhitch their wagon from the White House to mitigate the risk of losing their seats.

Having restricted time elections (Every four years) is not exactly doing you any good at the moment is it?

It's doing much better than the chaos of allowing them to call elections at any time. This, at least, keeps the legislative branch from getting too powerful.


A dictator can bend the legislative and judicial branch to his/her will through means and ways = No independent legislative and judical branch.
If not, he/she can just abolish it.
Don't think it can be done?
I say it can, and has, in other countries....Germany 1930's.

Not in the US. The Weimar Constitution was extremely weak and had huge errors like the emergency clause that could nullify it. The US Constitution has multiple layers of protection and clearly defined procedure; changing it requires an amendment which in turn requires Congressional approval and ratification by 2/3rds of the states. Ultimately, the state ratifications are determined by the people and so it would be impossible to repeal the Bill of Rights or any of the Articles. It's too well designed to allow that.

America is not immune to this happening, no matter what you may like to think.

Yes it is. It would require decades, or would even be impossible to repeal even one of the Bill of Rights amendments. It would also require a vast majority of the people, Congress, the army, and everyone else to support it. A dictator could not come to power save by forcefully taking over the United States.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pa/presidentialRatings.cfm
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Associated Press/Ipsos poll 9/6-8/05
Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? (IF APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, ASK:) Is that strongly (approve/disapprove) or somewhat (approve/disapprove)? (IF HAVE MIXED FEELINGS OR NOT SURE, ASK:) If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?

39% approve
59% disapprove
2% neutral

you forgot the best part. they actually broke it up like this in the full thing (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr050909-1tb.pdf&id=2770) (page 3):

Strongly approve - 20
Somewhat approve - 11
Lean toward approval - 8
Still have mixed feelings - 1
Lean toward disapproval - 14
Somewhat disapprove - 5
Strongly disapprove - 40

that's right, the strongly disapproves alone are about the same as all of the approves combined. looks like the kool-aid is wearing off.

Hmm... You expect American voters to make a rational distinction between their approval of Bush and their opinion of his party.

wouldn't that distinction only really count as rational if the party (and associated propaganda arms) wasn't operating as a largely monolithic force taking orders from the center?

Given the 25th Amendment, I pray that Dubya doesn't get removed from office. Shrub's an idiot, but Cheney's an evil SOB.

It's doing much better than the chaos of allowing them to call elections at any time. This, at least, keeps the legislative branch from getting too powerful.


To limit elections makes the legislative branch from getting too powerful. There's nothing like a new administration to do that.




Not in the US. The Weimar Constitution was extremely weak and had huge errors like the emergency clause that could nullify it. The US Constitution has multiple layers of protection and clearly defined procedure; changing it requires an amendment which in turn requires Congressional approval and ratification by 2/3rds of the states. Ultimately, the state ratifications are determined by the people and so it would be impossible to repeal the Bill of Rights or any of the Articles. It's too well designed to allow that.


multiple layers of protection and clearly defined procedure and making amendments are no match for a dictator with a army behind him seizing the capitol as a matter of enforcing national security.

Or

A dictator calling for the temporary abolishment of clauses and constitutions in the name of national security in the name of bypassing these things to enable quick government actions to 'national emergencies'.



Yes it is. It would require decades, or would even be impossible to repeal even one of the Bill of Rights amendments. It would also require a vast majority of the people, Congress, the army, and everyone else to support it. A dictator could not come to power save by forcefully taking over the United States.

I note your optimism, but it is niave.

Because it is quite easy to get the majority of the people and members of the congress on a dictator's side if that dictator says it's good for the country, strikes a chord with the people, and if that dictator is gung-ho, he can get the army onside too, in viewing the people supporting the dictator, and promises of high budget spending on defence.

And even if the congress protests, they will be painted as 'traitors' and then dealt with.

The people, whipped up in nationalist fervour, and fed up with congress and judicial branches being flip-floppy, can be stirred to be all for a dictator, a 'strong man/woman' to lead the country.

