Bush vs Kerry

Day to day, down the street and around the world

Bush or Kerry

Bush
5
24%
Kerry
16
76%
 
Total votes: 21

User avatar
Thor
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Mpls.,Minn.

Post by Thor » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:21 pm

They should show Kerry riding his Harley and out deer hunting. Things that he does in his free time. His image is too stiff. Of course they could show Bush falling off his mountain bike like has twice in the last 6 months.

I personally think that Bush is the worst choice in this election. Other than cut taxes his Domestic programs are very unimaginative. Something needs to be done about health care and we should be running a surplus because starting in 2008 the first baby boomer starts to retire. When the baby boomers all start to retire there is going to be an incredible shock to the economy. We need to have a plan to deal with this because by 2018 we are going to have more people retired than in the workforce.
[url=http://www.warnerreprise.com/asx/rancid_redhotmoon_56-v.asx]Red Hot Moon[/url]
[url=http://www.epitaph.com/_lib/streamvideo.php?id=799&type=lo]Barroom Hero[/url]
[url=http://www.epitaph.com/_lib/streamvideo.php?id=3984&type=lo]Walk Away[/url]

User avatar
Wanderon
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun AZ USA

Post by Wanderon » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:59 am

Josan wrote:Bill Clinton was the best president the US had in years. He played sax, smoked pot and had affairs. Very human and more down to earth than any one else in office.


My mistake I thought you were interested in serious discussion... :roll:
Yes, Kerry may be wishy-washy and have a hard time taking a firm stance but he's not likely to engage in a war the UN deems illegal, he's not likely to demand America be exempted from a international court and above the law and he's not as likely as Bush (who has already done so) to give tax breaks to his buddies at the expense of the common man.
The UN as it stands is a joke as is the concept that the war in Iraq is "illegal". If we had waited for UN approval Saddam would still be in power today and probaly for years to come - I believe as most intelligent people do that the world is better off with him in prison WHERE HE BELONGS.

I fully agree that the US military should not be subject to being railroaded through some international court as a result of actions taken to liberate Iraq. And I also agree that Kerry would probably not have had the balls to insist on that which is another reason I don't want him in the white house.

He gave tax breaks TO EVERYONE and is about to do so again and far from being at the EXPENSE of the so called "common man" they allowed our country to bring our economy back from the brink of disaster which HELPS the common man as well as the rich. The last time I checked we were still heavily into CAPITALISM here and making money was not a crime to be punished for but in fact was a large part of the "American Dream".

The fact that the so called "rich" saved more money due to tax cuts is becuase THEY PAY MORE TAXES.....A LOT MORE...see whats left over from a million dollar lottery ticket after the government gets their share- compared to a 10K winner or ask the folks that just got brand new FREE cars from Oprah how much that car will cost them even tho the SALES TAX WAS PAID becuase the value of the car is INCOME and they must pay income tax on them to the tune of about 7K for some folks...
I knew Bush would be a war mongering fanatic the minute he decided to start saying that he talks to "God" and "God" is on his side. Any one who claims that needs a visit to a Rubber Room, not a place in an Oval Ofice.
So anyone who practices religion should be considered insane? Most religions "talk to God"- they often call that "prayer"...we pretty much believe in freedom of religion here and for the most part are more comfortable with leaders who practice some sort of religion over those who have none at all.

On a seperate issue I thought Kerry did a fine job of showing his ass today when he immediately publicly dismissed everything the Prime Minister of Irag had to say to Congress today.(& not just for the benefit of few close freinds but on National Television to the world.) I guess this was supposed to show us what a great diplomat he is and how he is much better than GW at dealing with foriegn officials. Funny he has dismissed the other members of the coalition in much the same way calling them bribed etc. and minimizing their role in this war all in an effort to make what he thinks is political hay for himself- and in the next breath he claims HE can bring our international "allies" out to help us... :roll:
Not all those who wander are lost...

User avatar
Joseph
Editor
Editor
Posts: 14186
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:29 pm
Title: I wanna be Captain Kirk
Location: Here... no, there...

Post by Joseph » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:22 am

Well, that's the way the free thinking socially sexually liberated people think. Outside of the ultra conservative bible thumpin' gun totin' US, the world sees Clinton as the best US president in oh, decades

Just as most intelligent people believe the world is better off with out Bush. Please see the first post in this thread. :roll: right back at 'cha. :razz: :wink:

User avatar
apoxuponme
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:08 am
Location: London, ON
Contact:

Post by apoxuponme » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:22 pm

I for one am glad there's policies in place to stop the threat of Cat Stevens from spreading his terror to true freedom loving Americans.




Yes, I know... He gave money to a terrorist group............. Hey wait, didn't Bush do that too?...... So did his dad! We should deport them too!.... But, wait. We can't. They are American....... Wait...... So is Cat Stevens!.... Wha!!!!

