I Prefer This Election Poll

[hammocksleeper]

Bush
Kerry, because he has the best chance of beating Bush
Kerry, for another reason than above
Other


Who to vote for? You need not be eligible to vote to be in this poll.
You may feel a combination of what is above; please choose the most relevant choice.

[Nahotnoj]

I voted kerry, becasue he has the best chance of beating george.

[Wick3d]

Do you honestly think Kerry is any different than Bush?


Bush in '04 : Because you just don't change horsemen in the middle of the apocolypse.

[Kazula_21]

ME?
I think that Bush would be the better choice because he is not afraid to act if not supported by other countries. He isn't a big appeaser like Clinton or like Nerville Chamberlain was. He is not afraid to do the right thing, even if he looked down apon for it.
I also have another thing to add.
Is my signature too big?? Im new to this website and I just had my account activated... If it is, can you tell me?

[OboeGuru]

Far too big. But you shouldn't have to be told. You can look in the rules/announcements, can't you?

- - - - -

Anyways, I don't believe Kerry is the best candidate to beat Bush, as I think I said earlier, but anyone is better than Bush, as long as it's a Democrat. In any case, here's a rebuttal to the above statement:

Kazula, the reason why Bush was not supported is because his evidence was shady and fullof holes at best. Tony Blair is his own personal bitch, so don't talk about the British.

The right thing was NOT to go into Iraq, bomb the crap out of them and go "Whoops, no WMDs, our bad! Now we'll just try and establish an unsuccessful democratic government and get hundreds of soldiers killed trying to bring order to a country that didn't want our help in the first place."

Yeah, Bush sure did the right thing! [/sarcasm]

Not to mention his "favored son" grants for the reconstruction, the massive number of military deaths, the unsuccessful Afghan campaign, the massive number of military deaths, the mishandling of pre-9/11, the massive number of military deaths, the ~$500 million budget deficit, oh and did I mention the massive number of military deaths and the ~$500 million budget deficit?

If Bush wins, I think I'll go pow-wow with BlackHawk and Whiteknight.

[Geno]

I voted other. Not to say I like either of them, or don't like either of them, but here's my standing...

LET'S GO NADER!!!!

Erm... Actually, I'm not sure who I WILL vote for... I won't be able to vote Primaries, but I can vote in the main Election... (Birthday is on Sept. 1. That works for me ^.^)

~Larry "Geno" Meyers

P.S. I'd really like to hear the standings from all 3 of them... That is, Nader, Bush, and Kerry. I want to see who's where, and from that... Who knows o.O

[Modred]

the massive number of military deaths, the unsuccessful Afghan campaign, the massive number of military deaths, the mishandling of pre-9/11, the massive number of military deaths, the ~$500 million budget deficit, oh and did I mention the massive number of military deaths and the ~$500 million budget deficit?

If you want to talk military deaths, look up LBJ and a place called Vietnam.
If you want to talk deficits, look up FDR and a thing called the Great Depression.
If you want to talk pre-9/11, look up William Clinton and some things called the CIA, FBI, and military.

Now, on to why I picked Bush.

From my perspective, Bush is the only person who will actually do anything with Iraq. While what he's doing is probably not wise, leaving right now would be even worse. Why, because we get the whole Somalia thing all over again.*

The deficit, while large, has relatively little impact on our society as a whole. Unless you're a banker. Then it makes you rich.

Tax cuts and dwindling revenues however are a problem. But I don't think tax increases that will hurt both the rich and middle class* will help much.

The only Democrat I would have voted for is Gephardt. Kerry just seems a bit too...slippery for my tastes. His voting record in the Senate is also more liberal than my preferences, and while I'm moderately conservative, I am starting to sway.

Who knows who will be best? But assuming that any Democrat could be better than Bush is stupid, idiotic partisan ideology that leads to bumbling fools such as Grant and Harding (both Republicans who came to power because any Republican was better than a Democrat) who fill the office with scandal and allow the country to fall apart for future presidents to deal with. Anyone who votes for Kerry just because he could beat Bush needs to reconsider just how important the job of president is before they vote blindly.

*Refer to William J Clinton.

[OboeGuru]

The deficit, while large, has relatively little impact on our society as a whole. Unless you're a banker. Then it makes you rich.
It doesn't affect OUR society, yes. You know whose it will affect? Your children's. And your children's children. Do you want to royally screw their futures? Be my guest, vote for Mr. $500 million deficit.

And this "idiotic partisan ideology" is worth more than you might think. Right now, my focus would be on fiscal policies, and I think the Liberal approach to fiscal policy is what this country is in dire need of.

You're taking the deficit to get out of the Depression out of context. We were/are not in a depression, we will not be anytime in the near future, there's no need to run up that gigantic deficit. Back then, spending had to be loose to boost the economy with 13 dead elephants on it's back.

Bush had months to sort out the CIA, FBI, etc., I don't see why he shouldn't be blamed to some degree for the internal problems.

"Massive" was the wrong term to use in describing the military deaths, I'll admit that. But at least in 'Nam the deaths weren't televised, recorded tortures. It's obvious that this "war" is starting to lose it's humanity and something MUST be done about that.

