Who are you Voting for?

Kerry

Bush

or Other?

 

this thread will not last to long..........no political stuff allowed........

 

actually, as long as noone starts insulting, flaming, or trolling... i would imagine it wouldnt neccessitate a ban

personnally, i would vote for Kerry, but a) im not a US citizen
and b) i cannot legally vote yet (21 in the US?)


(By the way, does it seem that people are allowed to express their right to vote too little? Once every four years doesnt seem that much, when you remember that it's really only twice a decade, on average)

 

I saw a bumper sticker.

It said,

Abort the Parent, Not the Child.

I thought of Kerry.


Re: Kerry

Hate em on many points, the one that stands out is abortion.

Abortion is bullshit, but then, being a parent biases me a bit I 'spose.

 

Kerry


Steve

 

i voted for Bush on this poll, but i'm only 16. but if i was 18 and could vote i would vote bush.

eric

 

I Didn't know political stuff wasn't allowed.


BTW I'll be voting for Kerry!

 

Where are you located? 18 is the legal voting age in the US.

 

i am not going to tell you who i am voting for .........
but the biggest point i have ( this is a hint )
WTF are we doing in iraq...........1048 dead....didn't we go to war because of WMDs where are they.................
what about bin ladan did we forget about him....

check it....
http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

Can't vote for Bush, as he doesn't have a clue. "Vote for me, or terrorists will get you."
Can't vote for Kerry, as the only qualification he has offered is that he's not Bush. I'm not Bush, either, does that make me qualified to be president?
So, it's either Nader or the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik. Maybe they're nuts, but at least I know what they plan on doing should either get in office.

 

It's a valid point, but I tell you what. Let me put together a few dufflebag sized canisters that are empty and place them around texas. Now... go find them!

 

Mickey Mouse,,,,

Kerry if I had any other choice !!!

 

remember STOCK PILES STOCK PILES....
RUMSFELD ALSO SAID " WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE THEY ARE UP IN THE NORTH NEAR TIKREAT"

 

I'm also a parent, and I think a ban on stem cell research is BS. I'm lucky that my son is healthy, but if I had a child that needed an organ or had some disease that stem cell research could possibly cure, you better believe I'd be all for it. So would anyone else here.

This will actually be the first time I've ever voted. I'm 29, but until now have never cared much about politics. Having a child sure changes that. The future is actually important to me now, and wackyass Bush has actually compelled me to register to vote.


Steve

 

Bush, Wicker, a few local positions. No senators up for election this year, and state level election is in 2007, or there would be more.

I know everybody votes for president, but there's going to be a whole lot more on your ballots than just that. Anybody pay any attention to the REST of what's going on?

 

I voted for Nader in 2000, mainly because I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. In Russia, there is a choice to vote for "None of the above". If a high enough percentage of votes are for "None of the above", then all those candidates are disqualified, and a new election is held.
Nader wants to institute such a thing. Based on that, and a few other things, I voted for him.

Now, after 9/11, I've been very supportive of Bush, and I think he really cares about what happened then, and what will happen in the future. He is taking the war to them before they bring it to us. He's doing what he said he'd do, he hasn't swayed. Before 9/11, I would never have thought he would do such a good job, but he has. And this is no time to change administrators.

Kerry is low-rent. Any candidate that would get on the Letterman show and give a top 10 list on Bush has too much time on his hands. He's a snake in the grass, and I don't trust him.

1048 is less than we lost on 9/11 by about 2000.
How many innocents did Saddam torture and kill? Both the Kurds, Kuwaiti people, and his own countrymen?
How many men lost their lives in WWII?
How many men gave their lives on the invasion at Normandy in one day?
How many innocent Jews were killed?
1048 is a small price to pay for freedom. Freedom from attack and terrorism.
And our friend Isaac just went to Afghanistan to secure the elections. There are still plenty of troops in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden.

Like Kodo said, look for a few items in an area the size of Texas, and see how quickly you can find either WMD or Bin Laden. No easy task when you have enemies firing missiles and blowing up the roads.

