US Presidential Poll

[Bhs Crew]

It was time for another of these.
Please make your selection. Those of you who aren't allowed to vote in the United States this election, please feel free to vote in this poll anyway.

[Drakeon]

I'll make a wager right now that most of the Kerry votes are because he's not Bush, but I guess thats the whole point of the poll? :p

[Bhs Crew]

I'll make a wager right now that most of the Kerry votes are because he's not Bush, but I guess thats the whole point of the poll? :p
Damn straight.

[Unreg!stered]

Boo no undecided selection? Where else could I express my neutrality? ;)

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

Yep im on the ABB Plan (Anybody But Bush). Hell, Id vote Danny Devito if he and Bush were the only choices. :lol:

[Elevander]

I can't vote. If I could, I wouldn't. If I had to, i'd vote for kerry, because BHS did.

[Neelaus]

This is so stupid. Let us just declare Kerry the winner and destroy this thread. :grrr:

BUSH IS DUMB! ~ Fraq Chiraq, October 2002

BUSH IS DUMB! ~ Entire World, January 2003

Europeans are conformists. :sleep:

[linus]

I dont live in the US but i dont like anybody of them.

[powermongor]

It was time for another of these.
Please make your selection. Those of you who aren't allowed to vote in the United States this election, please feel free to vote in this poll anyway.

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.

[powermongor]

I'll make a wager right now that most of the Kerry votes are because he's not Bush, but I guess thats the whole point of the poll? :p

If just makes me feel all warm and squishy inside that you guys are so behind the man who very well may lead this country for the next 4 years...

[SpiritWalker]

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.
Of course, then the EU can invade the US for all it's riches.. you will all belong to us again!!11!1 mwuahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahaha..

Edit: First thing we'll do is change that silly name of a New York back to New Amsterdam.. :uhhuh:

[ScytheNoire]

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.
that is the stupidest thing i've heard. vote for Kerry because he'll make America weak. ya, and Bush is making America strong and safe and profitable? i think not. only the rich are getting richer, Bush is the one who scares people with the talks of terrorism, Bush started the war for his own gain, Bush is not a good President.

[Eiger]

Owwie! Look at those poll results. THUMP!

[Graav Wolfsong]

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.

*Speechless* *Begins to find a way to express himself* *ahem* BwAaHAHAHAHAHhaAHAHAA!!!!!!11121!

Here's for objective thinking. :drink: :xirish:


Of course, then the EU can invade the US for all it's riches.. you will all belong to us again!!11!1 mwuahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahaha..

Edit: First thing we'll do is change that silly name of a New York back to New Amsterdam..

Why invade when we could just pool our money, buy out their debt and repo the whole damn country. :lol:

Now what American stuff would you want? I pick Jessica Alba and Alaska. The rest is up for grabs. :thumbsup:

[Unreg!stered]

Owwie! Look at those poll results. THUMP!

Yes indeed look at those results. It's frightening and disgusting. American politics have sunk so far where it doesn't matter who we vote for, what they stand for just as long as they aren't the other guy. To me these results perfectly illustrate how bad American politics and politicians have become and how, as a country, we've lost our way.

Oi...

Bad America! Bad Americans! Bad President! Bad Politicians! Bad Media! How dare you all destroy our dream with your corrupt, polarizing ways!? :rant: It may not be sexy sitting in the gray but from my view point things are even worse no matter what side of the line you fall on.

[Drakeon]

I honestly don't see why everyone thinks everybody but bush standpoint is a good one. Sure it'll get the diehard democrats, but you always get them.

How will that standpoint attract swing voters? Y'know, the ones who don't vehemently hate Bush? Just saying that its better to have anyone but the guy in office won't win you the election, or at least thats my conjecture.

[Unreg!stered]

I honestly don't see why everyone thinks everybody but bush standpoint is a good one. Sure it'll get the diehard democrats, but you always get them.

How will that standpoint attract swing voters? Y'know, the ones who don't vehemently hate Bush? Just saying that its better to have anyone but the guy in office won't win you the election, or at least thats my conjecture.

Being one of the swing votes I can say that you're right. The "anybody but Bush" stance doesn't convince me of anything. To date Kerry hasn't provided me with any reason to vote for him, rather he just reiterates reasons I would want to not vote for Bush. Sadly, most elections run this way, although this one is much more polarized than any I can remember.

[Andarcel]

If just makes me feel all warm and squishy inside that you guys are so behind the man who very well may lead this country for the next 4 years...
Every time you post another conspiracy theory, I have to remind myself that you're serious.

I honestly don't see why everyone thinks everybody but bush standpoint is a good one. Sure it'll get the diehard democrats, but you always get them.

How will that standpoint attract swing voters? Y'know, the ones who don't vehemently hate Bush? Just saying that its better to have anyone but the guy in office won't win you the election, or at least thats my conjecture.
You know, most election cycles the burden is on the incumbent to show why he should be reelected. There's a reason Bush has put in every effort to avoid having to make that case this year.

[Bhs Crew]

I honestly don't see why everyone thinks everybody but bush standpoint is a good one. Sure it'll get the diehard democrats, but you always get them.

How will that standpoint attract swing voters? Y'know, the ones who don't vehemently hate Bush? Just saying that its better to have anyone but the guy in office won't win you the election, or at least thats my conjecture.
Very well, then why SHOULD we have this guy (Bush) in office. For the next four years Kerry is the unknown. I KNOW Bush will continue to be a bad President where there is a good chance Kerry won't be worse then him. That makes it a good bet to vote for Kerry.

[powermongor]

Most national polls show Bush ahead by a small margin, making definite gains in the last couple of months. Kerry has lost alot of support among key constituencies as we have moved closer to the election. This poll is no way representative of the nation as a whole, this forum is dominated by left-of-center commentary, not to mention the fact that people in other countries were allowed to vote.

When Bush wins, I really hope that you guys learn your lesson... you have to put forth a candidate with better credentials than "he's not Bush". Half the country apparently has no problem re-electing Bush, how did you think you were going to reach out to these voters by running a guy like Kerry? Truth is, there are alot of repubs that aren't 100% behind him either, but you wouldn't run a guy like Lieberman, who many of them would have supported because he is a moderate. It could be worse, you guys could have run Dean, but then again the election would already be in the bag for Bush if you guys had gone with him.

Bottom line: If you were going to run a candidate on the "anyone but Bush" program, then you should have picked one that could get the support of Republican voters, but you guys didn't. November is going to suck for democrats IMHO.

[powermongor]

Every time you post another conspiracy theory, I have to remind myself that you're serious.


What conspiracy? I meant to say that you guys are throwing your support behind someone just because he isnt Bush. He could have all kinds of messed up ideas, but you don't care.

[powermongor]

You know, most election cycles the burden is on the incumbent to show why he should be reelected. There's a reason Bush has put in every effort to avoid having to make that case this year.

Actually, the incumbent typically has it easier than the challenger in every election cycle.

Also, Kerry is going to lose.

[Bhs Crew]

Most national polls show Bush ahead by a small margin, making definite gains in the last couple of months. Kerry has lost alot of support among key constituencies as we have moved closer to the election. This poll is no way representative of the nation as a whole, this forum is dominated by left-of-center commentary, not to mention the fact that people in other countries were allowed to vote.

