Well I cannot legally vote so I'll make this thread! Who will/would you vote for is called this because some of us here can vote and some of us cannot. Well Vote Away!
EDIT: I voted fo BUSH!!!! long live the prez!
Printable View
Well I cannot legally vote so I'll make this thread! Who will/would you vote for is called this because some of us here can vote and some of us cannot. Well Vote Away!
EDIT: I voted fo BUSH!!!! long live the prez!
Kerry.
I'm not the biggest Kerry fan, but a lot of what Bush says just bothers me to no end. Hard to imagine the election is this close.
Well then its a damn good thing you can't really vote...Quote:
Originally Posted by NewBlackMage
Kerry. Not because I think he's great, but because we need Bush out.
I would say thats not very nice but I was about to say the same thing :DQuote:
Originally Posted by devilmaykickass
I vote for the only viable alternative. Kerry. This election Nader is a wasted vote.
I also believe this election that Ohio will be where thehits the fan instead of florida.
John Kerry, sinceMcCarthy'sAshcroft's "Patriot Act" is a blight upon this country that must be removed. That's not the only reason of course, but it's as good as any.
Word on the street is that Ashcroft is gone if Bush gets re-elected which says how far off the beaten path HE is when even the Bush Administration thinks he's too extreme.
Take care all.
Be that as it may, I wouldn't be willing to chance my vote on a rumor. Of course, with so much of what the Bush administration's actions going against what I believe is right, I wouldn't vote for him anyways.
Everyone - vote for me!
Seriously, now, I don't know. If I could vote on the US elections... I dunno. On the one hand, I agree with Bush's handling of things, and his crew, Cheney and Powell, both of which are very adept, experienced and intelligent, are a good reason to vote for him as well... but Bush is also a dumkopf. Kerry isn't... but he also seems rather flacid and void of content, to me. In-capable of making decisions and following them, whatever those decisions may be.
So,I'm un-decided. Probably Bush, though. More things in his favour, to me. Then again - I'm not an American. I have little clue on how he runs internal affairs... which is Americans' main concern.
I will be voting for Kerry on the 2nd.
I am for Bush. Kerry would not know how to handle the situation in Iraq....look at it this way:
I am a fluent writer. Let's say I was going away for a very long time, but I had a story in progress. I could leave the steps and notes to finish the story for another eligable writer; but it would never come out great. This is because Bush needs to finish what he started, and I believe he knows the best way to do it.
Osamin Bin Laden attacked Bush on that tape because they know Kerry is weaker in the offense of terrorism. The WANT kerry to be president. because then we will be more vunerable. Voting for Kerry just because you don't like Bush for going to Iraq is the dumbest thing I think you CAN do.
I would vote for Bush. He is honest, and doesn't "beat around the bush" (lol) as one might say. Kerry DOES. I feel that Bush is more trustworthy, and already has the experience as President to handle these situations. Kerry would only make it worse from lack of experienced and incapability to understand all points of the Iraq situation as Bush does.
Hey...I could be in poltics
if i could vote, id choose kerry over bush ne other day. ne president that's representing an entire country should kno how to present certain things....it just shows how little he cares about the sitution.adn he talks about religion. this is america, where we have freedom of religion.we don't need bush to clarify what god he follows every time. geesh. kerry seems to kno what he;s talking abuot, and seems very pragmatic. then again, i don't follow politics, so my opinion is based only on what i see :(
:lol: Nice.Quote:
McCarthy's "Patriot Act"
I'll be voting for Kerry.
kerry....
i think the war was a total mistake, and i also think bush lied big time
I disagree completely when someone believes Osama wants Kerry to be president for three very simple reasons:
1. Keeping Bush in power only strengthens Al Qaeda recruitment. The invasion of Iraq has been a HUGE poster to join Al Qaeda and four more years of this current President would lead to more of the same.
2. Osama wants to fight Bush, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that he'd just let things be squared away, as he claims, but rather I think he's hoping for Bush to be re-elected so he can launch another campaign against the Administration.
3. How can you trust or believe anything of what he has to say anyway? It is quite obvious, at least to me that he means absolutely nothing of what he says, and could almost be hoping to lull the American people to vote for the candidate he wants it out against again. He could be for Ralph Nadar for all we know, but the point of that is irrelevant. If you're using Osama Bin Laden's opinion to decide who to vote for, heaven help us all.
Now, not to knock anyone's opinion here, but I don't care who you favor, it should be plain as day that there is something very wrong in Washington right now as we've seen a war go to hell and NO ONE has taken responsibility for it. That's the sign of weak leadership if you ask me. Electing Bush means another 4 years of what we're experiencing right now, and if you're comfortable with that, all power to you, but I'm certainly not comfortable with our country at all and that is why I'm voting to put someone new in office.
Also, you can't hold a lack of having been President against a new candidate. If that's the case, why was Bush elected over Gore in 2000? He had NO experience in Washington, but that doesn't make a difference. A person's beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, and qualifications will translate no matter where they work.
I still think we need to get rid of the 2 term President, but I'll leave that for another day for now.
Regardless of what you believe, at least go out there and vote, make it known that you as a citizen have an opinion and that sooner or later the politicians of this country will have to take notice.
Take care all.
If you feel this way then you shouldn't vote at all. It will waver the other votes, and thus putkerry in office and hell knows whathe'll do! So if the world comes to andend... I'll blame you, OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilmaykickass
I do not see the logic in that one. We find Bush to be the greater of the two evils and Kerry the lesser of the two. I doubt Kerry can screw us nearly as much as Bush and his administration have already.Quote:
If you feel this way then you shouldn't vote at all. It will waver the other votes, and thus putkerry in office and hell knows whathe'll do! So if the world comes to andend... I'll blame you, OK?
I already voted for Bush :D
Now I'm, twice as inclined to vote for Kerry. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NewBlackMage
Seriously though, I just...can't grasp why anyone wants Bush to remain in office...I don't get it, and it makes me sad. :(
Now, NewBlackMage, you must be careful about making such broad statements such as that. Perhaps you'd like to explain your rationale for such a statement so we can better understand your point of view.
Take care all.
Why well I liek him that would be a good reason :rolleyes2 I mean I liked his father much more but I cant stand Kerry and i think he's just saying whatever the people want to hear where as Bush tells it how it is FOR THE MOST PART. I know every polotician changes their minds and lies but, Kerry seems to do this like it's nothing. I just really dont trust Kerry. where as I support the war adn the president. so shoot me.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilmaykickass
Bert, which war are you talking about, the one in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan? Also, why do you support the war?
Take care all.
Both. I feel it was a good choice to get saddam out of there. All he was doing was killing his people. Also I think Bush should stay in so he can finish the war. The war on terror is a little more complexe but, I feel that they are doing better on it. I mean most of the talibans leaders have been cought. It's not going to be anything quick.
Hrrrrrm...ok, I can handle that...just as long as you aren't voting for him for the reasons most of the people around here are.
:D DMKA I'm very glad to hear that from youQuote:
Originally Posted by devilmaykickass
Bush does anything but tell us how it is. He says things are going good and they clearly are not. He tells us they have WMD...nope. Then it was the Al-quadia link...nope. He does anything but tell us how it is.
I am against Bush because I don't agree with his tax cuts only because I believe in being fiscally sound and this guy couldn't invest money wisely into an ant farm.
He also dodges questions that come his way and never tells us how it is or take any responsibilty for anything that goes wrong.
More later.
Yeah, they were much happier to be killed by U.S. troops, have their towns leveled and set afire, and the ones that survived be held at gunpoint and forced to buy into the American way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupBert
We never purposly killed them liek he did. It's estimated he killed well over 2 or 3 million. I'm not denying that they dont want us there but, it's better for them that he's gone and the US is leaving we're setting up a government that wont kill the people when they dont agree with it.
Agreed, I'm fine if you support a candidate with justifiable reasons, but if you support someone because of his "Strong principles, or because he's a tough guy, or because he looks cool or presidential" then I have a problem. This isn't American Idol, some kind of substance should count, but lately it hasn't.
Although, Bert you must admit that we are in Iraq for a revised purpose, but not our initial purpose correct?
Take care all.
LOL Revised purpose? I think you forgot a big fat S at the end of that. Bush has changed the reasons on more than one occasion. I find myself laughing every time he calls Kerry inconsistent. What a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
I think saddam had weapons. I remember hearing on the news a iraqi official saying "you will never find the WMD because they will be hidden in the desert before troops even get into the country." Even if he has changed the goals of the war it's still to me a justifiable war. and hey if in the end I can save some money on gas well I'm happy. And I agree that you shouldnt vote on what a canidate looks like and you should vote on what he has/is goign to do or aleast says so. I just really dont agree with what most of kerry says.
This is a phrase I hear oh-so-often. The thing is that I almost never hear anything come after it, like... I don't know... Examples? I talk to so many people who say the same thing and when backed into a corner just give up and confess, "well... My parents are voting that way!" It's perfectly fine if you actually disagree with what Kerry stands for, but I just hope that is really the case and not just an easy excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupBert
I'm having trouble finding exact stances on things. When I do I will give my opinion on them.
Iraq didn't have WMD. If they did then where are they? I don't mean now. I mean in 98' and before the war with those 2 separate sets of weapons inspectors and then right after the war.
If I was Iraq I would be saying things like "You will never find them because it I need to maintain a certain perspetion to the rest of the countries around me as well as the Kurds and the Sunies(or however you spell that one). If it comes out that I don't have anything then I have a civil war on my hands.
I still ask where are they? Its not like they had bombs or anything. It was things that could potentially be made into bombs like chlorine which every industrialized non-third world country has for reasons other than making bombs.
As for saving money on the gas bill...it has gone up and not down.
I also don't think the war was justified given the current reason. I don't give a damn about them over there until we solve some serious problems over here first.
Don't forget, Bush has cost more jobs during his 4 years than adding them.
Did I mention that moments after hearing his soldiers he sent to Iraq, that 8 of them died. Just 3 hours later he was watching an Astros game during the NLDS. How can he just enjoy himself while he puts other people in danger like that? I know he has a duty to send troops if necessary, but don't just sit there eating cracker jacks and having a laugh. It's pathetic really.
Because of Bush's black and white views (such as "Either you're with us or against us") has turned many countries who use to side witht he US away. Instead of using a global effort, we spend too much of our tax dollars when instead other countries were probably willing to help for the war if Bush wasn't so ignorant.
Not only that, he wants to add a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which is extreme.
He also claimed in 2000 that he wanted to bring the country together...yet why is it still 50/50? There's even more hate for each political parties from opposing parties than there was 4 years ago.
I can list a lot more...but voting for Bush is a terrible vote to waste.
Well maybe that's how you feel but I on ther ther hand feel it's a good vote and that's my right.
I would like to know why everyone sees the Iraq war as justified but they don't say anything about the genocide that is going on in Sudan.
Because it's not as public since it's not someone liek hussen who's had a very stong history with the US be it good and bad mostly bad though. I mean if we needed to I would support going there and takeing care of things. I may be mistaken but I thought the U.N. was in sudan right now for whatever that's worth.
My point is is it not the duty of a leader to know about these things? Why are we in Iraq if there are so many terrible things going on in the world that could be receiving our attention? Frankly I do not believe the war is justified because I do not believe it to be a noble cause. I believe any nobility derived from the war is mere propoganda and some benefits that aren't the core of the reason.
OK I'm ticked off! who added the other option?! I wanted to get a group as a whole,not as people that can vote... That just sways the idea of this thread! Thank you for nothing... This defeats the purpose and this thread should be locked!If you are not going to vote, Then justdont post here! Same as on elections, you dont vote "I'm notgoing to choose" you just dont register! Mods and Admins.... LOCK THIS THREAD or DELETE IT or FIX IT!
chaos: Personally, I'd prefer Kerry over Bush. Everyone else seems to have taken the words out of my mouth, so no real use reasoning.
Rubedo: I guess you could say I'm the supporter of the "Anybody but Bush" thing, but I'll also have to remember that we wouldn't want to give power to another horrible president. Truly, we'll just have to wait and see, but until then, If I were able to vote, I would give mine to Kerry.
This may be an unpopular opinion but it's all a sham anyway. Both of them are under the control of one group of invisible higher-ups anyway so I would refuse to vote. Their both idiots anyway.
chaos: Yaep, exactly what I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud_99
Rubedo: Although if we had to vote, we'd go with Kerry.
Here's to give Bert a bit of support.
My stance on things is hard to determine. I still do believe that Iraq had WMD. I believe that they were sent to Syria before the war started, but that's an entirely different matter.
I think that people make the President out to be the Anti-Christ, which he is not. With the hand he was dealt with as he came into office, it was impossible for anyone to expect the Pax Romana. I believe that Bush is desperately misunderstood.
Fundamentally, I am a Republican. I believe in what are supposed to be Republican ideals. I will always be this way. Would I be happy with the re-election of Bush? A month ago, I would have said no. But the stories that I have been reading of Kerry...and these aren't propaganda, these are actual issues that he's wanting to put forth recently that he has no facts on. Now I say that I do want Bush to be re-elected. However, I want some serious changes on his cabinet, foremost the removal of Ashcroft, and a renovation of the Republican Party as a whole. I think that from the very beginning, Bush was given a situation that he had a solution to, however, I think that it will take longer than 4 years to do. I think we should give him a chance to finish what he started. All of things that critics claim he never did...well, he never really got a chance to. He couldn't have stopped 9/11. It wasn't his fault. It happened. That changed everybody's lives, including his.
If I was old enough to vote, I think that I would vote for Bush.
Bush came into office, dealt with what's probably the worst attack on US soil ever, and forcefully overthrew two iron-fisted dictatorships. I think Al Qaeda awoke a sleeping giant on 9-11. Afghanistan and Iraq are just the beginning. I'm voting for Bush, because he's giving tyrant nations their due. He's solving the problems that diplomacy hadn't. It's better to be feared than loved, if you can't have both, and to be honest, I don't think the US will ever be loved. Bush is bringing fear to our enemies. After all, a full scale invasion by the world superpower, and the toppling of one's government is more than most rogue peoples are willing to risk.
I'm voting for Kerry because I actually like Kerry.
You can compare this poll to
http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=50333
taken about a month ago. :)
and yes I would vote for Bush.
I believe the difference in the two polls reflects the number of "Anybody but Bush!" voters that have come to realize that Kerry, by some horrible twist of fate, is no better. Who would have thought that two equally unsuitable candidates would run in the same election? The laws of probability have been thrown out the window in this campaign. Hopefully 2008 brings two respectable candidates, where the vote isn't for the lesser of two evils, but rather the greater of two goods. Nader vs Perot - that would be an election. I liked both.
Then why is the genocide in Sudan of no consequence!? How can we as a people even THINK to say that we are righting the wrongs of the world if we are ignoring an act of genocide akin to the holocaust decades ago!?Quote:
Bush came into office, dealt with what's probably the worst attack on US soil ever, and forcefully overthrew two iron-fisted dictatorships. I think Al Qaeda awoke a sleeping giant on 9-11. Afghanistan and Iraq are just the beginning. I'm voting for Bush, because he's giving tyrant nations their due. He's solving the problems that diplomacy hadn't. It's better to be feared than loved, if you can't have both, and to be honest, I don't think the US will ever be loved. Bush is bringing fear to our enemies. After all, a full scale invasion by the world superpower, and the toppling of one's government is more than most rogue peoples are willing to risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
THANK YOU!!!!!! :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:
Now i bestow upon u the award:
"I'm so glad somebody finally said that."
Our troops could have actually saved lives instead of having the 10,000-30,000 dead Iraqis we have today, i saw a poll recently that said 100,000 Iraqis have died from indirect causes of the war.
Yet 70,000 dead in Sudan went on unchallenged until recently, yet no military action has been taken by the US, because we are already undertrooped in Iraq.
EDIT: Lets not forget what spiderman taught us: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Yeah, none of the Bush supporters seem to mention the reports that over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Iraqi civilians have died AS A CAUSE OF THE WAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
I believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.Quote:
Yeah, none of the Bush supporters seem to mention the reports that over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Iraqi civilians have died AS A CAUSE OF THE WAR.
I would vote for Kerry because I actually like Edwards.Quote:
I'm voting for Kerry because I actually like Kerry.
Yes, Nikotine is correct. It's about 10,000 Iraqi dead as opposed to the 70,000 Sudan deaths.Quote:
I believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.
If it was applicable to me, and he stood a chance, I'd probably vote for Nader, actually :D
More research needed first though.
First of all, there has never been, and hopefully won't ever be another genocide like the Holocaust. That being said... with all due respect to America's prowess, it cannot handle every single conflict in the world, at the same time. Also, whether you like it or not, the USA is not obligated nor has it been appointed by some higher force to end such atrocities. It had interests in Iraq and things it wanted straightened there, and while they were at it, they took down an evil tyrant. That doesn't mean the USA can or even should march in to every $hithole country in the world that finds it difficult not to kill its own people.Quote:
Then why is the genocide in Sudan of no consequence!? How can we as a people even THINK to say that we are righting the wrongs of the world if we are ignoring an act of genocide akin to the holocaust decades ago!?
And even that number is hightly exaggerated. There were slightly over 4000 people killed in the initial fighting... so the number right now is probably closer to 6,000.Quote:
I believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
And yes, after looking around the site, I'm pretty sure that the numbers it displays are pretty accurate. The number of deaths during the initial fighting may well have been lower than the number of deaths after initial fighting, WA.
I will be voting for Senator John Kerry in the hopes that he will be elected the next president of the United States. I will not be voting for him because I like his cool New England demeanor, or because he wears sneakers and gives interviews to Rolling Stone. I will be voting for John Kerry because I believe he'll bring a better future for us all. The one issue that distances me the most from the current president is the war in Iraq. I often find myself thinking, "what an arrogant a**h***". The U.S. is no longer welcome in certain countries in Europe, and although we're winning all the battles in Iraq, we're still losing the war. The war was initiated under false pretenses and thusly we invaded and occupied a country. The president talks about the "grand coalition", which consists of three larger countries; Great Britain, Australia, and Poland. I believe John Kerry can bring the world back to the bargaining table where we can solve more of the worlds problems than fighting ever could.
Secondly, prescription drugs, and the medical system. The president is essentially telling us that Canadian drugs are unsafe and unreliable. We all know that Canada is a third-world country that can't be trusted. Not last time I checked. Insurance premiums are through the roof for many people. Perhaps instead of people greedily wanting to keep their entire paycheck to waste on gas-guzzling Hummers, maybe they should pay into a better health system? A system that would cover more people while reducing medical cost on hospitals and patients alike. I believe Kerry has a better shot at offering a system like that than the current president does.
Finally, the job situation has gone from bad to worse, to a little better in this country. It should have stayed at "good" like at the end of the Clinton Administration. The current president has managed to mangle the job situation, blaming it on a declining economy prior to coming into office and on September 11th. I know we would still have been a lot better off if a certain war had never been started. A faster pullout from Iraq, like Kerry promises, will surely help the economy back home.