One more thing: I'm here living comfortably in the USA. I enjoy my quiet little life, I touch a few people here and there, and I recieve quite a bit, simply because of the riches that we all enjoy by being citizens. There is much that I am not proud of in the US. But I live here, I enjoy what I have, and I'm thankful.
If this war went on, or came to our home turf (Like it already did, mind you) and we started running out of soldiers, you can bet that I would enlist and do my part. I would do what ever it takes to protect my family. And I also have an obligation to the other families in this country to protect them. If I do any less, I'm a coward.

I told my friend Isaac when he was in Afghanistan the first time: "Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you, for serving all of us. You are loved, admired, and respected. I wish I could be there beside you. I wish there was more I could do. I don't know how to thank you"

He told me, "I'm over here so that you don't have to be. I don't want you here. I want you at home with Cindy and the kids, living your life like you are supposed to. Just tell me how things are going from time to time, share the little everyday things with me, and that will remind me of why I'm doing this, and will be thanks enough."

Thanks Isaac. Thank you.

 

MA,

I agree, and I was too vague in my above post. I'm voting for Bush too.

The "None of the above" vote can be dealt with later.

 

this is why i really do not like political threads. I do not want to offend any one with the way i see our country heading. My job went to mexico. and for me Bush has done nothing to stop more jobs from leaving. i hope that everone here at MG never get a pink slip, and then find out that your job went to a different country....
granted i do not think kerry is a good choice either, so the none of the above works for me.
i love living in america, and would defend it., but this war ( right or wronge ) to me seams to have created MORE terrorists.
MA- i do know that we still have troops looking for bin laden
but it is only 14,000 ( and he attacked us )
there are 140,000 in iraq that should have been sent to look for bin laden. then go after iraq. that is my thought.
Now iran and korea might be next ( they soon will have nukes )


so everyone who looks at this post
please do not get offended. every one has ther own veiws, and don't ignore people who thing differently from you.........
everyone at Major Geeks i very friendly and i personaly would still like to chat with you all......
thank you
brian.

 

My three cents:

I do not see how anybody could feel safer with Bush. His invasion of Iraq has made the world a far more dangerous place! (Why Iraq, by the way? Why not Iran or Saudi Arabia – they actually contributed to the attacks on our country.)

The most intelligent thing Bush has ever said is that the war on terror cannot be won. Of course, he immediately flip-flopped when his advisors jumped his case. But, for once, he was right. Technology is moving too fast and our defenses cannot keep up. (Some small portion of Russia's poorly guarded and poorly regulated stockpiles of obsolete nuclear weapons and materials could easily fall into the wrong hands) The war on terror is a global battle that needs to be fought by the global community. Bush’s bravado may play well here in the states, but his doctrine of preemption is scary!

Don’t think so? Look at Russia right now. In response to the recent terrorism there, Putin – citing Bush’s actions – is adopting his own doctrine of preemption. The U.S. is not the only country that can go to war for no (good) reason! What about India and Pakistan? What if they decide to elevate their nuclear testing beyond the pissing contest they are having now? And what about China, which has always been wary of its neighbors? The list goes on. Whether we like it or not, the U.S must be careful of the example it sets.

And, yes, we are running out of soldiers. Bush cannot keep up the backdoor draft of the National Guard for much longer. There has been talk of reinstituting the draft, but you can bet your ass that Bush will deny it until after the election.

And, regarding the election - since when is having the intelligence to change your mind when you see that your original plan has gone to hell a sign of weakness?

One last thing - In his ads, Bush knocks Kerry for voting against “body armor for our soldiers.” Yet, that vote passed and our soldiers are still without the necessary equipment. What happened to the money? Halliburton, anybody?

I agree with Smokinbls and the last part of MA's last post. Bush is not about helping the people in this country who really need it.

Regards and Respect to All,

PhilliePhan

 

I learned long ago not to believe what I hear on TV (not saying you have based your belief on this) but I know that many do. It's exhausting to try to stay in touch with every issue, especially one as complicated as stem cell research. However, I have found that "facts" that I heard simply aren't true when I looked at medical research put out there by a non-political group. So much is still unknown when it comes to embryonic stem cells...it is not the "promised land" that they have hope and way more IS HAPPENING with adult stem cells then you'll ever hear about in casual "news" reporting.