When Bush wins, I really hope that you guys learn your lesson... you have to put forth a candidate with better credentials than "he's not Bush". Half the country apparently has no problem re-electing Bush, how did you think you were going to reach out to these voters by running a guy like Kerry? Truth is, there are alot of repubs that aren't 100% behind him either, but you wouldn't run a guy like Lieberman, who many of them would have supported because he is a moderate. It could be worse, you guys could have run Dean, but then again the election would already be in the bag for Bush if you guys had gone with him.

Bottom line: If you were going to run a candidate on the "anyone but Bush" program, then you should have picked one that could get the support of Republican voters, but you guys didn't. November is going to suck for democrats IMHO.
Yes the democrats should have. I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary because I knew his chance of winning would be lower than some of the others.

One of the main advantages of Kerry being in office is many Republicans would stop supporting Bush's idiotic policies and instead oppose Kerry's idiotic policies. This would allow the Republican Party to move back the solid principles that it stands for. The last thing I want is a whole generation of "Bush Republicans."

I've said it before, the future of the Republicans depends on Bush losing this election. It is the only way they will stop embracing policies so counter to all their ideals.

[Unreg!stered]

Very well, then why SHOULD we have this guy (Bush) in office. For the next four years Kerry is the unknown. I KNOW Bush will continue to be a bad President where there is a good chance Kerry won't be worse then him. That makes it a good bet to vote for Kerry.

Glass half full...or half empty? Bush is a bad, bad president, only the diehards would really argue against that, but Kerry is the unknown and those haven't always been better. I've said it before and it still holds true, in politics things can and will get worse, no matter how bad the current situation. I'm more concerned with what happens if things get worse. :)

One of the main advantages of Kerry being in office is many Republicans would stop supporting Bush's idiotic policies and instead oppose Kerry's idiotic policies. This would allow the Republican Party to move back the solid principles that it stands for. The last thing I want is a whole generation of "Bush Republicans."

I've said it before, the future of the Republicans depends on Bush losing this election. It is the only way they will stop embracing policies so counter to all their ideals.

While I don't know if the future of the party completely hinges on whether or not Bush wins the election I will give a hearty "amen" to not wanting more "Bush Republicans." I just think it's funny that the candidate (Bush) the old guard Republicans chose during the primary of 2000 turned out to be a worse Republican than the moderate choice (McCain). God forbid, though, that any future Republican actually tries to shrink the government and actually follow the ideals of the party... :uhhuh:

[Father Jack]

Half the country apparently has no problem re-electing Bush, how did you think you were going to reach out to these voters by running a guy like Kerry?

I know a guy who roots for a horrible sports team, but if you ask him he'll tell you they arer the best team in the league. And he beleives it to his soul, despite all evidence to the contrary. But its his team and he can't see them any other way but as the best. It's a common mental condition called 'Cognative Dissonance'.

In addition I less than 20% of Americans can even find Iraq on a blank map, and 50% believe it was Iraq that attacked the US on 9/11. So with a population that misinformed by a corprate controled entertainment news media. Which includes a 24hr a day right wing pep rally, yeah I'm looking at you Fox News. It's no wonder Bush is still so popular.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.

Let's talk about weak for a moment. I think everyone with any degree of common sense can attest to the fact that power is only existant if there is money to support it.

Let's look at Bush economics for a moment.

Clinton left office with a 430 billion dollar surplus. This money was basically handed to Bush on a silver platter. Now thanks to Bushs tax cuts for the rich and rediculous spending, let's look at the current deficit estimate.

*drumroll*

7.5 TRILLION... yes I said TRILLION dollars. Now if that isn't bad enough, his spending trend is only getting worse. But most estimates, if Bush is in office another 4 years, this country will be 16 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Now if that doesn't knock some sense into you, let's do some very basic math. When Clinton was wearing down the deficit, he was able to gain roughly 230 billion every year. At 7.5 Trillion dollars it would take us 32 years before we are able to break even on the budget again, and this is the absolutely BEST case scenario. At 16 Trillion it will take us 69 years to break even.

At 7.5 trillion dollars every citizen current must pay the goverment 35,000 dollars in taxes. I don't have that kind of money, do you? No?

I will assume you have the common sense to know what happens to countries who are financially defunct, because if you don't then there is no point in even discussing this with you. We are beyond defunct right now, our country is literally broke financially. We are continueing to spend billions of dollars a month that we don't even have. That simply is idiotic policy there. Bush doesn't know the first damn thing about keeping a country running and he has shown that time and time again solely just looking at his spending.

I honestly wish the goverment would grow some balls, abolish the 2 term limit, and put Clinton back in office. I wouldn't give a damn if that man had a harem of secretaries taking turns around the clock giving him a bj, that man knew how to run a country.

So, you think having Kerry would make this country weak? What countries can easily be considered weak? The poor. Right now, we ARE the poor.

[powermongor]

Yes the democrats should have. I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary because I knew his chance of winning would be lower than some of the others.

One of the main advantages of Kerry being in office is many Republicans would stop supporting Bush's idiotic policies and instead oppose Kerry's idiotic policies. This would allow the Republican Party to move back the solid principles that it stands for. The last thing I want is a whole generation of "Bush Republicans."

I've said it before, the future of the Republicans depends on Bush losing this election. It is the only way they will stop embracing policies so counter to all their ideals.

I agree that Kerry being in office won't be horrible, as long as there are enough Republicans in Congress to stop his ideas.

I disagree that Bush losing is the future of the Repubilcans. I think that a fundamental shift in the ethics of this country is the future of the Republican party (for hte better, guys, I know what you're thinking
:rant: )

In 20 years, if we keep this downward sloping trend in morals, you won't see too many Republicans getting elected.

At least Bush winning this November will help hold off that eventuality for another 4 years.

Then Powell in 2008 & 2012.

Twelve more years in tha bag :winner:

[Drakeon]

Just a note, Powell has stated he doesn't plan to run for President several times (I think, and no I don't have any links ATM). I think John McCain or Rudy Giulianni (I have no idea how to spell the last name) are much more likely candidates for 2008.

Good counter BHS, I guess Bush has to show why he should stay elected and Kerry has to show what he'll do different. But then again, I just stated what happens every election with an incumbent didn't I? :p

[Bhs Crew]

Powermonger-
Explain to me how these things are good for the Republican Party:
-Massive deficits
-Increased government spending
-Reduced liberties in favor of security
-Increased spending on Medicare
-Tariffs
-Becoming the police of the world

These are becoming the new ideals of the Republican Party. That is not a party I could live with.

You want to know why I don't believe Bush? Bush campaigned AGAINST all these things in 2000. That, my friend, is a true flip-flop.

[Eiger]

Nice burn!

*Crash, burn, boom!*

[powermongor]

I hate pasting the quote brackets repeatedly, but I guess I have to here:

Powermonger-
Explain to me how these things are good for the Republican Party:
-Massive deficits
-Increased government spending


How do you expect to fight 2 wars, secure our borders, and provide flight security without paying for it? If anything, we are picking up the tab for the neglect of the Clinton administration in Bush's administration.
Besides, I was watching one of the guys on Comedy Central the other night, a big-time dem, doing an HBO special, and he said that the way out of the 9/11 recession was thru public works spending. Well what the heck do you think Bush has effectively done by increasing funding for army, natl guard, coast guard, flight screeners, etc.