It can quite easily be done. Quite easily indeed.

that's right, the strongly disapproves alone are about the same as all of the approves combined. looks like the kool-aid is wearing off.

In some ways, that's good and in others it's bad. It's good because it means the Democratic party is almost wholly unified in its opposition to Bush, and there won't be any factions during the 2006 elections. It's bad because it means any hope of bipartisanship is dead, which spells doom for a balanced budget and better management of government funds.

I guess I'd be in 5% that somewhat disapprove; I lay blame in more places than the president.

i guess people finally woke up and realized dirty Bush stinks......

at what?

or do you just hate him irrationally?

It will if Bush and or his financial supporters decide suddenly that your country should be added to the 'Axis of Evil' and threatened with invasion.

It does if Global warming effects the area where you are, whilst Bush remains in denial of it and dismisses the Kyoto treaty.

It will affect you quite alot.

Actually no it will not. I already live in the United States. The Kyoto Treaty hasn't been proven to be effective now has it? You have scientists that say sure it will work and you have those that say it will not. I can take a poll in some parts of a country and Bush's approval rating could be close to 100% or I could take it in another part of the country and come up with 0%. Polls do not mean a thing.

In some ways, that's good and in others it's bad. It's good because it means the Democratic party is almost wholly unified in its opposition to Bush, and there won't be any factions during the 2006 elections. It's bad because it means any hope of bipartisanship is dead, which spells doom for a balanced budget and better management of government funds.

I guess I'd be in 5% that somewhat disapprove; I lay blame in more places than the president.

finally... someone smart enough to realize that no president shoudl get full blame or praise for everything.

It's doing much better than the chaos of allowing them to call elections at any time. This, at least, keeps the legislative branch from getting too powerful.

Oh, does it now? Reads more like the unchallengable guarantee of pure, unchecked, unfettered power has done this last quite capably. In any other modern democracy, a figure like Bush would face real consequences for his shoddiness.

at what?

or do you just hate him irrationally?

If you don't know by now, no amout of sourced material, impassioned but logical argument and historical precedent will convince you.

I will just sum up all the information by saying that Bush is the most incompetent, ideologically driven and greedy President we've had since at least Nixon.

The examples have been cited over and over and over and over again, but you simply refuse to comprehend. I feel sorry for you.

finally... someone smart enough to realize that no president shoudl get full blame or praise for everything.


That is the truth as most politicians are only looking out for themselves and not those who elected them.

To limit elections makes the legislative branch from getting too powerful. There's nothing like a new administration to do that.

No, it would likely be the opposite because the legislative branch would be the ones who are responsible for having new elections. Whenever the president goes against the majority in Congress, he'd be gone and replaced with some puppet.



multiple layers of protection and clearly defined procedure and making amendments are no match for a dictator with a army behind him seizing the capitol as a matter of enforcing national security.

Or

A dictator calling for the temporary abolishment of clauses and constitutions in the name of national security in the name of bypassing these things to enable quick government actions to 'national emergencies'.

The army is made up of volunteers whose loyalty is to their country and its institutions first. The president may be the commander in chief, but the army doesn't belong to him; since all of them have these rights and live their lives under these priveliges, the army would definitely not support a tyrant from destroying what they are fighting for.

The second cannot be done; it violates the Constitution and so is impossible without an extremely drawn out political battle, repeated levels of ratification, and the support of at least 66% of the voting population. The Constitution is the supreme law, and anything than contradicts it is illegal.


I note your optimism, but it is niave.
Because it is quite easy to get the majority of the people and members of the congress on a dictator's side if that dictator says it's good for the country, strikes a chord with the people, and if that dictator is gung-ho, he can get the army onside too, in viewing the people supporting the dictator, and promises of high budget spending on defence.

And even if the congress protests, they will be painted as 'traitors' and then dealt with.