Yep, you're right, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Yep, you're right, this is about voting...but stem cell research was brought up as a big factor in some people's votes and I think so many people have so many facts about it that are misunderstood. So if anyone wants to look at a few sites for more info:

The author of the first site http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040820.shtml says about herself:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ (this site has tons of other links)
From this site http://www.americandaily.com/article/4696 is the quote:

from this site http://www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024064.cfm is the quote:

Now you can argue that this is conservative "news" and therefore just as biased. Well, we're inundated with mostly one side of this issue, it's good to know there's some places to go to hear the "other side" but I think it's also the balanced side (not all of these authors are "conservative").

 

Pegg, you hit the nail on the head on stem cell research, also on the broader issue of using warped numbers and scare tactics to influence people... and voters. One of the most promising paths they're studying is using a patient's OWN stem cells for repairs, which eliminates any possibility of incompatibility and contamination with problems in the donor cells.

And on a lot of issues, basing a vote for a candidate/party is futile, as both parties are in the same camp. Job outsourcing, illegal immigration, throttling big government... neither party intends to pay any series attention to any of those. There ARE differences, but voting against any incumbent based on those and quite a few others is meaningless. Kerry's using of any of them to show he's different is a lie, as his job performance to date, and his party's actions, state otherwise, regardless of what he says... today. If he thinks it will help, he'll say something different tomorrow, and will likely do a third thing if he gets elected. Kerry has no personal convictions. He's a weathervane.

U.S. - 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing.
United Kingdom - 11,000 dead, 54,000 wounded & missing.
Canada - 5,000 dead, 13,000 wounded & missing.
Plus over 12,000 French civilians killed or wounded.

And Germany didn't attack us first either.

I said here before we went into Iraq that I wished Bush's team would emphasize the strategic advantages and the humanitarian reasons for hitting Iraq more, and concentrate less on the WMDs. But even without the WMDs, there is valid reason to be there. And keep in mind, that hindsight is wonderful. ALL the world's governments and intelligence agencies believed that they were there, including Interpol... and still might be. Desert sand makes a good cover. Or, they may have been moved to Syria, which would be worse yet. There's plenty of evidence of WMD programs. whether they find the smoking guns or not.

 

who's the guy with the hat?j/k

I think if it could be possible to
mush bush and kerry together and get a better person


Bush has already been there
Kerry is just lost
I am still undecided

 

No one is offended by your post. I was responding to you specifically because I feel that we really have not sent very many men to the front lines. See GTs post for the large numbers of men that died at Normandy alone. I can hardly believe that was only Normandy. That is staggering. And as GT also said, they didn't even attack us first. Yet most people believe that WWII was a "valid" war (for lack of a better term). I just don't get why there is so much outcry about this war. We enjoy the freedoms of this country, but we want to belittle the leaders who make the decisions that help us keep those freedoms. I just don't get it.

Also, wartime is always a hard time for the folks at home, and we haven't experienced anything remotely close to the hardships and shortages they experienced during WWII. We still go to the market and buy anything we want. Back then, rubber and metal and all sorts of things were in short supply. So, I'm not sure how we can have a war and enjoy comfort too. These are hard times, but I'm hitching up my belt another notch and I know we'll make it through.

Anyway, I want to say again that no one is offended. As long as we refrain from name calling (which we all have) we can become heated in our debate, or whatever, and that is okay. No political arguement will cause me to view anyone else as the enemy. When someone starts name calling, then I may begin to think they don't like me.

In the meantime, I agree to disagree, and will support the troops, the war effort, the search for Bin Laden, and President Bush.

And I mean it when I say, I will fight for this country, which boils down to fighting for my family and friends, if it comes to that. I don't want to, (I'd be insane if I wanted to) but I will do it.

 

MA you are right bush did not cost me my job, but i do not think he has done everything he or our government can do to keep jobs here..
i am not lazy in anyway ( i hope you were not refering to me when you posted that )
actually, i blame the company i worked for. they could have stayed here, but they choose to leave so the owners could make more money ( greed )
yes if you are lazy you do not deserve to have or keep your job.
to many american's want everything but don't want to work for it.

i say good for you MA for owning you own company, and hope the very best for you and it.

wow this has totaly gone off subject
it started out with who you will vote for . then bam, what our likes and dislikes are...