-Reduced liberties in favor of security


Do you think this country hasn't been here before? What about in WW2 when Japanese citizens were put in detention centers. I certainly think we can put up with the Patriot Act, knowing what they had to go thru. What the heck do you think Kerry would do differently? Would you rather have a socialist writing these kinds of laws?


-Increased spending on Medicare


-No way around it, but a stepping stone on the road to individual health care savings accounts. The ppl in this country have been lied to for decades. There is no such thing as free health care, its a joke.


-Tariffs


Right now one of Kerry's big campaign issues is outsourcing. If he wins, he will penalize US firms that find more efficient, cheaper production overseas, thus encouraging those companies to close those factories and bring jobs back to the US. While I don't really care if ppl overseas lose their jobs, how is this any different from Bush's tariff policies which discourage consumers and companies from buying from foreign companies? Both views are very protectionist, and make the rest of the world angry at us. They just attack the problem at different angles, the net result being the same.


-Becoming the police of the world

These are becoming the new ideals of the Republican Party. That is not a party I could live with.



Who the heck else is going to take out the bad guys? The UN? They have just recently committed to hold an investigation into the the ongoing genocide in Africa. Whooaa, tough stuff!!! It's only been going on for several months now with over 100,000 innocent ppl dead. I'm sure a resolution to condemn these attrocities is going to make those responsible tremble with fear. Like it or not, we are the good guys, and we have the powah!


You want to know why I don't believe Bush? Bush campaigned AGAINST all these things in 2000. That, my friend, is a true flip-flop.

Wait a minute, I can't see you completely disagreeing with some of these things. Do you not want more spent on medicare? Do you not want more spent on security measures? And you don't trust Bush b/c he said he wasn't going to spend alot and increase the size of govt?

Let me ask you, besides the Iraq war and the environment, I know where you stand there, what would you expect Kerry to do better than Bush??

[powermongor]

Elly closed my other thread!!!

I wanted that thread so I could go back to it on Nov. 3rd to prove I was right.

*Sigh*

Now my relishing of Bush's victory will be a little less sweet. Oh well, he still will have won, at least that's something. :winner:

[Drakeon]

That's because we already have too many threads on who will win, like this one. We don't need 5 different threads on the same topic :p

[Bhs Crew]

I hate pasting the quote brackets repeatedly, but I guess I have to here:
Yup.

How do you expect to fight 2 wars, secure our borders, and provide flight security without paying for it? If anything, we are picking up the tab for the neglect of the Clinton administration in Bush's administration.
Besides, I was watching one of the guys on Comedy Central the other night, a big-time dem, doing an HBO special, and he said that the way out of the 9/11 recession was thru public works spending. Well what the heck do you think Bush has effectively done by increasing funding for army, natl guard, coast guard, flight screeners, etc.
Yes but even if we fund all this we still have to live within our means. You can't do all this AND cut taxes every year. Also Bush has not vetoed (last time I checked) a SINGLE spending bill that came to his desk, no matter how pork laden or irrelevant it was.

There is always a good reason to spend more money, but future generations are going to have good reasons as well. The only way this system works is if make sure to not spend more than we have, only then can we start trying to pay it back.

Sorry I wasn't getting my economic advice from a Democrat on comedy central, I was getting it from Paul O’Neil the longtime Republican Presidential economic advisor to Ford, Bush Sr., and GWB (Bush Jr. was the only one to fire him though.)


Do you think this country hasn't been here before? What about in WW2 when Japanese citizens were put in detention centers. I certainly think we can put up with the Patriot Act, knowing what they had to go thru. What the heck do you think Kerry would do differently? Would you rather have a socialist writing these kinds of laws?
That is the whole point. This has already been done before and many years later Reagan issued a formal apology to the Japanese Americans who were detained and paid them reparations.

If we already know it is wrong, how can you tell me that it is acceptable this time? At least some Republicans and Democrats had the guts to fight against it and it is looking like many parts of it are going to be dropped. Just because FDR passed an act that went against everything America stands for, doesn't give future Presidents the right to do it to. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes.

I have no idea what Kerry would've done differently. There are some parts of the bill that are needed changes to an old system and completely find and others that are contrary to amendments in the Bill of Rights. If Kerry passed the exact same bill on 9/11 I can't see him refusing to change the unconstitutional parts of the bill when it comes up for renewal. Bush is unwilling to change the parts that even most of his loyal backers object to.


-No way around it, but a stepping stone on the road to individual health care savings accounts. The ppl in this country have been lied to for decades. There is no such thing as free health care, its a joke.
That's exactly my point. There is no such thing as free health care (which makes me wonder why you think Bush's proposal is a good thing. Do you just not know what it was?)
Bush passed a 400+ billion dollar plan (though he promised it would cost less than that) for medication. Simply put I plan to live life healthy until I keel over. Medication has its uses but it is enormously over-used in this country to provide fixes to living unhealthy. I don't want to pay for a huge generation of elderly people using pills to extend their lives and make up for unhealthy living on my tax dollar.


Right now one of Kerry's big campaign issues is outsourcing. If he wins, he will penalize US firms that find more efficient, cheaper production overseas, thus encouraging those companies to close those factories and bring jobs back to the US. While I don't really care if ppl overseas lose their jobs, how is this any different from Bush's tariff policies which discourage consumers and companies from buying from foreign companies? Both views are very protectionist, and make the rest of the world angry at us. They just attack the problem at different angles, the net result being the same.
Bush's tariffs simply raised the price of goods coming into this country. Kerry has his own proposal which I don't know exactly (cause he's not President and hasn't given it to Congress yet), but I was hoping I could count on the very divided Congress to mellow down Kerry's bill into a compromise.

When the Republicans start favoring tariffs there's no balancing factor and so a bill is less likely to find a workable compromise.


Who the heck else is going to take out the bad guys? The UN? They have just recently committed to hold an investigation into the the ongoing genocide in Africa. Whooaa, tough stuff!!! It's only been going on for several months now with over 100,000 innocent ppl dead. I'm sure a resolution to condemn these attrocities is going to make those responsible tremble with fear. Like it or not, we are the good guys, and we have the powah!
Yes, bad things happen all over the world. Millions of people die. We don't currently have the manpower and the resources to solve every world problem, and many countries don’t want us to come in and try our particular brand of problem solving. We should focus on doing what we can, within our means, against countries that actually pose a danger to us (like ignoring Iraq and putting pressure on Iran for example).

We can't do anything about Iran or as you mentioned Sudan, mostly because we have no money or troops to spare. That is due to Bush not understanding the idea of limits (maybe it's because every time one of HIS companies failed he got bailed out). You can only work with what you have and anything you borrow has to be paid back. This doesn't change just because you ignore it.


