Harleyman Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Bush won 2000 because at the end of the day, the voters just would have preferred to have him round as a guest at the barbecue than Gore. Gore won most of the vote, and beat Bush nationwide, but that's not the point. the point is that Bush beat Gore where it mattered. It's only conjecture of course but if Gore had won (and 9/11 would have happened anyway) he may well have gone after the Taleban in Afghanistan but avoided invading Iraq. Gore's cabinet would not have conssisted of the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 at the end of the day, 2000 was just the closest election the United States ever had. I had all my left-liberal friends in the UK who knew I comprehend US constitution more than most, ringing through to ask if there was any way Gore might win. I replied first day knowing the consitution of the United States, that the Supreme Court was at that time a conservative body, and Bush would very likely become President under the law. I said first day, on the Wednesday, that it would be very unlikely Gore could win this. that wasn't the result that I wanted to personally see, and I wanted Gore to win, but I said that anyway, because I believed it to be true. Bush was going to win, either by the House or by the Court. Anybody with knowledge of and realistic assessment of the operational Constitution of the United States at that particular time, would have said the same. Bush won that election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 What's alarming about that? You'd have to have the intellect of a boiled potato not to realise Fox is mainly pro-Republican propaganda just like you'd not be the brightest bulb in the box if you thought the Gaurdian was not just a little big whiny champagne socialist left wing. . Slight problem with your analogy there. The Guardian actually breaks important stories. For instance, they were largely responsible for keeping up the pressure which finally led to some action being taken against the assorted crooks and swindlers embedded right across the top echelons of our society - from police to politicians to media moghuls - whose activities are continuing to be outed in the ongoing News International scandal. Fox News on the other hand, are the main political arm of the organisation at the centre of this web of lies and corruption, and their stock in trade is making up lies to misinform and to destroy the reputation of anyone who stands in the way of the self serving politics promoted by their owner and his many powerful friends. You could only compare the Guardian to Fox News in terms of partisan reporting, if you consider uncovering the lies and propaganda spread to further the partisan interests of a corrupt and self serving minority to be as politically biased as propagating the lies and propaganda in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 not as powerful as the Murdoch-haters like to think they are, though, are they, Fox. when the big challenge came, and they needed to keep a leftish Democrat out of the White House, they flopped big style and Obama won by a landslide. their endorsing the UK Tories in 2010 was also not exactly a path covered in glory. Cameron only just got a third of the vote and had to suffer what is for the Conservatives the ignominy of not being able to govern in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin's Wrath Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Fox news would be hilarious if it didn't pretend to be news. I once watched a half an hour special on the names "osama and obama" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alternageek Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525?page=1 It's a very long article, but if you have an interest in American politics and have a spare half an hour then I strongly recommend you have a read of this. It would appear that the recent revelations about Murdoch's influence over British politicians pale into insignificance when compared to the power of the Fox News propaganda machine. YaY Rolling Stone. Every once in a blue moon they produce proper journalism.. Even if its biased... I would have voted for John McCain but the fact of his age at the time and the Bimbo he chose for his running mate decided me against it. The Vice-President after all is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency As a life long democrat, I would have voted for the McCain of the late 90s. He was a brilliant politician back then. He didnt tow the party line and voted for both Democratic and Republican bills. He was more of a true Independent/Libertarian politician than he was a Republican. The McCain after the Bush election is a shell of the man he once was. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 true, the McCain that gave Bush a run for his money in the primaries of 2000 wasn't the same guy that turned up in 2008. The Brits basically don't understand that American presidential candidates are not the leaders of political parties same way UK Prime Ministers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTYKE Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So um...not actually Orwellian then.... SO 'UM - you actually read Orwell did you? So did I; at least two of his books Animal Farm and yes - 1984. I sorry if I offended your elite literate sensibilities; maybe I should have said, 'A dark future where we are minutely controlled' - would that have suited you better you petty, hair-splitting little man? Why don't you try to write something worth reading as you are so well read - something with perhaps a grain of originality about it? Or maybe you'll just plod along trying to discover unimportant inaccuracies in the posts of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 you could actually make a case that if anything, it was Murdoch and News International that scuppered the Tories and Cameron's chances of getting an overall majority. It was them nagging at him that helped persuade him to subject himself to the tv debates (of which Sky got 1 of the 3), even though it was obvious to almost everybody else that he couldn't possibly benefit from it politically. some ally huh. It's a toss up whether News Corp and Fox is more of a hindrance to conservative politicians in the United States, or here. They're useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 true, the McCain that gave Bush a run for his money in the primaries of 2000 wasn't the same guy that turned up in 2008. The Brits basically don't understand that American presidential candidates are not the leaders of political parties same way UK Prime Ministers are. McCain never abandoned his form of moderate Republicanism. He had the <REMOVED> only last week to speak out against the Tea Party fanatics and their crazy antics which led to the debt ceiling fiasco and the shocks that went through Wall Street and the rest of the world. He's the only non-Tea Party Republican with any guts. Even House speaker John Boehner daren't pass wind without the okay from that lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.