The people, whipped up in nationalist fervour, and fed up with congress and judicial branches being flip-floppy, can be stirred to be all for a dictator, a 'strong man/woman' to lead the country.

It can quite easily be done. Quite easily indeed.

It's possible, but highly unlikely. People are easily swayed by fear and will often do exactly what you describe, but the sheer difficulty of changing the Constitution is the major safeguard against this. Of course, if the dictator to be can keep their support up long enough to go through all of the repealing of the constitution and stay in power long enough to do so, then we're screwed. However, most people will wake up before that and take action; this happened in the years following 9/11, when the almost irrational fear led to a willingess to sacrifice rights for safety. However, when the initial fervor wore off, people turned very vocal very quickly and that explains why even during a war the incumbent president only won by a small margin.

It's doing much better than the chaos of allowing them to call elections at any time. This, at least, keeps the legislative branch from getting too powerful.




Not in the US. The Weimar Constitution was extremely weak and had huge errors like the emergency clause that could nullify it. The US Constitution has multiple layers of protection and clearly defined procedure; changing it requires an amendment which in turn requires Congressional approval and ratification by 2/3rds of the states. Ultimately, the state ratifications are determined by the people and so it would be impossible to repeal the Bill of Rights or any of the Articles. It's too well designed to allow that.



Yes it is. It would require decades, or would even be impossible to repeal even one of the Bill of Rights amendments. It would also require a vast majority of the people, Congress, the army, and everyone else to support it. A dictator could not come to power save by forcefully taking over the United States.

I don't know much about the US constitution or Government structure but I would seriously doubt that any democracy is invulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. You mention "forcefully taking over the US". While this could be impossible, the situation to worry about is becoming a dictatorship with the approval of the people, not by force. All this would require would be a significant threat to the country, and a popular President who insists that the people must 'temporarily' give up freedom to guard it in the long term. I believe that with enough popularity, a dictator couldfind a way around the must robust laws, and it's disturbingly easy to imagine the American public agreeing to this.

And the basis for this supposition is...? Oh yeah, I forgot, Diebold.

lmao

Hey, your local college is teaching a class...


Losing 101 -- How to lose with class

i recommend it for democrat whiners

Oh, does it now? Reads more like the unchallengable guarantee of pure, unchecked, unfettered power has done this last quite capably. In any other modern democracy, a figure like Bush would face real consequences for his shoddiness.

Not in the US. Other countries have limits on the way elections can be financed, and you get set amounts of money to campaign with. In the US, the winner of these elections would be the ones who could raise the most money and obeyed special interests and Congress the best; unlike now, where this bribery only happens every four years, it could easily be happening yearly.

Plus, there are only two parties and there wouldn't be enough candidates from different parties to keep the elections from getting out of control.

I don't know much about the US constitution or Government structure but I would seriously doubt that any democracy is invulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. You mention "forcefully taking over the US". While this could be impossible, the situation to worry about is becoming a dictatorship with the approval of the people, not by force. All this would require would be a significant threat to the country, and a popular President who insists that the people must 'temporarily' give up freedom to guard it in the long term. I believe that with enough popularity, a dictator couldfind a way around the must robust laws, and it's disturbingly easy to imagine the American public agreeing to this.


I think an armed populace would not let that happen. Now before you say well they will just take away all the guns before hand. I don't see that happening. To many strong gun lobbyists. *New Orleans is something entirely different*

as for 2008, democrats will need to do better outside of the Left Coast (People's Republics of California and Oregon, respectively, and the fairly neutral state of Washington) and the northern East Coast and large urban/poor areas.

I think an armed populace would not let that happen. Now before you say well they will just take away all the guns before hand. I don't see that happening. To many strong gun lobbyists.

yah, the US will remain a representative republic for a very, very long time.

there's no way you could tyrannize a populace that owns 250 million guns.

as for 2008, democrats will need to do better outside of the Left Coast (People's Republics of California and Oregon, respectively, and the fairly neutral state of Washington) and the northern East Coast and large urban/poor areas.