Wait a minute, I can't see you completely disagreeing with some of these things. Do you not want more spent on medicare? Do you not want more spent on security measures? And you don't trust Bush b/c he said he wasn't going to spend alot and increase the size of govt?
No I don't want to spend more on Medicare. I have no problem with spending more on security measures, but there's no way we can be completely safe while still being America so we have to pick and choose.

I don't trust Bush because he has lied about almost everything he said he was going to do. One of the few things he hasn't lied about is the tax cuts, and he doesn't understand how to use them anyway.


Let me ask you, besides the Iraq war and the environment, I know where you stand there, what would you expect Kerry to do better than Bush??
Not much. However I can't see him being on average worse than Bush. Mostly him being President might cause some conservative Republicans to remember that they are conservatives and they will oppose his more liberal ideas thus bringing back the much needed balance that has been lost since Bush became President.

[Eiger]

thus bringing back the much needed balance that has been lost since Bush became President.
Since Reagan in my mind... :rant:

[Bhs Crew]

Since Reagan in my mind... :rant:
Heh, balance is relative. Ideal balance means neither side can pass a massive law without intense compromise. This requires many different opposing views in congress. It is why I hate (really, really hate) people who vote along a party line regardless of the particular bill or individual involved.

[Tevush Kasht]

You do understand that the UN is a weak institution because of the US, right ?
Now I'm almost certain that Bush will win, just like he 'won' the previous election. I'm sure his staff can devise a scheme that will allow him to spend another 4 years in the White House.
The Prime Minister in my own country is an incompetent fool. Everybody knows it, and yet people keep voting for him each and every election. Why ? A lack of viable alternatives. The only competition is an extreme nationalist right wing party.
I also feel that the Bush administration has been able to do the things it did because of the weakness of the Democratic opposition, which has failed miserably. I'm sure this Kerry person will (or would) be a very competent president (at least he seems to understand the meaning of the words he uses, unlike some other candidates).
I believe the true problems here are the flaws of a two party system, which is inherently undemocratic, which allows the uncontrolled (ab)use of power by whichever party happens to be FOTM.

[Booms]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/ms_wednesday/Random/bushkitten.jpg

So true. :p

[powermongor]

You do understand that the UN is a weak institution because of the US, right ?


Lets see, the UN is headquartered in New York, I believe rent-free. We give their diplomats all kinds of protections while they are here, and lets face it this is the only country where all nations can safely represent themselves, even it is to the harm of the host country. Try doing that in China...

The US is the single largest contributor to the UN, a major contributor to its forces, and pretty much the only voice of credibility in the entire organization.

Yup, I definitely can see how we make the UN weaker. In fact, because we are just such a bad thing for the UN, maybe we should just leave. And because this is such a horrible country, maybe the UN should pack up and find a better one. Hey Tev, I am sure you guys over in the UK wouldn't mind donating a massive building and protecting it for the next 50 years, would ya? Thanx buddy :thumbsup:

[powermongor]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/ms_wednesday/Random/bushkitten.jpg

So true. :p

I just bought stock in a pet crematorium. Time to start looking at buying that Bentley.

[Bhs Crew]

I believe the true problems here are the flaws of a two party system, which is inherently undemocratic, which allows the uncontrolled (ab)use of power by whichever party happens to be FOTM.
To start just letting you know this isn’t a personal rant against you, it’s one that I’ve been thinking about and discussing for some time.

I'm going to say no.
We didn't actually have 2 options for President. Kerry was one of 10 or so people that ran during the democratic primary, all representing different wings of the Democratic Party. Bush himself was one of several contenders for the Republican nomination in 2000.

The US hardly has 2 parties Republican and Democrat. It is more accurate to say we have at least 51 democratic parties and 51 republican ones (one for each state and one nationally). Within each party are many different competing factions and ideas. Party loyalty is close to impossible to enforce and people stay a member of a party by choice (it is impossible to force a member out of a party). A democrat in Maine has almost completely different views then one from Georgia and there is nothing stopping a Democrat from Georgia from supporting the opposite party (as we saw with Zell Miller.)

My point in all this is that there are problems in our election systems and the solution is to try to make changes and support good candidates. I get annoyed when people blame a country's problems on some part of the system that is near impossible to change. This isn't really your fault; I'm just picking on you because you happened to make a post very similar to the whining I hear every day from liberals up and down this west coast.

Since I'm on this subject I'm going to make a brief post about why liberals often get beaten by conservatives (especially southerners).

When JFK and LBJ stole the election from Nixon (yes they did, and he of all people deserved it) back some years ago, Nixon didn't make a big stink about those cheating Democrats. He blamed himself for allowing the election to be stolen, figured out what he could've done better, came back 8 years later and became President.

When Gore got the election stolen by Bush (though when it's that easy you could say Gore gave the election to Bush) he didn't ask himself, "What can I do next time?" Instead he put up a half assed counter move and whined about how that bastard Bush stole what was his. By doing this he completely ruined any chance he had of becoming President ever again.

When liberals stop thinking of themselves as inevitable victims and start thinking about working with what they have, they will be far more successful. To two presidents who passed more liberal bills than anyone else were FDR (who had to deal with being a cripple) and LBJ (who rose up from nothing, like most southern politicians). They didn't whine and feel victimized when they didn't succeed, they just figured out how to solve their problems in the future.

[Eiger]

When JFK and LBJ stole the election from Nixon (yes they did, and he of all people deserved it) back some years ago, Nixon didn't make a big stink about those cheating Democrats. He blamed himself for allowing the election to be stolen, figured out what he could've done better, came back 8 years later and became President.

I recall Nixon returning to California in 1960 very depressed. In 1962, he ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California and stated famously that "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." After the Goldwater debacle in 1964, the Republicans didn't have a leading candidate and recruited Nixon for 1968. Nixon got extremely lucky in that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and George Wallace split the vote for a very close plurality victory.

Sure, the 1960 election was close, but it wasn't as much Kennedy stealing it as it was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley "arranging" a few extra votes... Now there was an effective democrat. Good old machine politics, hehe.

[Bhs Crew]

I assure you JFK stole his fair share of votes, though if there ever was a master vote stealer it was Johnson. The party bosses naturally did their part to help out the candidates. (and people talk about elections being corrupt now.)

I wasn't saying Nixon was happy about it, but he kept at it and eventually persevered (unfortunately). The important part was the he and his vice president viewed it as a failure on their part that they lost. Gore and his supporters consider themselves victims of Bush's cheating ways. This makes them far more likely to have it happen to them again.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Lets see, the UN is headquartered in New York, I believe rent-free. We give their diplomats all kinds of protections while they are here, and lets face it this is the only country where all nations can safely represent themselves, even it is to the harm of the host country. Try doing that in China...

Argh! *Counts to ten*
Geez, you are such a moron powermongor. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or pity you. Are you just ignorant or are you really this dumb? These incredibly ignorant, blanket comments you manage to constantly type out are exactly why Bush supporters have such a bad rep. Youre a walking, talking, barely thinking cliche. People like you ruin it for all the intelligent conservatives out there with well thought out opinions.


lets face it this is the only country where all nations can safely represent themselves

Try every western European country plus Canada plus Australia plus Asian countries like South Korea and Japan etc. If you had any idea what the world looks like outside US borders you would have stopped yourself from typing something so utterly ignorant.