User avatar
Joseph
Editor
Editor
Posts: 14186
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:29 pm
Title: I wanna be Captain Kirk
Location: Here... no, there...

Post by Joseph » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:28 pm

Actually, I think Cat is a is/was a UK boy but let's deport the Bush family. Yeah!!!

User avatar
Wanderon
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun AZ USA

Post by Wanderon » Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:54 am

Josan wrote:Well, that's the way the free thinking socially sexually liberated people think. Outside of the ultra conservative bible thumpin' gun totin' US, the world sees Clinton as the best US president in oh, decades

Just as most intelligent people believe the world is better off with out Bush. Please see the first post in this thread. :roll: right back at 'cha. :razz: :wink:
I never said Clinton was a bad president but the fact that he smoked dope and had afffairs is still NOT the criteria I am looking for in a leader nor is it the criteria that most people use to judge his contributions to this country and the world regardless of whether they are conservatives or liberals. To suggest that it is simply demeans him and tosses any legitimate point you might make right out the window.

As for Bushs popularity in the world I don't really give a rats ass what the world thinks as long as he is doing whats right for THIS country and our allies. Just like a CEO his job is all about whats best for the US first. Selfish? Perhaps but a strong US can do a lot to help in the world while the last thing we need is the worlds most powerful country to join into the "do nothing and maybe it will go away" attitude of the UN. Sometimes you have to take a stand- and stick to it- something Mr Kerry has some trouble with...According to his latest speeches he has now gone from the "anti-war" candidate to the US biggest "hawk"... :roll:
Not all those who wander are lost...

User avatar
D. Sauzi
Posts: 4845
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:43 am
Location: :niotacoL

Post by D. Sauzi » Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:34 pm

Wanderon wrote:As for Bushs popularity in the world I don't really give a rats ass what the world thinks as long as he is doing whats right for THIS country and our allies. Just like a CEO his job is all about whats best for the US first. Selfish? Perhaps but a strong US can do a lot to help in the world while the last thing we need is the worlds most powerful country to join into the "do nothing and maybe it will go away" attitude of the UN. Sometimes you have to take a stand- and stick to it- something Mr Kerry has some trouble with...According to his latest speeches he has now gone from the "anti-war" candidate to the US biggest "hawk"... :roll:
...
Problem is that the US isn't helping very much right now...

i must admit if Kerry turns out to be undecisive it wouldnt be very good for the US either, but even that would be better than a decisive leader who makes the wrong decisions.

i also believe the US has been pretty ignorant of the rest of the world until WW2, and went trough a very good period at that time, so maybe it isn't that bad to take no action outside the borders, furthermore i wouldn't say the Democrat party doesnt do mcuh outside it's border, even better, it was Bush jr who said the US wouldn't act outside their borders anymore (or at least less) at his election. (he was referring to the Balkan at that time btw).
"anyway, smoke orcs if so take eyes if right points left xy."

Snookems
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: DC

Post by Snookems » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:37 am


User avatar
Azuth
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:31 pm

Post by Azuth » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:57 pm

I hate both of them. I support the War in Iraq, just not how Bush handled it, or how Kerry thinks he can handle it. And while domestic policies are taking a backseat, I don't like Bush's domestic social policies. But Kerry is just as bad w/ all those CIA cuts and abolishment. So I'm not voting for either of them (or any other candidates who have no chance :lol: )
Azuth

"Among mortals, second thoughts are wisest." Euripides

User avatar
Krazikatt
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:10 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Krazikatt » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:19 pm

where's the "none of the above" option?
^..^

User avatar
Wanderon
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun AZ USA

Post by Wanderon » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:42 pm

Krazikatt wrote:where's the "none of the above" option?
Same place it will be on November 2 here more or less- unavailable -unless you just want to throw your vote away on Nader (in some venues only) or cast a so called "protest" vote- both of which are pretty meaningless IMO...altho most folks agree a vote for Nader may well be a vote for Bush.
Not all those who wander are lost...

User avatar
D. Sauzi
Posts: 4845
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:43 am
Location: :niotacoL

Post by D. Sauzi » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:15 pm

Wanderon wrote:
Krazikatt wrote:where's the "none of the above" option?
Same place it will be on November 2 here more or less- unavailable -unless you just want to throw your vote away on Nader (in some venues only) or cast a so called "protest" vote- both of which are pretty meaningless IMO...altho most folks agree a vote for Nader may well be a vote for Bush.
/\ which is in my opinion an incredibly bad form of democracy... If nader gets 4 or 5% of the votes (which indeed will help Bush towards victory) his party should get 5% of the places to be earned in the senate...
when will you guys drop the weird molar man system, which makes sure you can still win presidency while you've lost the total vote, and rules out any smaller party of ever getting into a position where they can have something to do witht he ruling of the country. Or at least get some second round with only the two highest scoring candidates, so that people who've tried to lift Nader still get a chance of choosing who becomes president by choosing the lesser of two evils (for them).
the third thing btw is the strange thing that a molar man only gets a recommendation from the voters and is allowed to ignore that recommendation for his own favorite (not that any one of them does, but it shouldnt be possible...)
"anyway, smoke orcs if so take eyes if right points left xy."