You know what. I have been voting republican but I'll vote in 2008 for whoever is the best candidate. If that means a democrat then that's how I will be voting.

You know what. I have been voting republican but I'll vote in 2008 for whoever is the best candidate. If that means a democrat then that's how I will be voting.

I do the same thing, which is why I didn't register for either party. Both of them generally suck, so you have to pick and choose the best, or in some cases the lesser of two evils.

lmao

Hey, your local college is teaching a class...


Losing 101 -- How to lose with class

i recommend it for democrat whiners

Ah, I see your picture is on the front of the textbook. I also see a related textbook with your pic on the cover: Denial 101: How to Be a Good Republican Puppet.

No, it would likely be the opposite because the legislative branch would be the ones who are responsible for having new elections. Whenever the president goes against the majority in Congress, he'd be gone and replaced with some puppet.


Not if the people voted in a president who was not the puppet, because the people would realise it was Congress blocking things, not the President.



The army is made up of volunteers whose loyalty is to their country and its institutions first. The president may be the commander in chief, but the army doesn't belong to him; since all of them have these rights and live their lives under these priveliges, the army would definitely not support a tyrant from destroying what they are fighting for.


An army may not see the tyrant, but a savour of the country, and as you say, if they have loyalty to the country, they may see it fit, to support that saviour.


The second cannot be done; it violates the Constitution and so is impossible without an extremely drawn out political battle, repeated levels of ratification, and the support of at least 66% of the voting population. The Constitution is the supreme law, and anything than contradicts it is illegal.


It can be done if the tyrant has the people on his/her side, because he/she says it's for the good of the country.

The constitution in such a case would not be the supreme law, for that would be reserved for the dictator, and the constitution would be seen as irrelevant or outdated for a time of 'national emergency.'




It's possible, but highly unlikely. People are easily swayed by fear and will often do exactly what you describe, but the sheer difficulty of changing the Constitution is the major safeguard against this.


It would not be a difficulty to change it or indeed, abolish it if as I have said, the dictator managed to manipulate his/her way way with the people, army and members of the congress themselves.



Of course, if the dictator to be can keep their support up long enough to go through all of the repealing of the constitution and stay in power long enough to do so, then we're screwed.


The repealing of the constitution can be done quite quickly under a dictator....again, manipulation.


However, most people will wake up before that and take action;


Don't take that for granted.

People can be manipulated, and they will quite happily, ignorantly, participate, or sleepwalk unaware of what is happening.





this happened in the years following 9/11, when the almost irrational fear led to a willingess to sacrifice rights for safety. However, when the initial fervor wore off, people turned very vocal very quickly


Not everybody. Those that are vocal are called 'unpatriotic' and 'unmerican' or 'anti-american'.

The irrational fear, and the willingness to sacrifice rights for safety is still there, conciously, and unconciously.


and that explains why even during a war the incumbent president only won by a small margin.

And what about those that did vote for him?

yah, the US will remain a representative republic for a very, very long time.

there's no way you could tyrannize a populace that owns 250 million guns.

Actually there is. And with constitutional protection from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial apparently void with regards to 'terrorists' it just got very easy.

You just need to keep them distracted while you elminate troublemakers, Hitler did it quite neatly.

I do the same thing, which is why I didn't register for either party. Both of them generally suck, so you have to pick and choose the best, or in some cases the lesser of two evils.

true there are no real conservatives just crazy oil nuts and democrats have betrayed andrew jackson their founder sothey all really suck but if the republicans go for Guliani or however its spelled then they should win

:eek: :sniper:

I don't know much about the US constitution or Government structure but I would seriously doubt that any democracy is invulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. You mention "forcefully taking over the US". While this could be impossible, the situation to worry about is becoming a dictatorship with the approval of the people, not by force. All this would require would be a significant threat to the country, and a popular President who insists that the people must 'temporarily' give up freedom to guard it in the long term. I believe that with enough popularity, a dictator couldfind a way around the must robust laws, and it's disturbingly easy to imagine the American public agreeing to this.

