Vote for President 2004

[Neo]

Early voting begins today, and this poll will stay open through Nov. 2nd. If you're too young to vote in the real polls then at least you have this.

[Dylflon]

Can Canadians vote?

[Neo]

Everyone can vote. We're all one big happy voting family.

[The Germanator]

I picked Kerry/Edwards just as I will do on my Pennsylvania absentee ballot as soon as it arrives. :)

[Ace195]

I picked bush/cheney, I've stated my reasons many times before and it needs not be stated here also :)

[Blackmane]

Bush

[jeepnut]

Just as I will not vote in the real election, I will not vote here.

[Classic Rocker]

Nader

[Crono]

George Dubya Bush.

[Professor S]

Gee, I wonder who is going to win the poll on THIS forum...

:rolleyes:

Just so everyone knows, Bush is not leading by several points on 3 major polls. Just saw it on CNN.

[Neo]

In the CBS/NYT survey, Mr. Bush leads Kerry 47-45 among likely voters, with Ralph Nader taking 2 percent. The lead is within the poll's margin of error.

That's in line with a Washington Post daily tracking poll that has Mr. Bush up 50-46 percent and a Reuters/Zogby survey that shows the men tied at 45 percent each.

Among likely voters, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll sees a wider gap, with Mr. Bush up 52-44 percent, a shift from Kerry's one-point lead in that survey last week. Among registered voters, Mr. Bush's lead is a mere 49-46 percent.

And don't forget this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/point.spread/index.html

[The Germanator]

Kerry leads in the current electoral vote predictor. :)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Swan]

Nader

[Dyne]

I voted Nader! I HATE EVERYBODY

[Neo]

Kerry leads in the current electoral vote predictor. :)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Cool website, I haven't seen that one. And yeah since Bush is under the crucial 50% I think he's probably screwed.

[GameMaster]

I chose Kerry, it's an exciting time to be an 18 year-old.

[Blade Runner]

I was filling out my absentee ballot yesterday and noticed Nader was not on it. Rather, there was a box that said "candidate removed" o_O There were also two other candidates I had never even heard of. Oh well, I voted Bush......

[TheGame]

To tell the truth, on the flat issues in my eyes they are even... I agree and disagree with both equally on every issue I care about. But I'm going to vote for Bush though because he is open with his religious beliefs and dispite who it may piss off he follows them. (And I'm not going to debate about it so slam what I think all you want)

I've noticed a trend though, there seems to be quiet replublicans and loud democrats... I've also noticed that the younger group (people just old enough or not old enough to vote) in general seem to be leaning towards Kerry. This may just be California though.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

if this is worth anything, the majority of the people i know here in Canada all want John Kerry to get voted in. Its funny, Farenheit 911 sold out here, out crazy neighbors to the south.

[Neo]

Kerry is open about his beliefs as well. The difference is he doesn't try to force them onto others.

[TheGame]

*can't help himself*

Kerry is open about his beliefs as well. The difference is he doesn't try to force them onto others.

Excatly the problem, if you support somthing you support it, if you don't you don't. If what your followers are doing goes against his own beliefs, I'd kinda expect him not to support it. ;) But eh, anything for a vote I guess... lost mine.

[Professor S]

Kerry is open about his beliefs as well. The difference is he doesn't try to force them onto others.

Yeah, but he keeps on trading his beliefs in for whatever he thinks is popular at the time. He literally changed his whole stance on Iraq with two months left in the election. What change? From being out in 6 months to out in 4 years.

Yeah, I trust him. :rolleyes:

[Neo]

I've also noticed that the younger group (people just old enough or not old enough to vote) in general seem to be leaning towards Kerry. This may just be California though.

It's young people in general.


Kerry has a sizable 57 percent to 38 percent lead among young voters, age 18 to 29.

That's much different than in the 2000 election, when young voters divided pretty much like everyone else — 48 percent for Al Gore, 46 percent for Bush. If they stay in Kerry's corner, and turn out in large numbers, it could make the difference this year.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=186261

[Typhoid]

Yeah, but he keeps on trading his beliefs in for whatever he thinks is popular at the time. He literally changed his whole stance on Iraq with two months left in the election. What change? From being out in 6 months to out in 4 years.