[Whiteknight]

HS is back! :)

Well, although it hardly affects me, I'd most likely vote for Bush.

Bush has backbone. With everything said against him, he still keeps trucking on. I have to admire that.

[Nuts]

The deficit exists for numerous reasons, 9/11, War on Afghanistan, War on Iraq, etc.. 9/11 is a fact of life now, there is no sense in arguing the "what if" factor. Either you agree that the Middle East is a cespool of evil and we need to do something about it, or you take the liberal route and ignore the problems and hope they go away on their own. 9/11 is proof positive that these things won't go away when left on the back burner. Clinton ignored numerous attacks on U.S. installations both here and abroad, and yet 9/11 still occured.

As Whiteknight has already said, Bush has backbone, he doesn't change his mind based on polls, he doesn't allow public opinion to influence his decisions. Like him or hate him, you can't deny that he has a vision for this country.

As for fiscal policy, if you want higher taxes and more government programs, go ahead and vote for Kerry.

[hammocksleeper]

But assuming that any Democrat could be better than Bush is stupid, idiotic partisan ideology that leads to bumbling fools such as Grant and Harding (both Republicans who came to power because any Republican was better than a Democrat) who fill the office with scandal and allow the country to fall apart for future presidents to deal with. Anyone who votes for Kerry just because he could beat Bush needs to reconsider just how important the job of president is before they vote blindly.Please listen to this guy ^^ ANY form of partisan voting is blind voting.

Allow me to get on my soapbox for a sec. I recently was reflecting on the voting system of Survivor, you know, the TV show? BTW Survivor All-Stars is over, Amber won. There are no imposed rules, no guidelines as to how a cast member should cast their vote. A subtle twist that if you think about it gets pretty deep, especially for the very last vote. For those who don't know or are unfamiliar, at the last tribal council, the last vote is made by the "jury," which consists of the last seven people to be voted off. At this point, the island has been narrowed down to two contestants, and the jury picks a winner of the two. Everyone who has a vote in this stage has already been voted off. They don't stand to gain or lose anything as a result of the outcome of this decision. They have no guidelines as to how to make their choice for the winner. Some people vote for who "played the game" the best, some people vote for who is most honest, some people vote to exact "revenge" on someone who may have backstabbed them earlier in the game.

Voting for the president, or any public office for that matter, is much the same way. There are no rules to help you out in making your decision. You have to make a real, intimate reflection as to what you want this guy to do. What are the consequences? What are your goals? Some people decide they want whatever will provide them with the most benefits. Some people decide they want what they deem is best for society. Some people vote along party lines, for whatever reasons. Some people vote to exact "revenge" on another candidate.

When you cast your vote, it's good to be happy about the person for whom you vote, but more importantly make sure you know why you are voting for whom you are, and make damn well sure you are happy with the reasons behind your vote.


Anyone watch the final episode of Frasier? It sucked. A clip show.

[Nuts]

If one is not saavy enough to educate themselves about all of the particular candidates, then it would be a safe bet to vote for your parties candidate, since your party holds the ideals that you cherish. For the record, I've only strayed from party lines once, and that was for County Sherriff.

[Modred]

It doesn't affect OUR society, yes. You know whose it will affect? Your children's. And your children's children. Do you want to royally screw their futures? Be my guest, vote for Mr. $500 million deficit.

That's the national debt, not the budget deficit. Of course, budget deficits lead to a higher national debt...so I'm sort of self defeating here...

You're taking the deficit to get out of the Depression out of context. We were/are not in a depression, we will not be anytime in the near future, there's no need to run up that gigantic deficit. Back then, spending had to be loose to boost the economy with 13 dead elephants on it's back.

Of course, Bush could drop all of his spending plans and allow laizez-fairre to take over the economy even more so than it has now. No more welfare, social security, or unemployment insurance. Wait, those are leftovers of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Bush had months to sort out the CIA, FBI, etc., I don't see why he shouldn't be blamed to some degree for the internal problems.

Of course, HW Bush and Clinton had a total of 12 years, they shouldn't be blame free. You can do a lot more in 12 years than you can in eight months.

"Massive" was the wrong term to use in describing the military deaths, I'll admit that. But at least in 'Nam the deaths weren't televised, recorded tortures. It's obvious that this "war" is starting to lose it's humanity and something MUST be done about that.

I doubt there has ever been a "humane war." The only way to end it is to either win or lose. Right now, we've beaten Saddam, however that doesn't mean we've won. Leaving Iraq would be like leaving Vietnam. Sure, we didn't lose, but we didn't win, and a draw doesn't count unless its mutually accepted by all sides.

I don't believe that our soldiers should be torturing the prisoners. However, I also don't believe that we should withdraw while there are still certain enemies who refuse to come out into the open and instead use mass media in an attempt to demoralize America through violence (note beheading).

As far as I can tell, Kerry doesn't have a definite plan for Iraq. Of course...its starting to look like Bush doesn't either....

[Kazula_21]

One thing that I like about Bush is that he does what needs too be done, and he does not appease. Thats good when your leading the most powerful country in the world.