Agreed. Sadly.

I think an armed populace would not let that happen.

Not if the armed populace are swayed by a leader saying he/she is saving the country at a time of national emergency.

Not if the armed populace are swayed by a leader saying he/she is saving the country at a time of national emergency.


It didn't happen in the United States after 9/11 now did it? :rolleyes: It didn't happen when the so called Patriot Act went into effect either. You just do not understand at all. The GUN LOBBY is to strong to let that happen and you have Senators and congressman that will not let it happen.

Not if the armed populace are swayed by a leader saying he/she is saving the country at a time of national emergency.

especially when much of the armed population seems like it would be more than willing to march on rome... i mean washington dc... to demand that their great leader be given more power.

Not if the armed populace are swayed by a leader saying he/she is saving the country at a time of national emergency.

And in that case, an armed populace might even be a catalyst for the overthrow of a constitutional government.

lmao

Hey, your local college is teaching a class...


Losing 101 -- How to lose with class

i recommend it for democrat whiners


Diebold was a valid point. Your comment was complete flame bait. Stick to the topic please. Gymoor, you too. tit for tat is not what we want here.

America is NOT immune to a dangerous imbalance of power. It is not impossible for reasonable people to have done the research on Diebold and come away feeling less than confident in the current elections machine policies. The ease with which the electronic machines can be hacked or manipulated by the programmers is truly disturbing. How can a democracy function properly without valid elections?

Hey, your local college is teaching a class...

Losing 101 -- How to lose with class

i recommend it for democrat whiners

Ah, I see your picture is on the front of the textbook. I also see a related textbook with your pic on the cover: Denial 101: How to Be a Good Republican Puppet.

Both of you need to cool it before you end up with official warnings for baiting and flaming each other.

It didn't happen in the United States after 9/11 now did it? :rolleyes:

Bush has not called for the abolishment of congress though, has he? Because the majority of Congress are with him (at this moment)


It didn't happen when the so called Patriot Act went into effect either.

The people and congress let it happen though, did it not?


You just do not understand at all. The GUN LOBBY is to strong to let that happen and you have Senators and congressman that will not let it happen.

You just do not understand at all. The GUN LOBBY (Oh look, I can type it in capitals too) is so strong and swayed by patriotic fervour that it could let it happen if a dictator uses patriotism as an excuse and is convincing, and senators and congressman can let it happen.

especially when much of the armed population seems like it would be more than willing to march on rome... i mean washington dc... to demand that their great leader be given more power.

Yep.

And in that case, an armed populace might even be a catalyst for the overthrow of a constitutional government.

Agreed.

And in that case, an armed populace might even be a catalyst for the overthrow of a constitutional government.


Indeed. Especially if that populace were whipped into a frenzy by the "moral majority" (which is neither, IMO) and rampant mainstream media propaganda. The Bush admin is nothing if not adept at marketing.

Those figures are all well and good, but neither site has provided the internal demographics for the poll. I am not about to accept any poll I can't analyze, because so much of polling is who, when, how, and by what means you poll, let alone the question and answers possible.

That’s great, but it's meaningless.

It wouldn’t matter if is approval rating was 99% or 1%, the voting population of the US will never again hold George W. Bush to account for his second term actions, because he can't be re-elected as President.

Also his actions will have an insignificant effect on whoever follows Bush for the top job for the republicans in 2008, as they will be given a "clean slate" as they can't be blamed for Bush's actions (unless that person is chosen from Bush's current advisory team, which is unlikely).

And of course be that the Republicans will probably hold on to most of their representative power post-bush as well, as (i'll bet) the last year of the Bush administration will be about "pork barrelling". Except for the fact that all of the Republican politicians currently holding political office must be holding between 8% & 15% of their vote as perconal votes (ie. A vote for the person, not for the party) based on approval vs. notional party results.