Yeah, I trust him. :rolleyes:



So your saying over the course of a few months youve never changed your mind on anything?

Maybe Kerry is human. Maybe he changes his mind. Everyone does.

[Blackmane]

Average Joe Schmo can change his mind about anything he wants. Kerry has to have positions to stand on. Why? Cause he is running for president and frankly, you can't have someone willy-nilly changing his mind about everything.

This is Kerry's campaign life, saying that he can do a better job than Bush, including in the war. And his great plan for the war is....bring more allies into it.....which means France and Germany...

...who have already said they are not going to help us just because Kerry gets elected.

So, why is Kerry a better candidate? Maybe he should start talking about how Republicans supress the black vote or how they are going to reinstate the draft. Oh wait, Democrats are already doing that.

[DeathsHand]

This is the way I (a scared, simple-minded child) see things..

Bush screwed up... I don't like the war in Iraq, I don't think it was necesary, I don't think it's possible to win a "war on terror" (like it's not possible to win a "war on drugs") because no matter how hard you fight other 'evil-doers' will continue to pop up, slip through the cracks, etc...

I think going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden was fine, he's the big leader-man of the group behind that specific attack... But we havn't caught him yet...

The way I see it, I feel Bush did a very good job directly after september 11th, he tried his best to keep people's spirits up and retaliated, but then he started running willy-nilly in Iraq and naming even more targets...

Terrorism in the united states is a rare occurrence... I've heard people acting like it's a miracle that we havn't been attacked again yet... It's been 3 years since 9/11... What terrorist attack happened on US soil from 1998-2001? hmm *scratches head*... 97? 96? 95?....

How many people die per year from other various acts of violence? Accidents? Diseases? Hunger?... Of course not nearly all deaths are preventable, and sure adding more to the body count isn't something you want to have happen, so you try your best to prevent it here at home through intelligence, training, what have you, and if it happens, retaliate against the people responsible... This war is costing us how many bajillion dollars to help 'prevent disaster and save lives'... Not to sound like a hippy, but you could save plenty more lives if you spent those bajillions on food for the hungry, research for cures or safer automobiles or ANYTHING... I mean, that's pretty damn obvious... And it doesn't get us stuck in a war we can't win...

But America has to act big and bad and turn these events that happen once in a blue moon into a long, drawn out ordeal that will be proven to be useless (at least at it's main goal of protecting the US) when there's another terrorist attack on American soil years down the road...

Did I give any reasons why Kerry is a good candidate? No... But I gave plenty on why (in my view) Bush is a bad one... Is this a good spot to be in (choosing either a guy you dissapprove of, or a guy who's like "Welp, let's just give control to him and see how he does!")? No... But it's the spot I feel I'm in right now...

And get rid of that damn color-coded terror alert system, it doesn't mean anything... Stop ruling by fear...

[Ginkasa]

95?


April 19, 1995 (http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/bombing.html) (a little out of date, but whatever).


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

April 19, 1995 (http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/bombing.html) (a little out of date, but whatever).


*shrugs and walks away*


I think he meant Terrorism from non-Amercans.



Timothy McVeigh

That name doesnt sound too Iraqi to me.

And dont say "Terrorism is terrorism" yes, I agree it is, but when Bush talks about Terrorism he is talking from the middle east. Not from your own country.

[Professor S]

Terrorism in the united states is a rare occurrence... I've heard people acting like it's a miracle that we havn't been attacked again yet... It's been 3 years since 9/11... What terrorist attack happened on US soil from 1998-2001? hmm *scratches head*... 97? 96? 95?....

Wow, talk about a self-fulfilling opinion. So because there has not been an attack there is no threat? Thats the same attitude that cause over 3,000 people to die on 9/11. And by the way, there was already one attack on the Brooklyn Bridge that was stopped and arrests were made thanks to the much misunderstood and maligned Patriot Act (Source: Fahrenhype 9/11)

As for a history of just Islamic terrorism against the US...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Timeline+of+Islamic+terrorism+against+the+United+States

There is a reference to a pirate attack in 1793, but after that it appears that terrorist attacks have been made on the US since 1973. 28 attacks all told over the last 30 years.