[powermongor]

Argh! *Counts to ten*
Geez, you are such a moron powermongor. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or pity you. Are you just ignorant or are you really this dumb? These incredibly ignorant, blanket comments you manage to constantly type out are exactly why Bush supporters have such a bad rep. Youre a walking, talking, barely thinking cliche. People like you ruin it for all the intelligent conservatives out there with well thought out opinions.


How you can say these things of me, I do not know, especially since what I wrote was in response to an even more generalized blanket statement. Tells me enough about you. I have never personally attacked anyone on this forum; I may push the envelope to assert my position, but I have never come out swinging against someone as you have.

FYI, based on my consistently high test scores, there is a very low probability that you are even close to being smarter than me. Especially if that crap is the best you can do.

Honestly, I really shouldn't give a darn (keeping it clean for the kiddies :lol: ); I am looking ahead to Nov. 2, and the sweetness of victory.

You ought to start stocking up on kleenex.

[Sage the Mage]

On Bush's campaign website, try doing a search for any issue. I bet 99% of the things returned are Kerry did this, and this is bad!

Time for random quoting!

Then Powell in 2008 & 2012.
I'm farily sure that Powell will not be secretary of state in Bush's next term, I don't think there's a lot of love between Powell and the rest of the admin.

Heh, balance is relative. Ideal balance means neither side can pass a massive law without intense compromise. This requires many different opposing views in congress. It is why I hate (really, really hate) people who vote along a party line regardless of the particular bill or individual involved.

What happens there is bills become reallly slow to pass right? Yeah that's why its an ideal I'd guess.

Most countries want to US to be as weak as possible, which is why they support Kerry.

Bush already achieved this via sending troops to Afganistan and then Iraq.

but you wouldn't run a guy like Lieberman, who many of them would have supported because he is a moderate. It could be worse, you guys could have run Dean, but then again the election would already be in the bag for Bush if you guys had gone with him.

Dean screwed up with the whole yelling thing, while Liberman just plain sucks in my opinion. I'm not too keen on the pro-censorship ideal he has. Edwards is the why the hell you didn't choose this guy to run canidate.

Actually, the incumbent typically has it easier than the challenger in every election cycle.
Honestly, all Kerry has to do to win is use an ad from Reagan's time: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

The main reason an incumbent has an easier time is due to the larger amount of money to spend, and face recognition.

Kerry is the unknown and those haven't always been better. I've said it before and it still holds true, in politics things can and will get worse, no matter how bad the current situation. I'm more concerned with what happens if things get worse
We are a nation of optimists though :)


Right now one of Kerry's big campaign issues is outsourcing. If he wins, he will penalize US firms that find more efficient, cheaper production overseas, thus encouraging those companies to close those factories and bring jobs back to the US. While I don't really care if ppl overseas lose their jobs, how is this any different from Bush's tariff policies which discourage consumers and companies from buying from foreign companies? Both views are very protectionist, and make the rest of the world angry at us. They just attack the problem at different angles, the net result being the same.

Bush nearly caused a freakin trade war because of steel tariffs, I recall.

What the heck do you think Kerry would do differently? Would you rather have a socialist writing these kinds of laws?
Actually yeah. If a facist ever removed liberty it wouldn't be to promote equality, the socialist would do it to promote equality. Anyway it doesn't matter because Kerry is closer to being at the center than anything else.

Anywho, aren't we reaching the end of one of those poltical cycle thingies? Maybe we'll get another kickass progressive movement soon.

[Semidi]

socialist would do it to promote equality.

How would this be equal? Giving away free money to those who didn't earn it is equality? Taking money away from the docter who spends 10+ extra years in college is equality? What's the point of going to college right now? I should drop out right now because all I have to do is sit on my *** and let the goverment give me money!

W/E I enjoy reading this little debate.

[Graav Wolfsong]

How would this be equal? Giving away free money to those who didn't earn it is equality? Taking money away from the docter who spends 10+ extra years in college is equality? What's the point of going to college right now? I should drop out right now because all I have to do is sit on my *** and let the goverment give me money!

W/E I enjoy reading this little debate.

Do not confuse socialism with communism. In a socialist country, doctors can easily start or join a private practice and get just as filthy rich as any capitalist doctor.

[Bhs Crew]

What happens there is bills become reallly slow to pass right? Yeah that's why its an ideal I'd guess.
Not only that but they watch each other like hawks. Each party seems to be most like their ideals when they are in a fierce ideological struggle with the other side. Whenever one party gets control of all three branches (doesn't really matter which party) everything goes to hell.

[Graav Wolfsong]

How you can say these things of me, I do not know, especially since what I wrote was in response to an even more generalized blanket statement.

Oh so saying the US is weakening the UN is a generalized blanket statement?

You missed the point of the post completely wich was so obviously that the US weakens the UN by disrespecting what they helped create and going off to fight a war by themselves. Basically saying "We dont need you" and devaluing the international community.

But you go on a rant about the UN base of operations being in New York. Thats smart. :uhhuh:

And in the process you actually manage to claim that the US is the only nation in the world safe and free enough to host the UN.

lets face it this is the only country where all nations can safely represent themselves

And then you wonder why I ask if youre ignorant or just plain dumb?

Excuse me if you felt offended by me saying that youre the embodiment of the ignorant, redneck Bush voter stereotype that the intelligent conservative people on this forum desperately wants to rid themselves of but never will because of people like you.

I have never personally attacked anyone on this forum

I usually dont either. But youve had it coming for a while now with your ridiculously ignorant posts and that comment of yours that basically put down the entire world sure earned you some talkin' to.

FYI, based on my consistently high test scores, there is a very low probability that you are even close to being smarter than me. Especially if that crap is the best you can do.

Oh, wow. That sure showed me. The old test score ace-in-the-hole eh? I cant compete with that. Really, I should have seen by your well informed and thought out posts and your display of objective thinking and independent thought on this forum that you are much more intelligent than me.

[Semidi]

Stop harshing on powermonger; it's nice seeing a different view, Oh wait, Doh! I live in Texas, and I can't go a day without hearing republican propaganda!

This coming from an ultra-conservative, why dont you just post recordings from Rush and Mr. O? They say what you're saying and they say it better...

I guess what I'm trying to say (poorly) is that powermongers ranting is better aimed at fellow republicans rather than these communists :) .

[powermongor]

Do not confuse socialism with communism. In a socialist country, doctors can easily start or join a private practice and get just as filthy rich as any capitalist doctor.

In Canada, citizens are not allowed to pay for private health care.

FYI, every Canadian I know that can afford to, comes down to the US for their major health care procedures.

What country do you live in Graav? You wouldn't want to start making incorrect blanket statements, would you?

This is the guy that was all over me a few posts back. I could really have alot of fun in this post, but I will pass.

[Bhs Crew]

Bah. There's no reason to convince the people who already agree with you. The trick is to go into a group of your political opposites and convince them that you're a good guy and that there is some validity to your opinions.

[Booms]

And then, once they trust you, you kill them in their sleep.

[Graav Wolfsong]

In Canada, citizens are not allowed to pay for private health care.

FYI, every Canadian I know that can afford to, comes down to the US for their major health care procedures.

