Who would/will you vote for?

[Casey]

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.

[Garland]

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.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

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.

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!?

[CloudSquallandZidane]

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!?

THANK YOU!!!!!!
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."

[Dingo Jellybean]

THANK YOU!!!!!!
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.

[nik0tine]

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 believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.

I'm voting for Kerry because I actually like Kerry.

I would vote for Kerry because I actually like Edwards.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.

Yes, Nikotine is correct. It's about 10,000 Iraqi dead as opposed to the 70,000 Sudan deaths.

[Calliope]

If it was applicable to me, and he stood a chance, I'd probably vote for Nader, actually

More research needed first though.

[War Angel]

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!?

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.

I believe that number is around ten thousand, not one hundred thousand.

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.

[Loony BoB]

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.

[Yamaneko]

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.

[The Captain]

"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.

[War Angel]

I'd say they are all but saying they feel they SHOULD be the watchdogs for the world, if they say what they mean.

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?

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.

[The Captain]

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.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

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?

Pretty much my point.

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.

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.