 

Ah right, same for us in the UK then

It does seem pretty sad that since you have a two party system, in the end you end up voting for the "lesser of two evils".. however, our system has some pretty big flaws too. That idea by Nader sounds like a good one... pity the system they are getting it from is sliding back into totalitariansim. I would also back proportional representation, just on the fact that the 'first past the post' method seems to leave people unrepresented

@ Jarcher: dude, wouldn't it be better just to mush them together? Then you would probably get some better people to vote for

@Halo: Gotta remember the important stuff

 

Other. At this point, most likely Badnarik. There are WAY more than two parties, and approximately 20 people running for the office of US President.

 

Mush two pieces of ......crap together, the end result is still crap

 

There are indeed. The "Two Party System" is a myth perpetuated by the two parties that hold most of the marbles. And by the brainless media that parrots their quotes without actually thinking. And perpetuated by the current rules on campaign finance, and exclusionary practices for the debates that exclude most everybody but the big Two.

I'd very much like to see the power in Washington split up among 4 or 5 parties. Maybe someday... I'm always on the lookout for worthy candidates from the "other" parties, and at the local/state level, they've got a chance to get in. But there's far too little support, or even notice of them to have any chance at the White House... so far...

You don't start with the presidency, you start with mayors, state representatives, eventually governors and congressmen and build upward.

Bush is not my ideal; there's plenty about him and his policies that I'm not happy with. But I'm far less happy about the prospects of Kerry & his team. My first choice would be somebody else. But the only two with a chance at THIS years' election are Bush & Kerry, and I'd rather not throw my vote away. One of THEM will win this one.

I respect anybody that THINKS enough to prefer someone else for valid reasons; I just don't agree with their stragegy on the presidency. But I strongly encourage the "third party" supporters to truly support their parties. There's a lot of building needed to make them viable.

I have yet to meet any Kerry supporter that can tell me what Kerry is actually for, what his actual plans are for our future, or even WHY they prefer him, other than "He's not Bush". Or they're dedicated Democrats that would vote Democratic no matter who was running. (And die-hard Republicans are as bad as die-hard Democrats; a scoundrel is what he is, no matter who's button he wears on his lapel.)

But we get the government that we deserve, because, en mass, we don't care enough to pay attention to who we're voting for. At ALL levels.

Sarge & I disagree on most things political, but I've got more in common with her than with "conservatives" that don't pay any attention and don't bother to learn what's necessary to make an informed decision.

 

Ah, sorry, that's what I meant when I said there was a Two party system... in terms of the presidency. I know very little about what happens at a state and mayoral level! And I have to say, the only reason I would vote for Kerry would be the fact that he's not Bush too.


"we get the government that we deserve, because, en mass, we don't care enough to pay attention to who we're voting for. At ALL levels."

Good line, GT, good line... and it's why you shouldnt just vote as a protest, but should always vote, it's only that way your govenrment can actually represent you

 

Dangerous basis for voting. It's ALWAYS possible to toss out somebody you don't like, and vote in somebody that's worse. And sadly, today, campaign promises are a lousy way to pick. I wish we had "Truth In Advertising" laws apply to politicians. Give us what you advertised, or go to jail. Or at least TRY to give us what you advertised. Just exactly how does a candidate "reinvent" himself? Frontal lobotomy?

You are what you are. Which may not be what you were 20 or 30 years ago, but people don't change overnight. Most of today's campaign platforms and promises are nothing but a marketing campaign, with no penalties for fraud.

 

True, but the reasons I would never vote for Bush are (in my opinion) more grevious then what may happen if J.K gets in. Even if he does, aren't the Senate and Congress are controlled by Republicans? He's not going to be able to do much, as far as i can see.

Our government lied to the UK about going to Iraq, it's a proven fact, and yet there aren't really that many alternatives. 'The new opposition' (Liberal Democrats) and the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) are calling for the impeachment of the PM, but something like that hasn't happened for a while.

 

If Hitler and Stalin were running for president, it scares me to think of how many people would actually debate who would be better or worse. We have a two-party system because everyone is too worried about backing a winner, as opposed to backing the best for the job. Vote for someone simply because he may win, as opposed to how well he may perform, and your vote is wasted just as surely as the guy who sits at home complaining about all the election coverage pre-empting his favorite TV shows.

 

So many people seem to think this way -- I agree G.T. "dangerous basis for voting" (and that's not just "against you", sizjam)...it's what Kerry is hoping for.