As unfortunate as it is for both the Democrat supporters, and the democratic political process as it is, Bush is in charge now, and it is more then likely that the next US president and government will also be Republican. These results mean very little, I'm sorry but it's just the way it is.

Semar

how about we RECALL him!

The recall was a part of the Californian constitution, not the United States constitution.

Otherwise Slick Willy woulda been yanked from his office :)

Bush has not called for the abolishment of congress though, has he? Because the majority of Congress are with him (at this moment)



The people and congress let it happen though, did it not?



You just do not understand at all. The GUN LOBBY (Oh look, I can type it in capitals too) is so strong and swayed by patriotic fervour that it could let it happen if a dictator uses patriotism as an excuse and is convincing, and senators and congressman can let it happen.

Bush cannot abolish congress now can he? No! Just like he cannot abolish the Supreme Court. If he ever tried he would be ripped from office so fast heads wouldn't even have time to spin.

It is never going to happen and it's as simple as that. Your argument about it dealing with Patriotism is dead wrong. It has to do with money. Nothing more and nothing less.

Bush cannot abolish congress now can he? No! Just like he cannot abolish the Supreme Court. If he ever tried he would be ripped from office so fast heads wouldn't even have time to spin.

because of the magical powers of the constitution?

It's practically impossible for the US to become ruled by a dictatorship. The president and the congress are not responsible to each other nor voted in by each other, so neither could realisticly become a puppet to the either.

Civil Liberties may well be abridged, its happened before in the US, and will almost indoubtedly happen again. However, such laws are almost always found un-Constitutional once brought against the Supreme Court (of the US, not state supreme courts). And don't go one saying how the Supreme Court could become a puppet. Yes, Bush's nominations for the bench will have an effect, but once on the bench, none of the Justices are beholden to anyone or anything except the United States Constitution. And to change the system of the Supreme Court, you'd need 2/3 approval by the states [/I]after[I] it had been passed by the legislature.

Our founders were scared to death of tyrants. Thats why George Washington stepped down after 2 terms, even though he could probably have been re-elected indefinately.

I suppose anything is possible, but it is definately NOT probable, to turn the US into a dictatorship would take an enourmous amount of time. In the meantime, We'd be having elections every 2 years, so not only would we have to support it, we would have to continue supporting it for probably close to a decade. If the Red Scare couldnt produce tyranny in the 50s, it's not going to happen now.

as much as i now dislike bush, i still feel i would have voted for him in 2004. i think kerry would have messed up too. idk. either of them were probably bad choices. if it could have been like, bush/edwards that would be cool. edwards was good, and bush has good intentions at least. cheney sucks and i very much dislike kerry.

i'm more worried about 2008. there are no good republicans i see
and likewise no good democrats
(barrack obama should run. i'd vote for him. but i doubt he will.)

The recall was a part of the Californian constitution, not the United States constitution.

Otherwise Slick Willy woulda been yanked from his office :)

I'm afraid not. Clinton's approval rating on the day he was impeached was 72%

because of the magical powers of the constitution?

I would hope that the Federal Marshalls would arrest him.

I'm afraid not. Clinton's approval rating on the day he was impeached was 72%

Why I wasn't a real big fan of Clintons I would not have wanted him removed just for the Monica Scandal alone. He did make me laugh with his "It depends what your definition of Is is" :) That's classic. *Yes I know they tried to get him for perjury*

Nevermind. I can't argue with the peanut gallery. They harp on about some insignificant poll that doesn't mean anything (based on an inadequate sample). I think I'll stick to my promise and not post here anymore.

he never had the popular vote.. even when he won the election...

Wow. I'm not the only one who think the US could easily become a dicatorship. Whew! I was feeling lonely.