Also, the soldiers are not exactly tourchering the prisoners. From what I have seen, they are meerly humiliating them. That is an old tactic for getting information out of prisoners. Also, don't forget how badly the Iraqi Radicals are treating our prisoners... they are even killing civilians!!

That is just wrong...that is just war :concern:

[Modred]

Anybody hear about that little attack using a sarin-filled exploding shell? WMD not existing my a$$. And as far as I know, they claim to have found more but are currently testing to ensure that it really is a chemical agent. If it is, go Bush. If it isn't...I'd say he's cried wolf too many times...

[CODEZERO]

i chose other wanna know why
i think there many people out in the world probably is better than bush or kerry u never know eh *or is it just me who thinks that* O.o

[singo]

Bush, because at least he tries to make the world a better place

he may not always succed but at least he tries

[Staind]

I like how you guys can even classify it as a war on Iraq. Hm. First world country against a third world country... ? Nice war.

[Dark_Soul74]

Weapons in Iraq: We ourselves had basically a ticking time bomb on little Plumb Island, where there where all sorts of studies on some type of either chemical or germological stuff, which could easily be made into weapons. I think they closed it a while ago, but it was quite a dangerous little project. If they had such facilities in Iraq, they could easily be constituted as dangerous weapons as propaganda, and crazy people can get chemical weapons to attack with just as easily. They're real 'weapons' could be that lone, and possibly fake, chemical weapon, along with the weapons we gave them a decade and a half ago. Go figure.

Budget: Bush has driven our economy straight into the ground. Clinton had set us up quite nicely, and we would have been well above what we are at now, not to mention a fair number of jobs. With Bush though, we are actually in debt of billions of dollars, and over one hundred thousand jobs are lost every month.

Tax Cuts: Most tax cuts and tax law repeals he enacts affect the average person very little, though overall negatively. Some examples are inheritance taxes that would cost pennies to the normal person, but millions of dollars to the super rich, ruining the chances it had at helping our economy.

His Not Listening To Criticism: NOT a good thing, since he is making the USA an enemy to EVERYONE. Not a very good thing to piss off the UN, now is it?

Wheee!

[xjudicator]

Honestly now, you're trying to put all the blame on Bush for the economy again. He is only the president he doesn't get to control it. And Clinton, he was actually at the beginning of this deficit. I'm not sying he started it, but I am saying that he didn't prevent it either.

[Mattimeo]

Eh, Bush.... because, well because Kerry's a hippie ;)

Anywho,

Iraq: There might be WMD's in Iraq, there might not. Even if none are found, we already have docements showing that Iraq was attempting to get WMDs. Even if we are unable to find these weapons, it means we got into Iraq just in time because they would have gotten these weapons if we hadn't stopped them. Saddam Hussein was trying to enrich uranium as well as running other WMD related programs. In addition this war in Iraq has saved countless lives because Saddam Hussein and his regime no longer have the power to kill people whenever they feel like it. I'll leave you with this thought:

If Al Gore (or John Kerry if you prefer) had been president during this term, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq.

Suck on that.

Economy: The economy was beginning to fail before Bush even got into office. And this slight recession coupled with the 9-11 attacks (which Gore/Kerry/whoever could not have prevented) caused this minor blip on the radar screen which the Democrats are making a big deal out of. The economy was never in serious trouble and is recovering nicely. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is well over 10,000 again and with this improved economy, jobs will follow soon.

Tax Cuts and the National Debt: One of the few ways a President can deal with a failing economy more or less directly is by proposing tax cuts to put more money back into the hands of the populace which allows for greater spending. These tax cuts will decrease the amount of funds the government has, which can lead to a national debt (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) If Kerry is elected, he will raise taxes, which at first would seem like it would decrease the national debt, but Kerry also supports increased government spending which would ruin the effectiveness of these tax increases. For raised taxes to be effective, the government can't in addition spend more money.

As for the complaint that most of Bush's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1% of the population; the wealthiest 1% pays most of the taxes. If you look at the percentages rather than the raw dollar amounts of the tax cuts, they are much fairer. And the richest people also spend more money which is the goal of a tax cut designed to help the economy.

Bush's not listening to criticism: This issue is not as much a factor of Bush not listening to criticism as it is his willingness to do what he feels is right without worrying about how it affects the polls. The members of the UN weren't worried about Saddam Hussein and other islamic radicals because it's not their countries the radicals hate, it's the United States. The feel that our culture goes against their beliefs and that it is their religious duty to kill all Americans. They don't want to kill the French; they don't want to kill the Germans; they want to kill Americans. France and Germany are just looking out for France and Germany. Is it suddenly a crime for the United States to look out for the United States? Unilateralism is a buzz word that Democrats use to make Bush look bad, but in reality, unitlateralism is not necessarily a bad thing. If everybody had to agree on everything, then nothing would ever get done.

So in the end:

Iraq: We did the right thing, even if some people think we did it for the wrong reasons.
Economy: Not really Bush's fault and it's recovering nicely.
Tax Cuts: Learn some math and don't believe every statistic that is fed to you.
International Relations: The US looks out for the US, France looks out for France.

Bush in '04, because anybody else that's running would just be wrong ;)

~Don't Panic