First, too many problems are blamed on Bush -- the president alone can't make all the changes (nor a Republican/Democrat controlled Congress) -- that's another lie we're told.

Second, problems existed before Bush that we're told are his problems or he should have fixed but even if he tried, others opposed him and he couldn't do what he has tried to do (but we don't have all that "insider" info fed to us everyday - actually, believe it or not, certain info isn't given to us by the regular media. If you like "Time" magazine or "Newsweek", subscribe to "World" magazine too and you'll get some other information you don't normally see.)

Third, like G.T. said, we don't have a crystal ball into the future and you don't know what you're trading one person for another for.

 

none taken! I realise that it is a fairly irresponsible way of chosing a representitive, this choice is what you get given. Even if Bush is a known quantity.... that quantity is, in my eyes, unnacceptable. Obviously, many others feel completely the opposite, and that's fine and healthy for a democracy, but what isn't healthy is the partisanship dsiplayed by both camps.

It will help the US if Bush and his fellow neo-cons (Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell etc.) are removed; it will improve world opinion greatly. I would like all US citizens who read this to remember:
"the world does _not_ hate Americans, anymore then Americans hate the world. Many dislike the American goverment, but why shouldn't they?"

 

Remember the UN stalled us for ages.. so, I'll tell you about where I'm hiding the cannisters and then I'll say you have to wait 4 months before you can start looking.. I'll move them and then you go find them

 

The Presidency is what I was talking about. There are about twenty people from about twenty parties running for President (if not more). Which last I knew, amounted to more than two parties.

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All

And G.T., I have never and will never consider a vote "thrown away" that was cast for a candidate believed in, whether or not that candidate has a chance to actually win. I couldn't live with myself if I voted for someone based on the fact that they could win rather than the fact that they represented most closely my convictions.

And I also have more in common with you than any knee-jerk liberals who vote the party line because it's the party line.

 

Now Kodo keep Texas out of it

I choose none of the above,
but will take the lesser of the 2 evils.

 

Bill The Cat...

 

You're not alone Star.


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5176

 

They're all a bunch of lying politicians driven by special interest groups.

Voting for Kerry. I always vote to oust the incumbent. I'm not scared of the terrorists, but I am scared of watching our civil rights disappear. (Somehow, any discussion of this always segues into not caring about the children. Which might be true, because I do believe they should not belong to the State.)

Unfortunately, that's a non-issue because both parties are on the same page as far as that goes.

So, back to voting out the incumbents.

Besides, Kerry said he'll back out of Iraq and strengthen our presence in Afghanistan. That's where we whould be, amyway. Heck, I'm all for marching on Pakistan if they can't be bothered to cooperate.

 

It was actually Clinton that signed NAFTA, the bill that made it easy and lucrative to move jobs off shore. I forget who controlled the Congressional houses, but IIRC it was a bi-partisan effort.

 

the point is is that to many jobs are leaving someone has to try to keep the jobs here.. i have seen lots of IT jobs leave.
here is a test for every one CALL YOUR ISP AND TALK TO A LIVE PERSON. if you can understand them good for you i cant.

 

Well, I'm not sure what that means. They're not going to ask us to the prom? IMHO, The Middle East hates us because we're fundamentally a Christian nation. They always hated us, and they will always hate us. They pretty much hate each other too (referencing the internal radical Islamist violence apparent over the past...well, forever! years, or so...), so THAT seems to be an internal problem.

As for the rest, I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about us. I learned to think outside that box when I left high school. Even on our worst day there's no where else I'd rather live, and I think our system of government is the best in the world.

It's the apathetic voters that irritate me the most- followed by voters who just don't agre with me.

 

I think the IT community has been shafted for about 20 years now. First, everybody was exuberantly coaxed into pursuing a career in IT (formerly known as "computers") because the job market was going to be so hot that demand would certainly force wages up. But 10 years later, I saw people with IT MBA's working on the customer service phones. Somebody was misled somewhere.

You know what though? I think the customer service of any software I've ever installed has always been sub-par. The only difference is that now I can barely understand the incorrect advice I'm getting.

I usually choose Usenet and User Boards (like these) to get the right answers. If it's a money issue, then I might call once. When that doesn't work (and it usually doesn't) I write a letter to the corporate HQ. That always works.