As it stands, who are you voting for?
I will vote for Mr.Bush, my 4th such vote!
Er- Only once time in the forum.
If I can vote, I'd go for Kerry. He needs a new haircut though. I mean, seriously.
Too bad I can't vote.
Do we really need this poll to prove that this foruum is left leaning? Kerry will win on this poll.
Do we really need a poll to know that PF members are pretty well-informed, and therefore will generally be voting against Bush?
(note that I said "against Bush", and not "for Kerry")
You know, I think it was you that argued against me one time that it is better to not vote, than to vote for "the lesser of two evils" - has the mindset changed now with that statement?
I doubt it...unless you knew me back in the late 1990s? I may have mentioned that I previously felt that way, but certainly not in the last few years. For instance, while I don't think that electing Kerry is somehow going to create a utopia in America, I do think that electing Bush would be a disaster. Actually, so do an increasing number of Republicans, according to some polls and reading online that I have done. Bush has, for instance, gone against the whole "fiscal responsibility" and "small government" ideals of traditional conservatism.
Megashawn, you get my vote.
Because I am relatively well-informed, I'll be voting for Bush.
Anybody but Bush.
I'm sure many well-informed people will vote for Bush. The wealthiest 5% of the population are well-informed. Why anyone else would vote for him is a mystery.
Mystery solved...every thinks they are going to win the lottery. On the off chance that they win on American Idol, strike oil while shooting at some food, or learn to make $10,000 a month from real estate, without ever leaving your house or putting down a down-payment!!!!!!!!, they want to make sure there's a Republican in office.
That, or they hate minoriities and homosexuals?
I am not a US citizen and I don't live in the country either. But when I look at http://www.doyouknow.org/topics/ [Broken], I just cannot understand why so many people are such big fans of him. Do you understand why that is?
George Soros is voting for tax increases for himself. How does that make sense? Well, simple (hint, it's not your mind numbing rhetoric). It's a difference of ideaologies. Just as Mr. Soros, a man who would do even better with keeping a Republican in office, is voting contrary to what is presently fiscally the best route for him, I am going to be voting for Bush. I am not in the top 5% of the nation's income makers. I can't stand most of the idealogies that come hand and hand with the democrats. Sure, I can go vote myself the nation's wealth, but why? I liken this to being part of a club. Sure, maybe joining a particular club would be better for me, but if I am disgusted by the ideas that club holds dear, do I really want to support it? Absolutely not.
Quite the skewed site and much taken out of context.
As for being a big fan? I'm hardly that. I'd vote Mccain or Powell before I'd vote for Bush. Unfortunately they are not options this time around. I'm voting for the closest to what I want, but that doesn't mean I would prefer him over other non-participants.
Which American ideals do you find so repugnant? Not strawman arguments based on the last time you listend to Faux News or right-wing AM radio, but which views ACTUALLY HELD BY DEMOCRATS, do you dislike? Equal rights? Medicine for children? Education?
against Affirmative Action based on Race
pro-life (not anti abortion because of reality, but I am fully against late term abortion)
against gay marriage
against free college for all and/or college payback systems (debt forgiven after X years)
Against an overly skewed tax plan against the rich
for a revamp of social security(with a focus on bringing privatization into the mix)
against socializing healthcare
That's the tip of the iceberg, and should give you a fairly clear stance that I have on the issues. You can spout off to me the DNC's platform, but in reality, things are a lot more to the left than the centralist attitude portrayed by the few and far between dems (hey, I like some of them :p ).
I can't say I'm happy with Bush's spending. The medicare bill was a gross spending, but atleast my complaints aren't what the democrats were (that it wasn't enough!! I mean, it's almost 400BILLION!)
So, you don't mind that Bush lied about the cost of the Medicare plan?
Sure I do. I mind that the 400 billion was ever on the table, and I mind even more that it's 540 billion.
I don't know but that link
Suyver posted didn't seem skewed to me, in fact it understated the accomplisments of the Prez. He did a lot worse!
Jeez, speaking of skewed...
Anyone can spin anything to sound positive. To me, the first two things are issues that Democrats are wrong on. Here's why:
"Equal rights" to a Democrat means legalized, or worse forced, race based discrimination (AA). Its the antithesis of what they spin it as. The main reason the equal rights amendment failed is because it would have outlawed racial discrimination and Democrats don't want to do that. Ironic.
"Medicine for children" is national healthcare: the biggest increase in the size of the government since social security and just as likely to be as dismal of a failure as social security. Its an awful idea both fiscally and socially.
"Education" is....?? What? Everyone talks about education. Everyone has ideas. Charter schools? Vouchers? Programs to get good teachers in cities? More funding? What?
And speaking of strawmen, I guess it bears repeating: Phat and I are not big fans of Bush. You don't need to continue to pound an arguement thats not being argued.
Zero, maybe its just simpler to pigeonhole us, but (so not to speak for phat), I have ideas that fit both the Democratic and Republican parties (I'm pro-choice and pro-gun control for example). To me, both parties attempt to set themselves apart by being extreme, when in fact most Americans are moderate. That's why Clinton did so well. And if I had to pick a president based strictly on his ideas on the issues, I would have voted for Clinton instead of Bush I.
Russ Waters disappoints me. Fundamentally, President Clinton rarely acted as politically principled person. His first election platform was highlighted by “End welfare as we know It”, hardly a liberal position. He is best known for bringing the Democratic Party to the right, knowing taking liberal positions would make him unelectable. He signed into law all 10 items included in Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America”. None of those items could be considered dear to the hearts of liberals. Under his watch, the Republicans gained control of the house for the first time in 40 years. He increased taxes on Social Security and gasoline, both of which immensely improve the lot of the poor. His political rhetoric was always left leaning yet most important legislation he enacted was rightist. I don’t consider 100,000 cops important legislation although he used it to appear to be for law and order. Possibly he was a closet Republican; I think he simply lacked political convection and echoed that which he thought would endear him to the average American guided by the electioneering of Dick Morris.
It is understandable why President Bush disappoints some. In some respects he is taking the lead of President Clinton and incorporating leftist policy decisions, some of which I dislike especially if done to be re-elected. I prefer to have a leader who acts in a manner governed by his principles. Voting for Kerry over Bush however is just a joke. Kerry must deny, and is denying, his record and statements to remain competitive.
The lefties state Republicans are “wrong on education”, “wrong on healthcare”, “wrong on taxes”, and an infinite number of other things we are wrong on. To me the solution for being wrong is to eliminate these failed federal programs entirely, return the funds to the states, and let the citizens decide the type of social programs they want in the state they reside in. Perhaps if we had some states with socialist economies and programs we could, at some future time, determine which is the better method.
One merely needs to study the experiences of the failing EU to realize the consequences of unsupportable federal programs. What did the socialist president of Germany do to try to bolster the economy? You might find he reduced taxes, to the poor, to the wealthy, to industry.
As far as the war, I’m highly in favor of a pre-emptive attack, as is Bush and as was Clinton before him.
I'm not sure why I disappoint you: I agree with virtually everything you just said about Clinton and Bush.
Good to vote for Megashawn, Russ. Kerry wins the world election, obviously. 90% of the muslim world hate you & me. Because of Bush's policies? Not totally. Not nominally either. The problem is that they can't balance a budget and they don't want to, and it will lead to the economic collapse of the government. Really it will, left unchecked. And shame on you for bashing social security, some of our grandmothers need that to live.
Separate names with a comma.