Well we've seen what ignoring it gets us, so lets just continue to ignore it again so we can just stop worrying about it and pretend it doesn't exist. When we do get attacked again because Britney Spears raised her hemline 3 inches, we can just chalk it up to a big "whoopsy!" and shove our head back in the sand and wait for the next one.

Talk about ignorance being bliss...

[Typhoid]

Well we've seen what ignoring it gets us, so lets just continue to ignore it again so we can just stop worrying about it and pretend it doesn't exist. When we do get attacked again because Britney Spears raised her hemline 3 inches, we can just chalk it up to a big "whoopsy!" and shove our head back in the sand and wait for the next one.

Talk about ignorance being bliss...



Honestly, do you want your kids living in constant fear for their lives? Never trusting the brown people around them, for they may have anthrax, or be a terrorist.

Do you want your kids living under the terror rainbow?

Thats so Republican though isnt it?

Constantly bringing up the terror isuue. Its how Bush hopes to get elected. When things get rough in a debate or speech, just revert to 9/11 and all is well.

If a tough question comes up about what you will do int he future, talk about 9/11 and how much "America is safer".

Its foolproof, its worked so far.

People living in fear are ideal people to Republicans. You can mold them into your own mindless scared voters and drones.

If people are scared, there is a happy Republican somewhere in the world.

Whenever a person sweats in fear, a Republican gets his tie.

[Professor S]

Honestly, do you want your kids living in constant fear for their lives? Never trusting the brown people around them, for they may have anthrax, or be a terrorist.

Not afraid but aware, and our government should be vigilant. Meanwhile your racist statement is wholly inaccurate andf only shows that you live in a country that is 90% white with a skewed vision of America.

Do you want your kids living under the terror rainbow?

Yes. I want to be aware if there is a threat, just as I'd want to be aware if there was a fire by the sound of an ALARM or that there is a sexual offender in my neighborhood by the release of an Amber Alert. Knowing is not a BAD THING. Knowing can actually save your life.

Thats so Republican though isnt it?

If not wanting to ignore the obvious is Republican, maybe I'll just change my stance from independent to Republican. Because by your definition, if I prefer not to be oblivious to the world around me and the dangers, then I have to be a Republican.

Constantly bringing up the terror issue. Its how Bush hopes to get elected. When things get rough in a debate or speech, just revert to 9/11 and all is well.

Because it was a threat then , has been a threat for 30 years, and will continue to be a threat until we do something about it. To change course now would only serve to empower those that are fighting against "The Great Satan".

If a tough question comes up about what you will do int he future, talk about 9/11 and how much "America is safer".

It is safer and it is safer for the exact reason I mentioned before. If we elect a president who will repeal the Patriot Act and abandon the current policy by inviting countries that profited from states like Saddam's Iraq to help/take over, our problem is going to get worse.

People living in fear are ideal people to Republicans. You can mold them into your own mindless scared voters and drones.

You call it living in fear, I call it not having the philosophy of "ignore it and it will go away". That never works and Clinton's Presidency is the perfect example of this. He ignored it for 8 years and it cost us too much.

If people are scared, there is a happy Republican somewhere in the world

Whenever a person sweats in fear, a Republican gets his tie.

Ignorant and simplistic, but I expect that of you. BTW, excellent job of ignoring 90% of the points I made or the site I posted and just continuing with your talking points that require absolutely no factual basis.:rolleyes:

[Typhoid]

Meanwhile your racist statement is wholly inaccurate andf only shows that you live in a country that is 90% white with a skewed vision of America.


I have no idea how that staement was racist. Can we not call people from the middle east "Brown" anymore? Just like Black people are now "coloured" or "Urban" or "African American".

And i highly doubt Canada is 90% white.

If it is, Vancouver has all the blacks, Asians, and hispanics, because they almost outnumber the white people.

[The Germanator]

Can we not call people from the middle east "Brown" anymore? Just like Black people are now "coloured" or "Urban" or "African American".



Actually, "colored" stopped becoming a 'proper' term back in the 60's or 70's. Black or African-American is fine.

[DeathsHand]

Wow, talk about a self-fulfilling opinion. So because there has not been an attack there is no threat?