A few points I'd like to toss in:

Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected by previously staunchly democratic populaces. Neither nation expected their leader to destroy all their institutions and make himself a tyrant, but even when he did, the majority stayed on the bandwagon until they started to lose the war they had started.

Both countries were under pressure, and the people were feeling insecure when they decided to trade self-government for a "strong man." They were not forced, but chose to go this way in order to feel safer/better.

General Tommy Franks, having retired after Iraq, specifically warned against the increasing militarization of the US, saying that if there was another major terrorist attack -- involving nukes or bio-weapons and a lot of casualties -- the American people might voluntarily give up on democracy in favor of security.

George Washington is the greatest president, imo, because a couple of "our founders" actually suggested he become king, just because everyone was so in love with him. He, having fought an entire war to get rid of a king, said, uh, no.

My point is that democracy is a choice, not something that's in-born. America will only be a self-governing democracy as long as Americans choose to be govern themselves democratically.

Wow. I'm not the only one who think the US could easily become a dicatorship. Whew! I was feeling lonely.

A few points I'd like to toss in:

Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected by previously staunchly democratic populaces. Neither nation expected their leader to destroy all their institutions and make himself a tyrant, but even when he did, the majority stayed on the bandwagon until they started to lose the war they had started.

Both countries were under pressure, and the people were feeling insecure when they decided to trade self-government for a "strong man." They were not forced, but chose to go this way in order to feel safer/better.

General Tommy Franks, having retired after Iraq, specifically warned against the increasing militarization of the US, saying that if there was another major terrorist attack -- involving nukes or bio-weapons and a lot of casualties -- the American people might voluntarily give up on democracy in favor of security.

George Washington is the greatest president, imo, because a couple of "our founders" actually suggested he become king, just because everyone was so in love with him. He, having fought an entire war to get rid of a king, said, uh, no. So, to an extent, one man's choice decided our form of government.

My point is that democracy is a choice, not something that's in-born. America will only be a self-governing democracy as long as Americans choose to be govern themselves democratically.

Ok, just a bit of housekeeping before I let this one go.

how about we RECALL him!

Ok, Three things, First there is a better than average chance that that even with a 40% approval rating, Bush will still win based on the distorting effect of the electoral college. Second, the Democrats would have to reach reasonably deep to pull out a reasonable candidate to run in a mid-term recall. Third, a loss for the democrats would further fling them into disarray and make it even harder to come together for 2008.

It's all about risk/reward, the reward is great, but the consequences are even greater.

Of course it matters. Throughout the first term a Bush pronouncement was like the sermon on the mount as the Republicans in Congress and the Senate fell all over themselves to support his position in the hope that his popularity would rub off on them come election time. And no doubt it helped.

Having his popularity bottom out leaves the rest of the elected Republicans actually having to come up with their own opinions on issues that may be at odds with the White House, but to the betterment of the country.

Fair point, I keep forgetting we're talking about the US; there is only one perconal vote that matters, and that’s the one of the president himself. Its a good and bad thing, the good being that lazy members don't get to ride their personal popularity, the bad is that independent candidates don't have a chance, as they rely solely on their personal vote to secure seats.

Look, I would love to see a much closer race then I did in 2004, I really would, but unfortunately, the balance is tipped in favour of the Republicans, It's possible for the Democrats to make it back, but its going to take work and coordination that just didn't exist in 2004. The best of luck to them though.

Semar

I'm afraid not. Clinton's approval rating on the day he was impeached was 72%

What killed Gore was the bursting of the dot-com bubble more than anything. The blistering prosperity of the late 90's, which coincided with Clinton's impeachment, had more than begun to deflate by mid to late 2000; with Clinton more or less gone they decided to take some out on Gore, and I think that tipped the scale to Bush.

What killed Gore was the bursting of the dot-com bubble more than anything. The blistering prosperity of the late 90's, which coincided with Clinton's impeachment, had more than begun to deflate by mid to late 2000; with Clinton more or less gone they decided to take some out on Gore, and I think that tipped the scale to Bush.

