Vote for President 2004 - Page 2

GameMaster · 10-19-2004, 01:03 PM

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

Blade Runner · 10-19-2004, 01:23 PM

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 · 10-21-2004, 12:25 PM

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 · 10-21-2004, 01:38 PM

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 · 10-21-2004, 01:42 PM

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

TheGame · 10-21-2004, 02:15 PM

*can't help himself*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

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 · 10-21-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

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.

Neo · 10-21-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

Quote:

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 · 10-21-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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.

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 · 10-22-2004, 03:01 AM

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 · 10-22-2004, 04:46 AM

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 · 10-22-2004, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsHand

95?

April 19, 1995 (a little out of date, but whatever).

*shrugs and walks away*

Typhoid · 10-22-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Link1130

April 19, 1995 (a little out of date, but whatever).

*shrugs and walks away*

I think he meant Terrorism from non-Amercans.

Quote:

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 · 10-22-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsHand

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.thefreedictionar...+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 · 10-22-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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.