Show me where I said "There is no threat"... I said it's a rare occurence... Meaning yes there is a threat... A small one... Well, I guess it would be a big one if we left ourselves completely open ("We can just walk in and blow americans up! (^-^"), but of course we'd never do that, and we weren't doing that before September 11th...

I also said:

"But America has to act big and bad and turn these events that happen once in a blue moon into a long, drawn out ordeal that will be proven to be useless (at least at it's main goal of protecting the US) when there's another terrorist attack on American soil years down the road"...

Meaning I believe terrorists will again slip through the cracks and conduct an attack on US Soil... But it's not like it's gonna happen every year or something... Not even every 2, 3, 4, even 5 years... Of course it's all speculation... And not just the stuff I say...

and if you argue that "Yeah because we're fighting them back WOOO!" Then I'll just go back to my original post where I said BEFORE september 11th, BEFORE we started 'fighting back' these things were a rare occurence on US soil...

So YES there is a threat (they're always plotting ways to hit the US and their interests abroad), but we reduce the risk greatly by just doing things we have always been doing... Which is why I think major pre-emptive strikes on terrorist groups, countries that harbor terrorism, or even Iraq is pointless and a huuuuuuge waste... UNLESS (as I said before) it was in direct retaliation for the rare terrorist attack that does occur on US soil...

And yeah, I wasn't counting Oklahoma City, I meant terrorist attacks on the US from outside sources...

[Ginkasa]

And yeah, I wasn't counting Oklahoma City, I meant terrorist attacks on the US from outside sources...


*doesn't really see what the difference is, but okay*


*shrugs and walks away*

[DeathsHand]

*doesn't really see what the difference is, but okay*


*shrugs and walks away*

Well when a terrorist from the US attacks us, we don't respond with bombs... And then set off on a quest around the world to wipe out terrorism...

[Fox 6]

Canada.. 90% white?.. definatley not. There is a whole mountain of Asain and Indian people around here. Not to mention that im part Asain. There are a lot of different races living here. and a lot of the black people came to Canada in the 1800's to escape slavery.

[Professor S]

Canada.. 90% white?.. definatley not. There is a whole mountain of Asain and Indian people around here. Not to mention that im part Asain. There are a lot of different races living here. and a lot of the black people came to Canada in the 1800's to escape slavery.

That part was meant to be kind of a joke, using a Canadian Bacon quote as the inspiration. Sorry if you took it literally, I worked in Toronto for a long time and I personally know there is a huge Asian population. I managed a Asian telemarketing campaign.

[Neo]

I managed a Asian telemarketing campaign.

Did you listen to their calls and offer helpful tips like "you need to make it sound more conversational, not like you're reading from a script," and "good job on that appointment!" or "I've got to have eight hours out of you!"

[Professor S]

I was never that close to the floor. I handled more of the numbers and compiled statistics and told the floor managers who to work with a whatnot. I rarely monitored calls myself.

Plus, the calls were in Mandarin and Cantonese... how would I even know what they're saying? :D

[Classic Rocker]

Political parties need to be done away with. They divide the country too much. The people now, more than ever need unity. There are a lot of issues that concern us all, but we Americans don't seem to be doing anything about it. If us Americans boycotted oil for the most part, prices would plummel. I know we need oil for our everyday use, but we can use alternative sources and means to accomplish what needs to be done. That is just one example. The people have the power, we are just to lazy to use it and the government knows that.

We act like these presidents are going to become king. They still have other branches. If Kerry is president, and most of Congress is republican things could get messey. Same with Bush being president and most of Congress being democratic. This is just my opinion. I want to see a change in pace.

[DeathsHand]

Political parties need to be done away with. They divide the country too much.

Sorry, but doing away with political parties won't do away with people's varying views and opinions on various issues...

[Ginkasa]

But when you have parties, you have people who focus maybe a little too much on benfitting that party or increasing its power, rather than helping out the nation as a whole.

I guess.


*shrugs and walks away*

[dropCGCF]

Edwards.

[Blackmane]

You can't do away with parties, they form naturally when people of similiar viewpoints come together and try to get their view across to government by getting their candidates elected.