What country do you live in Graav? You wouldn't want to start making incorrect blanket statements, would you?

This is the guy that was all over me a few posts back. I could really have alot of fun in this post, but I will pass.

There are degrees of socialism, some may lean towards communism while the majority leans toward capitalism. (I'm not in any way saying Canada is some quasi-communist state) Modern socialism tend to lean toward capitalism with socialist ideals in place to keep things from getting out of control.
This idea that socialism is just watered down communism is wrong.

If you'd stop using one issue in one country as an example and just assume it's the same all over the world and look at socialist countries in general, you'd see that my statement is quite true.

And I live in Norway, wich is a socialist country. I know what I'm talking about.

[Ologg]

There are degrees of socialism, some may lean towards communism while the majority leans toward capitalism. (I'm not in any way saying Canada is some quasi-communist state)

Hey I am Canadian, let me set the story straight!

Acctually, we are. Back in the cold war the Russian used mind control to turn us all into zombiafied communist. Afterwards there was no sex, or swearing. So pretty much it was the same as it always was.

Anyways, we're planning to invade enventually, really we just want to get that John Stamos guy. God I hate that jerk.

[powermongor]

There are degrees of socialism, some may lean towards communism while the majority leans toward capitalism. (I'm not in any way saying Canada is some quasi-communist state) Modern socialism tend to lean toward capitalism with socialist ideals in place to keep things from getting out of control.
This idea that socialism is just watered down communism is wrong.

If you'd stop using one issue in one country as an example and just assume it's the same all over the world and look at socialist countries in general, you'd see that my statement is quite true.

And I live in Norway, wich is a socialist country. I know what I'm talking about.

Earlier, you were absolutely awful to me for making blanket statements.

As per my reply to your post, you made a blanket statement about socialist countries' health care. I am not at all saying in my post that socialist countries are communist. I said that Canada is a socialist country, and the people are not allowed to pay for private health care, which negates your blanket statement.

Don't get hostile just because your arguments are disproved.

[Tevush Kasht]

I admit that I do not fully understand US party politics, but looking at it from the outside, it seems to be very dangerous to have only two options.

I believe that a lot of people have an overly negative view of Socialism. Socialism is a system in which the rich and strong help out the poor and needy. This system reduces polarization and broadens the middle class, increasing the standard of life overall. A socialist system sets education, social security and health care as high priorities.
I am in no way a left voter, but I am still very happy to see that there is a social party in my country that makes sure that school, doctors and medication have a minimal cost (if at all existant) for the individual. I also support what Graav says, that a lot of Socialists lean towards capitalism as a basic structure.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Hey I am Canadian, let me set the story straight!

Acctually, we are. Back in the cold war the Russian used mind control to turn us all into zombiafied communist. Afterwards there was no sex, or swearing. So pretty much it was the same as it always was.

Anyways, we're planning to invade enventually, really we just want to get that John Stamos guy. God I hate that jerk.

Oh I'm so sorry. I wouldnt want to offend the reds.
I just couldnt imagine a country with a significant portion of cheese loving wannabe French people as hardline commies. We all know that communists have the Real Ultimate Power (http://truffula.net/~ultimate/) and that really didnt fit with the French image. :lol:

But I would also like to see John Stamos suffer a painful death and would like to help you in your invasion absolutely free of charge. :thumbsup:

[Dragonflame]

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush!!!! :yep:

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush!!!! :yep:

*starts to assemble sniper rifle*

[Dragonflame]

lol bush,bush,bush :yep: *puts on pullet prof vest*

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

lol bush,bush,bush :yep: *puts on pullet prof vest*

*loads the first of many Armor piercing rounds into the chamber* :evil:

[Bartleby]

Haha, that's hilarious. The majority of people voting for Kerry are doing it because he's not Bush. So what people are basically saying is that they're both @sshats, but we've already seen what Bush's fark up looks like, so we might as well see what Kerry's fark up will look like.

As for me, my vote does not count. I live in CA so Dweedle Dumb (or is it Dweedle Dumber?.. I can't really tell the difference) will be winning my state no matter what I do. I for one will be voting for another candidate and doing my part to encourage the growth of a third party.

[Bhs Crew]

I admit that I do not fully understand US party politics, but looking at it from the outside, it seems to be very dangerous to have only two options.
Which country are you from?

As I said before, there aren't two options. The Democratic Party already voted on Kerry out of 10 people. There is much more choice then you realize. The reason there are more than one candidate for each party is that a party is not a unified group in the US. There are numerous wings and divisions all across the country.

I am in no way a left voter, but I am still very happy to see that there is a social party in my country that makes sure that school, doctors and medication have a minimal cost (if at all existant) for the individual.
We have various candidates who lean towards socialism as well. The beauty of having weak parties is that you can find individuals who you support rather then voting for a group.

[Bhs Crew]

Haha, that's hilarious. The majority of people voting for Kerry are doing it because he's not Bush. So what people are basically saying is that they're both @sshats, but we've already seen what Bush's fark up looks like, so we might as well see what Kerry's fark up will look like.

As for me, my vote does not count. I live in CA so Dweedle Dumb (or is it Dweedle Dumber?.. I can't really tell the difference) will be winning my state no matter what I do. I for one will be voting for another candidate and doing my part to encourage the growth of a third party.
Good man. I live in California as well. Which minor party are you going to vote for?

[Bartleby]

Dunno, toss up between the Reform Party slate and the Libertarian Party slate. Neither of them really express my views, but I'd like to see someone new get a presence.

[Bhs Crew]

I'm pretty sure the reform party is about dead. I guess I'll vote Libertarian.

[Tevush Kasht]

I'm from Belgium.
Yes, if you are able to vote for individuals that are not forced to follow the party manifest, I can see how that is manageable. This is not how it works over here (you can vote for a party or a member of that party, but if you do vote for a specific member, it doesn't really matter as the party can later decide who they send to the parliament).

Either way, from everything I see here, the Democrats still run a weak opposition in your parliament, allowing the Bush administration to get away with far more than they should. While it may not be uncommon for a Republican senator to go against his president, it is usually much more difficult to rule a nation if you need a coalition of two parties with much different views to get anything done. More parties in general means more debate and more regular compromises between solutions that would otherwise be too extreme.
While European politics are much slower, the changes that occur here are well thought out and relatively small, American politics seem fast and sometimes with a lack of foresight (but they actually get things done). There are laws and propositions here that take multiple terms of the government to get passed, and believe me, those are not an exception.
Both systems have their downside, but I like the slow, steady and moderate approach.

[Andarcel]

In Canada, citizens are not allowed to pay for private health care.

FYI, every Canadian I know that can afford to, comes down to the US for their major health care procedures.

What country do you live in Graav? You wouldn't want to start making incorrect blanket statements, would you?

This is the guy that was all over me a few posts back. I could really have alot of fun in this post, but I will pass.
I have three immediate family members in the American healthcare system (two nurses and a psychologist). All concur that we will shortly be wishing we were on the Canadian system. Our system is teetering, and a little more pressure from insurance companies and few more years of baby-boomer nurses retiring, and this is going to be big news.