User avatar
Wanderon
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun AZ USA

Post by Wanderon » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:10 pm

dousi wrote: /\ which is in my opinion an incredibly bad form of democracy... If nader gets 4 or 5% of the votes (which indeed will help Bush towards victory) his party should get 5% of the places to be earned in the senate...
Well places in the house and senate are elected as well so there is no opportunity to "give" them to anyone based on the votes a presidential candidate recieves. The chances for third party candidates to be elected to seats in the senate and house are probably more likely than getting elected pres tho.
when will you guys drop the weird molar man system, which makes sure you can still win presidency while you've lost the total vote, and rules out any smaller party of ever getting into a position where they can have something to do witht he ruling of the country. Or at least get some second round with only the two highest scoring candidates, so that people who've tried to lift Nader still get a chance of choosing who becomes president by choosing the lesser of two evils (for them).
the third thing btw is the strange thing that a molar man only gets a recommendation from the voters and is allowed to ignore that recommendation for his own favorite (not that any one of them does, but it shouldnt be possible...)
The electoral system does indeed suck and I suspect the reason it does not get changed to something that better reflects the will of the majority of the populous is that the people who could make those changes are the ones who owe their place in gov't to their success under the current system... :roll:

The other reasons would have to do with everyone wanting to protect thier own territory I guess- then there is the issue of running mates- for instance if you chose the pres and veep by giving those positions to the top two vote getters respectively you could have two adamantly opposed rivals as Pres and Veep- this would probably lead to even more gridlock than we already have- can you imagine the situation if Bush were re-elected and Kerry became Veep? Or vice versa? :twisted:
Not all those who wander are lost...

User avatar
D. Sauzi
Posts: 4845
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:43 am
Location: :niotacoL

Post by D. Sauzi » Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:21 pm

hmm it seems i dont know enough abotu how the senate and house get elected, i always thought this happened at the same time in the same system (only more often and everytime 1/3 of the house/senate is replaced), but as you can read my knowledge isn't very detailed on this...

but still i thought also these elections only had winners, in the sense that if for instance Ohio goes to the republicans they get some places in house and senate, and none go to from democrats (or green party for that matter), instead of working with percentages or something which give for instance for Ohio the reps 55% of the votes, dems get 40 and green gets 5, then they aren't given 11, 8 and 1 seat in the senate (if Ohio had 20 places to distribute) are they?

please correct me if this is wrong, then i won't be placing arguments that don't hold about it anymore ;)

btw, i didnt mean that a second round should have the loser become vice president, that would indeed give lots of discussiona nd gridlock and stuff, i posed the second round thingy simply to rule out the lesser candidates to decide who becomes president (so that nader fi would still have his places in the senate, but when its about presidency you'll vote for Kerry in that second round, because kerry and bush go trough to the final round, in which you cant vote for nader anymore (or the other guy who got about 15 or 20% during clinton's first election, what's he called?), so those votes aren't 'lost'.
maybe it's more clear if the two highest scoring pres/vp couples go to this decisive round. I believe they do the same in France for instance.

It does seem that this isnt a really useful idea in the system right now, because you say the presidential election is something altogether different from the election for senate or house, which means votes for nader on the senate part will simply give him places, while trying to get him to president is simply impossible and a bad idea...
"anyway, smoke orcs if so take eyes if right points left xy."

User avatar
Wanderon
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun AZ USA

Post by Wanderon » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:16 pm

I'm no expert in american voting procedures having been mostly apathetic about politics until fairly recently but here goes:

Only the presidential election uses the electoral college to decide the winner. Each state has so many electoral votes (based on population- more people = more votes). The winner of each state gets ALL the electoral votes for that state and the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes president. This means its possible to win the office and NOT win the popular vote. (The vice pres does not even appear on the ballot you vote for the Pres and the Veep he has chosen)

Two senators are elected to serve each state and are elected by statewide popular vote. They serve 6 years as I recall so in AZ this year only one senate seat is up for election.

US Representatives are elected by popular vote by "District" which is a geographic area defined by law- some large cities will have several "districts" within thier borders- they are based on population so some states have more representatives than other states. Hence your US representative is really your most "local" federal legislator- elected by you and your neighbors in your district alone.

About the electoral college- at least one state I know of (Colorado) is trying to change the way this works. They want to make it so that the electoral votes for the state are divided equally based on the popular vote. There are other states contemplating this as well I believe but overall both major parties are against this- they pretty much LIKE the way it works now becuase it allows them to concentrate on a few "battleground" states rather than wooing the entire voting population.

Electoral Votes Map
Not all those who wander are lost...

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests