What about the concept of a democrat horrifies you?
Republican
Democrate
Independant
What about the concept of a democrat horrifies you?
Bush. I'd rather have a leader that'll do what he thinks is right, against all opposition, even if it later proves to be the wrong thing to do. Bush does a lot of things I disagree with; that lots of people disagree with, actually, but he thinks he's doing the right thing, and doesn't let naysayers stop him from trying. Kerry seems the type that wouldn't do what he thinks is right, if he thought the right thing to do was unpopular. I vote for leaders that I think make decisions better than me, not for leaders that fall back on me for big decisions. The congress can veto any Bush action they deem inappropriate. They can't give Kerry a spine. Further, our government is supposed to be made up of three independent branches. As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Kerry is like electing Congress for president. You'd only have two real branches of government.
Knock yourselves down.
Isn't that some backwards logic though? Choose a representative of theOriginally Posted by Garland
people who will do what he wants, even when the people tell him not to.
Seems strange to me...
.opt
Presidents are like parents. The people are like children. Good parents aren't ruled by their children - they don't buy every single toy on the storeshelf that catches their kids' whim. They know when that horrible tasting medicine is necessary. Electing a president that does whatever the people want is like having parents that don't make their kid stricken with pneumonia take the bitter medicine because the kid doesn't like the taste. Being popular isn't always a good thing, because the general population is largely ignorant on what it takes to be a world leader.
Knock yourselves down.
Well, I'm not American, but there's an election coming up in Australia and it's looking to be a similar kind of race. Anyway, I believe that if Americans could see the way that they are perceived in the outside world now compared to four years ago, George Bush wouldn't have a chance of being elected. Basically, from what I can tell he's buggered up the economy, turned America's allies neutral and neutrals hostile. He's alienated America in ways that will take years and years to repair. It's beyond most non-Americans as to how Bush even has a chance at re-election
I disagree, the entire point of democracy is to be a government of the
people. It stands to reason that if 200 million people think something is
right or wrong, that should hold some weight. If a president simply ignores
the 200 million people then he is a dictator, he is no longer representing
the people. Calling the president a parent is silly. Remember, you have to
be over 18 to vote, at 18 you're a legal adult and you no longer have to
do what your parents tell you as far as the law is concerned. Doesn't it
make sense that a good deal of people who are voting, many of them
who are older than the person they're voting for, may be able to make
up their minds and form solutions for themselves rather than having
someone do it for them? Saying that the president is a parent is just
another way of calling anyone who's not in politics children.
.opt
I own a small business.
Democrats want to do stuff like raise minimum wage to solve problems. And I'm like, "What? So I'm not going to raise my prices when I have to pay out more to these employees? What?"
The only good thing about democrats is that they don't crack down on the drug trade. Personally, I would prefer that they did, but when they don't, a lot of extra money spills into the lower middle and poor classs so they'll blow it on crap and push the economy forward just a little bit.
But democrats still stunt everything. Masters of inflation.
I'm mostly pissed at Clinton. He's the only one I really witnessed. He decimated the 80s golden age and sent the economy on a downward trout spiral. Bush comes in saying, "I'll start a depression and fix everything!" But it was too late, a year or 2 into his term terrorists smash into the two towers and the world explodes. That isn't Clintons fault, really, but it really would have been nice if he had concentrated on making money for the US instead of screwing things up, like he did for my family anyway.
Raising wages does more damage. If you raise your wages by x percent and the employer raises prices by x percent, the employer makes up the difference in prices PLUS gets an increase in 'profit'. Thus it makes absolutely no sense to get wage increases. If we kept wages stagnant, everybody will win...except the politicians.
Anyway I would vote for Bush, assuming I was 1)American and 2)wanting to vote.
Ok well Clinton had the biggest budget surplus in the history of the United States. Now we have the biggest budget defciet in the history of the United States. Clinton reign signified a REAL golden age for America, and there was no down to it was he was in office. But the combination of a 1.3 TRILLON dollar tax cut for the rich, 9/11, and the slow down of the internet boom, sent us into a depression, not mention the billions needlessly thrown at the Iraq war.
I personal view those facts as Demo: 1 - Repub: 0 (*possibly -1) .
My family was thriving under Clinton. My dad made 20-30 dollars an hour doing civil engineering. Now he doesnt work. And i think people that make 200,000 dollars a year or more should have to give more back to their government, because they can, and they can do so comfortably. Then the governemnt could use that money to fix the deficet and possibly provide either health care, or fix the social security
problems. Which is why my parents are voting for Kerry.
I am so glad someone finally said that.
That was my point exactly.
Knock yourselves down.
What, pray tell, does he do if he doesn't work?
I imagine he doesn't do anything, because he's unemployed.
What's funny is Bush cuts taxes for the rich and not for the poor. Then he goes and wages two expensive wars. The rich pay a VERY LARGE percentage of the taxes. In fact i think it is a majority. Now all of a sudden they get a tax break and bush doesnt have the money he needs to go to war. So he starts cutting money from all of the programs he created, like no child left behind. Ha! what an idiot!
Sorry, missed that line when I was reading it quickly.
The question is, do you really believe that a 40 year old man can't choose
for himself what he thinks will be good for him? I think deep down we all
know more or less what is good for ourselves. We learn that quickly in
life and the law says that at the age of 18 we do know what's good for
ourselves.
I think it's very naive to think that any politician is working for what he
believes in. This is a BIT of an exaggeration, but essentially all politicians
are puppets and the ones holding the strings are those who have close
family ties, or have donated money, services, etc to the politician. I'm
not saying that no politician has his own ideas and goals, but when it
comes down to the nitty gritty, politicians usually aren't worrying about
their own goals.
.opt
Exactly. Plus the fact that Bush lets his religious beliefs influence his decisions (abortion, Stem cell research, gay rights) really irks me.
Posting Permissions