Oh please. The general public was hardly aware of the bubble bursting until after Bush was elected. No, I think Gore was just too stiff and too easy for the media to peg dumb (and made up,) quotes on. Part of that was Rove's doing, and part of that was Gore's overconfidence. If Clinton had been able to run again, he would have won easy.

Nevermind. I can't argue with the peanut gallery. They harp on about some insignificant poll that doesn't mean anything (based on an inadequate sample). I think I'll stick to my promise and not post here anymore.you think 1000 voters across the country are an inadequate sample? The statistical error is 3.1% at 95.4% confidence level

well you see we cant do that, you see we are in our take over the world phase much like yall were awhile back

Err, did you just compare the US to Nazi Germany? O_o

you think 1000 voters across the country are an inadequate sample? The statistical error is 3.1% at 95.4% confidence level
+/- 3.1% 95.4% of the time, in case you didn't get that mesa.

Oh please. The general public was hardly aware of the bubble bursting until after Bush was elected. No, I think Gore was just too stiff and too easy for the media to peg dumb (and made up,) quotes on. Part of that was Rove's doing, and part of that was Gore's overconfidence. If Clinton had been able to run again, he would have won easy.

50% of American households owned stock, and Gore's campaign coincided with the collapse of the NASDAQ and their portfolios. Of course, the fact that Republican campaigners repeatedly talked down the economy had a considerable effect on the economy in late 2000; Gore had the issues, but the Republicans played (unfairly) to the pocketbook.

50% of American households owned stock, and Gore's campaign coincided with the collapse of the NASDAQ and their portfolios. Of course, the fact that Republican campaigners repeatedly talked down the economy had a considerable effect on the economy in late 2000; Gore had the issues, but the Republicans played (unfairly) to the pocketbook.
All's fair in politics, and it's tradition for the party out of power to try to make the situation look as dire as possible, so I don't fault them for that.

The group I fault most of all during that period is the press. They made Gore look like the biggest liar of all time by taking quotes out of context or completely misquoting him or in a couple of cases, just making shit up. Bopb Somerby over at the Daily Howler has archives of the stuff they did to Gore while all the while giving Bush a pass on stuff. It's the true dark spot in the history of modern media, although the 2004 election coverage wasn't much better.

I think this post fits well on this thread too, that is why I will post it.

Despite President Bush's poll numbers going down,
Bush 44, Clinton 46 is close,
Bush 34, Bush 41, 41 oh well that is daddy.
Bush 20, Reagan 59 what else did we expect,
Bush 42, Carter 50, while that is ridiculous, strange,
Bush 48, Kerry 47, very close, and that tells us alot about Kerry.

I think there is enough time left in President Bush' term in office to regain popularity, and help the Republicans win the next presidential election, I certainly hope so.

Most Republicans will vote Republican and
most Democrats will vote Democrat, seems like
its still fairly evenly divided, probably with a Republican edge.

I think this post fits well on this thread too, that is why I will post it.

Despite President Bush's poll numbers going down,
Bush 44, Clinton 46 is close,
Bush 34, Bush 41, 41 oh well that is daddy.
Bush 20, Reagan 59 what else did we expect,
Bush 42, Carter 50, while that is ridiculous, strange,
Bush 48, Kerry 47, very close, and that tells us alot about Kerry.

I think there is enough time left in President Bush' term in office to regain popularity, and help the Republicans win the next presidential election, I certainly hope so.

Most Republicans will vote Republican and
most Democrats will vote Democrat, seems like
its still fairly evenly divided, probably with a Republican edge.

I wouldnt say either side has a clear edge yet.

The more shit Bush dumps on the US, the more voters will turn out next time at the polls.
This wouldnt be good for the Republicans.

I also highly doubt any other NeoCon will get the Rep nomination either.
This war is giving them a nasty reputation.

Im thinking the Reps will run someone a bit more moderate, like maybe McCain.