People come ot the US for healthcare because we have better technology, not a better system.

[Felicia]

The poll speaks more than the posts do in this thread. People want Kerry simply because he's not Bush. Zero discussion on the issues, and instead pointless debating back and forth with no sign of compromise, and little care for someone else's views. Much like what the modern UN is like.

Nobody cares about the issues, they just want Bush gone, and if Kerry does some bad stuff - bye Kerry - hello other unqualified president.

Quite frankly, it's not entirely the people's fault, neither president, in my personal view is qualified to be a good president. But there is little that can be done. If the 100+ million people who don't vote (just like last time), we deem them as uneducated people who don't care about their country or the issues at all. When, instead, it just might be because people are fed up with the way these presidential candidates act like idiots, and children, bantering each other for doing something wrong.

If you don't want Bush and you don't want Kerry, then don't vote! If everyone that mattered in the US didn't vote, it would speak volumes about how poor politics has become. Instead of this constant debating about the vanishing voter is because of apathy. Believe it or not media, Americans are a lot smarter and lot more aware than you think they are.

If you do want to see Kerry in office and not Bush, then don't give the blanket excuse that he's not someone else. Discuss WHY! Why is Kerry more qualified for one of the most powerful, influential positions in the world. What are the issues that he has that make him a better candidate than Bush, or anyone else.

And finally, be more open-minded of other people's opinions. If you can't even listen to the other side, then its no wonder this country is in such a sad state. People complain that Bush went off without the UN's consent against Iraq, look at what you're doing. Ignoring and disrespecting each other's own opinions. You think you're above it all? Then act like it.

[Eiger]

I said that Canada is a socialist country, and the people are not allowed to pay for private health care,


Umm, Canada is not a socialist country for one. And Canadians can pay for private health care in Canada. I know because I pay some of those bills.

[Bhs Crew]

The poll speaks more than the posts do in this thread. People want Kerry simply because he's not Bush. Zero discussion on the issues, and instead pointless debating back and forth with no sign of compromise, and little care for someone else's views. Much like what the modern UN is like.

Nobody cares about the issues, they just want Bush gone, and if Kerry does some bad stuff - bye Kerry - hello other unqualified president.
Really I've found this forum to be nothing but discussion on the issues. If you want to be cynical and assume no one can possibly do a good job in that position then that's your problem.

If you don't want Bush and you don't want Kerry, then don't vote! If everyone that mattered in the US didn't vote, it would speak volumes about how poor politics has become. Instead of this constant debating about the vanishing voter is because of apathy. Believe it or not media, Americans are a lot smarter and lot more aware than you think they are.
If you don't vote all it does is give more influence to the people that do.

If you do want to see Kerry in office and not Bush, then don't give the blanket excuse that he's not someone else. Discuss WHY! Why is Kerry more qualified for one of the most powerful, influential positions in the world. What are the issues that he has that make him a better candidate than Bush, or anyone else.
We've discussed many of the reasons why Bush is unusually bad and ways that Kerry will likely be better. It's your choice not to participate in them.

And finally, be more open-minded of other people's opinions. If you can't even listen to the other side, then its no wonder this country is in such a sad state. People complain that Bush went off without the UN's consent against Iraq, look at what you're doing. Ignoring and disrespecting each other's own opinions. You think you're above it all? Then act like it.
If you want to improve the debate then participate in it. This is one of the few times it has gotten bad. Most of the time we discuss issues in a civil manner and I have found these discussions to be quite deep. Instead of complaining about our debates why don't you try yourself to bring up the level to the standard that you obviously believe is not being met?

[Bhs Crew]

Either way, from everything I see here, the Democrats still run a weak opposition in your parliament, allowing the Bush administration to get away with far more than they should. While it may not be uncommon for a Republican senator to go against his president, it is usually much more difficult to rule a nation if you need a coalition of two parties with much different views to get anything done. More parties in general means more debate and more regular compromises between solutions that would otherwise be too extreme.
It is very very very very hard to get anything passed through congress. Make it any harder and we would never have another national law passed again (which tempting as it is, probably has some downside I can't see.)

While European politics are much slower, the changes that occur here are well thought out and relatively small, American politics seem fast and sometimes with a lack of foresight (but they actually get things done). There are laws and propositions here that take multiple terms of the government to get passed, and believe me, those are not an exception.
Both systems have their downside, but I like the slow, steady and moderate approach.
I guess since you're far away you only hear about the things that do get passed. Most of the laws passed here take over a year from when they were introduced to become law, and the vast majority of bills die in congress.

I'm going to say American Politics is much slower then it seems.

[Graav Wolfsong]

It is very very very very hard to get anything passed through congress. Make it any harder and we would never have another national law passed again (which tempting as it is, probably has some downside I can't see.)


"I propose that we give free school books to all children!" "Lets tack on a payraise for ourselves!" "Yeah!"

Democracy never works. :p

[Andarcel]

If you don't want Bush and you don't want Kerry, then don't vote! If everyone that mattered in the US didn't vote, it would speak volumes about how poor politics has become. Instead of this constant debating about the vanishing voter is because of apathy. Believe it or not media, Americans are a lot smarter and lot more aware than you think they are. I think that's a really awful idea. It tells politicians absolutely nothing. The only conclusion that will arise is "Apathy increases still more!" If you don't like either candidate, find one that meets your standards and write in his name. At least that will signal that you consider both candidates so hopelessly underqualified that you'd rather pick a lost cause. Just don't rationalize laziness and failure of your responsibilities as a citizen by claiming it will lead to some kind of reform.

And I should point out that both these candidates were chosen from a pool that contained what I consider excellent choices. These candidates weren't forced on you by some abstract system, they were selected by voters. If you think they selected the wrong guys, well then, I guess you're gonna have to blame their ignorance or stupidity. I do. Bush, for example, beat McCain because idiots in South Carolina bought into an absurd push-poll, and Kerry won because everyone wants to vote for a winner rather than the best guy.

Futher, most people consider the 2000 election also to be a case of the lesser of two evils, yet voting participation doubled that year. It's not the perception of the candidates' overall quality, it's the idea of what's at stake that drives them to the polls. The more difference between the candidates' positions, the more turn-out you get.

Finally, I have frequently disrespected people's opinions (as I just did with yours) and I will continue to do so. There are all sorts of bad opinions out there, from the uninformed to the ill-thought-out to the flamingly idiotic. I have no compunction about using any of these terms, but you'll note I always say why, usually at length and in great detail. If I'm wrong, well, ball's in the other guy's court. He's welcome to try and show me my error.

And arrogant I may be, but I certainly don't think I'm "above it all" and have no desire to act like it if I can help it. I never descend from on high to deliver lofty ultimatums on maturity to people who know what they're doing, for example.

[Unreg!stered]

The poll speaks more than the posts do in this thread. People want Kerry simply because he's not Bush. Zero discussion on the issues, and instead pointless debating back and forth with no sign of compromise, and little care for someone else's views. Much like what the modern UN is like.

Nobody cares about the issues, they just want Bush gone, and if Kerry does some bad stuff - bye Kerry - hello other unqualified president.

