FoxNews poll: Bush leads Gore 60-28 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 03:29:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  FoxNews poll: Bush leads Gore 60-28 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FoxNews poll: Bush leads Gore 60-28  (Read 9312 times)
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« on: April 29, 2010, 05:24:38 PM »

That's true about Dukakis and he won about what 7 states. McCain would've won easily in 2000.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2010, 05:28:25 PM »

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2010, 05:53:27 PM »

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.

Bush's original official goal wasn't to remove Saddam--it was to allow the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. After the inspectors were back in, Bush decided to invade anyway. I think that if McCain was President and Saddam would have allowed the inspectors back in, McCain would have let the inspectors do their job instead of invading Iraq. Reagan did not win the Cold War--it didn't even end under his watch. I could not see Reagan invading Iraq--he would have probably bombed Saddam first, and if Saddam would ahve allowed the inspectors back in, that would ahve been good enough for Reagan. I mean, Reagan didn't invade and occupy Libya when their dictator (Gadaffi) was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.

That's all true, but I think Bush sent in weapons inspectors to distract ppl while he was planning to take out Saddam. I would too if they tried to kill my dad. As for the Cold War not ending on Reagan's watch, come on. We defeated the Soviets through capitalism in the same manner that China is defeating us with their capitalism against our socialism today. It happened about 9 months after he left office but that's only a technicality.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2010, 12:55:50 PM »

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2010, 04:03:20 AM »

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.

Go die in a fire. It will be a good thing for the world.

I supported Iraq at the dawn of the invasion and never withdrew my support because it was "too hard" for our country to succeed in.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.