I am not affiliated with any party. I believe in making choices based on the issues, and choosing a president who can best deal with those issues. This time around that person happens to be John Kerry.
"Also, whether you like it or not, the USA is not obligated nor has it been appointed by some higher force to end such atrocities. It had interests in Iraq and things it wanted straightened there, and while they were at it, they took down an evil tyrant. That doesn't mean the USA can or even should march in to every $hithole country in the world that finds it difficult not to kill its own people."
Actually, War Angel, when Bush and Cheney go around the USA declaring that "freedom is on the march", that America is the "Defender of the free world" and the like, I'd say they are all but saying they feel they SHOULD be the watchdogs for the world, if they say what they mean.
Take care all.
Alright. So now they're in Iraq. They can't be in Sudan, Rwanda, the Balkans, North Korea and Central Asia, plus Southern America, all at once, right?Quote:
I'd say they are all but saying they feel they SHOULD be the watchdogs for the world, if they say what they mean.
It's like Dr. Unne said a while ago... when people run out of bad things to say about the US's war in Iraq, they complain how the US is not in Sudan\Rwanda\North Korea\China\Central Asia, and so on... it's really, a bad argument.
My point is still thus, if Bush and Cheney like to declare that you can trust them and not Kerry, yet go against what they're saying, are they not just as much flip-floppers and liars as the rest of them?
Take care all.
Pretty much my point.Quote:
My point is still thus, if Bush and Cheney like to declare that you can trust them and not Kerry, yet go against what they're saying, are they not just as much flip-floppers and liars as the rest of them?
Not at all on both counts. Frankly, Bush and Cheney can talk about liberty and justice until they're blue in the face but the actions do not match the words and the fact that it's Iraq is FAR too convenient. I smell foul play and I have yet to have my suspicious disproven, indeed every day they seem to be even closer to the mark.Quote:
It's like Dr. Unne said a while ago... when people run out of bad things to say about the US's war in Iraq, they complain how the US is not in Sudan\Rwanda\North Korea\China\Central Asia, and so on... it's really, a bad argument.
I would never vote two people like George Bush or John Kerry, simply because I hate them with all the suffering of my heart and hope for the most crude of pains for the both of them.
So, putting it simply, I'd vote anything that leads to true, uninterested peace.
Bush may not be very smart, but Kerry's still a giant douche.
I voted libertarian.
I voted Bush. I also voted straight democrat for every other position. Hopefully a democratic majority congress will keep Bush in check. I like Bush's determination. I don't like how he uses it. Hopefully, if all turns out well, he'll have more checks on his power, without having to elect his jellyfish opponent.
Yay!!!! Bush won! WOOT! Well Kerry concieted. But basicly.... BUSH WON
God, please be merciful with the rest of your children...Quote:
Yay!!!! Bush won! WOOT! Well Kerry concieted. But basicly.... BUSH WON
May these four years go more peacefully than the last four.
Pax vobiscum.
My sentiments exactly, *does a little happy dance*. :rock: :spin:Quote:
Yay!!!! Bush won! WOOT! Well Kerry concieted. But basicly.... BUSH WON
I would have voted this year if I was registered to vote. :( But I wasn't. I would have voted for Bush though. We needed someone to get us out of the crap Clinton got us into and war was the only way I think. :/
Excuse me for being blunt, but just what the hell are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen
Do u mean the budget surplus, and our excellent foregin relations? Cuz thats all that Bush got us out of.
Finally someone understands that budget surpluses and booming economies are bad things! And what's better, is that you also understand that killing people is a good solution to our problems! Hooray!Quote:
I would have voted this year if I was registered to vote. :( But I wasn't. I would have voted for Bush though. We needed someone to get us out of the crap Clinton got us into and war was the only way I think. :/
You can only understand by fire.
This is called 'false analogy'. Running a country and writing a story (which, by the way, may be not all that great ;) ) is inncomparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Yuna
Thanks, buddy. The democratic majority didn't pan out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garland