Quite frankly, it's not entirely the people's fault, neither president, in my personal view is qualified to be a good president. But there is little that can be done. If the 100+ million people who don't vote (just like last time), we deem them as uneducated people who don't care about their country or the issues at all. When, instead, it just might be because people are fed up with the way these presidential candidates act like idiots, and children, bantering each other for doing something wrong.

If you don't want Bush and you don't want Kerry, then don't vote! If everyone that mattered in the US didn't vote, it would speak volumes about how poor politics has become. Instead of this constant debating about the vanishing voter is because of apathy. Believe it or not media, Americans are a lot smarter and lot more aware than you think they are.

If you do want to see Kerry in office and not Bush, then don't give the blanket excuse that he's not someone else. Discuss WHY! Why is Kerry more qualified for one of the most powerful, influential positions in the world. What are the issues that he has that make him a better candidate than Bush, or anyone else.

And finally, be more open-minded of other people's opinions. If you can't even listen to the other side, then its no wonder this country is in such a sad state. People complain that Bush went off without the UN's consent against Iraq, look at what you're doing. Ignoring and disrespecting each other's own opinions. You think you're above it all? Then act like it.

While what Felicia said may not apply to everyone on this forum, it does apply to a huge, huge, huge majority of voters in this country no matter what their party lines are. It is both shocking and appalling to see what little it takes for people to vote for a candidate. From all that I've seen all that really matters is what symbol, R or D, follows their name. I've lost count how many people said they are voting for Bush because Kerry is either "evil" or "immoral", and when questioned as to how they know that they'll just mutter something about morality (something bogus) or they'll repeat that Kerry's "immoral" and hope I'll be convinced and leave them alone.

The Kerry voters are no better. Aside from some of the folk I've seen on this forum nearly all I talk to know very little about Kerry. They know nothing of his platforms, where he's from, or even where his experience in government comes from. When pressed to give a better reason why they are going to vote for Kerry other than "he's not Bush" they get very defensive and angry, more often than not calling me an idiot, ignorant, or heartless. The best responses I've seen come out from both sides is arrogant dismissal. Baisically the ol' hint which says "I'd tell you, but you're clearly not smart enough to understand." This usually comes from types who have no buisness being arrogant, especially about their intelligence.

There is one problem with what Felicia said, though. The answer to bad politicians is not apathy, because like she said when people don't vote politicians and the people who did vote can easily brush aside their opinions as un-important or ignorant. What would make a louder statement then 100 million people just not voting, is 100 million people all voting for third party candidates. Voting is a precious right we have since it allows us to make our voices heard, don't waste it thinking you'll get your message across that way. By not voting the politicians won't see disgruntled masses, they'll see an oppertunity for a new political platform. "Clearly our voting public needs more education, I propose government funded classes during work hours..." If neither candidate is to your liking it is your duty to make your displeasure known by voting third party. Sure, I'd wager its hard to agree with many of the third party platforms but find one that's close to your interests and vote for them. Show the Republicans and Democrats that way. If they feel they are losing the support of the masses they will try and remedy the problem, hopefully by fielding stronger candidates.

As for people being open minded...I think that's a pipe dream, Felicia. It is in our nature to be hypocritical. Everyone can tell others to be open minded, to be good, moral, honest and true yet generally people don't hold themselves to those same standards.

[Mastgrr]

I'd rather see Howard Dean running for President instead of Kerry. Mostly -- to be honest with you, because I'd love to see a "President's blog" on the whitehouse.gov website.

[Mastgrr]

YAY! I got my Official Early Balloting Material today!

WOOOOOHOOOOO!

[Bartleby]

Go to Project Vote Smart for your voter self defense manual.

[Bhs Crew]

And go to a good polling site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) to know which side is winning so you can jump on the correct bandwagon.

[Bartleby]

so you can jump on the correct bandwagonClassic :lol:

[Drakeon]

Wow thats a cool site, thanks for linkage BHS :)

[Adamwsat]

I just wish that this site was an accurate sample to represent the entire voting population. I fear that Bush will be president for, at least, one more term...

[Bhs Crew]

Wow thats a cool site, thanks for linkage BHS :)
Yeah I found it used as a source for my local paper, looked it up, and now it's in my favorites menu.

I just wish that this site was an accurate sample to represent the entire voting population. I fear that Bush will be president for, at least, one more term...

I don't understand. This is the latest polling for every state. What is more accurate then that? National polls don't mean anything.

[powermongor]

I just wish that this site was an accurate sample to represent the entire voting population. I fear that Bush will be president for, at least, one more term...

*sings the nuh-nuh-nuh-HEY song in his head*

I am so looking forward to Nov. 3rd. I'm ready to laugh at dems in states that Bush will win by 10% or more and they will scream for recounts.

[Adamwsat]

*sings the nuh-nuh-nuh-HEY song in his head*

I am so looking forward to Nov. 3rd. I'm ready to laugh at dems in states that Bush will win by 10% or more and they will scream for recounts.

In which case you are easily laughing at me, I live in Texas :lol:

That is why I need not register to vote, in Texas republicans will always win, my vote is null.

[Bhs Crew]

In which case you are easily laughing at me, I live in Texas :lol:

That is why I need not register to vote, in Texas republicans will always win, my vote is null.
Bah, Vote anyway. I'm sure there are local ballot issues or minor offices that need your attention.

[Sage the Mage]

I have a funny feeling something major is gonna happen at the debates, dunno what exactly.

[Adamwsat]

I have a funny feeling something major is gonna happen at the debates, dunno what exactly.

George Bush will goto the debate without his pants on, and John Kerry will have gotten into a fight with Bob Dole about who should get the last bag of Cheetos.

Only one good thing will happen:
George Foreman will announce that he has just saved alot of money by switching to Geiko...

Yep, that is how things will hapopen, nothing funny this debate night.

[Neelaus]

Young Europeans are brainwashed comformists, seduced by the secular humanism of the United Nations and popular culture.

Why don't you move this poll to an AMERICAN forum then see the results, as we already know what the French think of Bush.

:lol:

[Bhs Crew]

Young Europeans are brainwashed comformists, seduced by the secular humanism of the United Nations and popular culture.

Why don't you move this poll to an AMERICAN forum then see the results, as we already know what the French think of Bush.

:lol:
I can never tell if you're serious or joking. I suppose that's for the better.

[Neelaus]

I can never tell if you're serious or joking. I suppose that's for the better.

I suppose. :thumbsup:

[Graav Wolfsong]

I resent that! We're not brainwashed, we're simply a bunch of communists who hate freedom. :)

[powermongor]

Young Europeans are brainwashed comformists, seduced by the secular humanism of the United Nations and popular culture.

Why don't you move this poll to an AMERICAN forum then see the results, as we already know what the French think of Bush.

:lol:


Neelus, you are now my fav poster on this forum. I couldn't have said it better myself :thumbsup:

[Drakeon]

In which case you are easily laughing at me, I live in Texas :lol:

That is why I need not register to vote, in Texas republicans will always win, my vote is null.

I feel the same way, except opposite.

Im a republican in California :p

I do plan on voting for state and local issues, but I really don't think my vote for president matters worth a damn in CA, so I'll probably end up voting for 3rd party (actually found one I agree with too :) )