Bush Versus Kerry Interland Instant Poll

[RocknRollKitty]

While it is true the world hates Bush, I do not believe they are suddenly going to change their mind about our policies and suddenly rush to help us if we have a different president. It's not only Bush himself they hate, it's the entire situation, one Kerry admittedly will be continuing.

One more thing, last night on his speech, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry as Kerry spoke wistfully of a return to the 90's when 'we (assuming the democrats) drug people out of poverty and increased the standard of living of the middle class'---excuse me, but I was there, I lived it, and I saw and experienced quite the opposite. He's telling a fairy tale in retrospect and I can't believe people cheer this and fall for it because it was not true.

 

[BVS]

While it is true the world hates Bush, I do not believe they are suddenly going to change their mind about our policies and suddenly rush to help us if we have a different president. It's not only Bush himself they hate, it's the entire situation, one Kerry admittedly will be continuing.

One more thing, last night on his speech, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry as Kerry spoke wistfully of a return to the 90's when 'we (assuming the democrats) drug people out of poverty and increased the standard of living of the middle class'---excuse me, but I was there, I lived it, and I saw and experienced quite the opposite. He's telling a fairy tale in retrospect and I can't believe people cheer this and fall for it because it was not true.

The middle class was far better in the 90's.

 

[Klaus]

RocknRollKitty:

Many people in Europe just hate Bush, why? He seems dumb and seems like little kid "no i wasn't wrong it was just the informations that led me to something wrong"
So he seems like the ugly part of American superpower - like the direct sucessor of Nixon

 

[RocknRollKitty]

The middle class was far better in the 90's.

Being one and knowing many myself, I beg to differ. I had a lot of financial problems in the 90's, and so did a lot of people. America was hurt as many jobs left the country, were elimated or became lower paying. Credit may have been easy to get, but it was hard to pay for and led some people to their financial doom. Clinton's laws eliminated the standards of the 80's where there was a limit to interest rates and late fees a card could charge. I had some cards go overnight from 9% to 29% interest. House prices skyrocketed (as they continue to do) But most people I know were worse off in the 90's than they were in the 90's.

As for poverty, Clinton's welfare to work programs did not help, they only forced people into jobs that were not paying as much as the welfare. Many had to drive out of state to find work when they were forced to find a job and there were none in the area. I know one tragic story of two women killed while driving home tired one night, and another of a lady who jumped off a bridge due to the stresss. Even the 'job training' jobs mostly paid only barely above minimum wage and not enough to live on. Because of free trade and other factors, more good paying jobs were lost, and people were forced to work 2 or 3 jobs to make up for what one used to do. I saw no one drug out of poverty in the 90s but I saw many drug into it.

 

[Popmartijn]

While it is true the world hates Bush, I do not believe they are suddenly going to change their mind about our policies and suddenly rush to help us if we have a different president. It's not only Bush himself they hate, it's the entire situation, one Kerry admittedly will be continuing.

Here's a thing I read some months ago about the 1980 elections. Jimmy Carter was the current president and running against Ronald Reagan. A year before the elections, Iran held hostage 66 US citizens. Carter vowed to get them free. He did not succeed before election day 1980.
Reagan won the election. 20 Minutes after his inauguration on 20 January 1981, the hostages were let go. This is not mere coincident.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Iranian_hostage_crisis
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/October_Surprise

So a change in presidency can have a big impact/change in policies. Especially if the new president isn't acting like an obnoxious kid, knowing he's the strongest and thus 'allowed' to snub everyone else when he doesn't immediately get what he wants.

I think it's clear what my choice is, but I'm not an American citizen.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Scarletwine]

I think the Bush Admin has made too many mistakes, burnt too many bridges, and has now driven itself up a dead end it can't get out of, only make worse. Iraq and the War on Terror, needs a new direction, a new leadership and needs much, much greater cooperation from everyone. For that to happen, Bush has to go.

Excellent Post!

Beside the foreign policy of Dubyah, his record on environmental issues, women's issues, and children's issues make it totally impossible for me to ever even contemplate voting for him.

American for Kerry.

PS - I can't believe some people actually get their political views from bumper stickers.

 

[verte76]

The middle class was far better in the 90's.

By the same token we weren't paying nearly as much for prescription drugs. You don't want to know how much more I'm paying now. In 1992 I had a prescription drug that was worth $17 a bottle. It's now $46 a bottle.

 

[stammer476]

American - Bush

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

In 1992 I had a prescription drug that was worth $17 a bottle. It's now $46 a bottle.

*Winces* Ouch. That sucks. You poor thing.

Originally posted by LoveTown
the argument that a strong war type president deters terrorism is a false one. Striking out with brute force such as we have, especially at ill-placed targets...also such as we have will only serve to breed more hatred against america and sully the world's image of us even further.

Exactly.

Angela

 

[Johnovox]

KERRY!

Bono is smart to play both sides of the aisle to get bipartisan support for his cause. But he and the band are really on one side, always have been. Its hard to fathom that people can't see that, or maybe they choose to ignore it so they can live with it and still like U2. Personally, the social conscience of the band has always been an important part of the U2 experience.

 

[Dreadsox]

KERRY!

Bono is smart to play both sides of the aisle to get bipartisan support for his cause. But he and the band are really on one side, always have been. Its hard to fathom that people can't see that, or maybe they choose to ignore it so they can live with it and still like U2. Personally, the social conscience of the band has always been an important part of the U2 experience.

So let me understand this post....

If we support Bush we cannot be U2 fans?

 

[swizzlestick]

STING, you do not have a crystal ball, either. If Bush wins I really hope what you've written here comes true. This is the best case scenario, and as we've seen, that doesn't often happen.

Hypothetically, if you did have a crystal ball and saw the ?best case scenario? come to fruition with Bush, but not if Kerry was elected. Would you vote for Bush then? You say it doesn?t often happen, but who?s to say it won?t? Why not?


AMERICAN from the great battleground state of MISSOURI proudly voting for BUSH

 

[ylimeU2]

By the same token we weren't paying nearly as much for prescription drugs. You don't want to know how much more I'm paying now. In 1992 I had a prescription drug that was worth $17 a bottle. It's now $46 a bottle.

Or health care. I can't even afford that right now, let alone get my prescriptions filled.

Having said that, I'm an American voting for Kerry.

 

[ThatGuy]

Hypothetically, if you did have a crystal ball and saw the ?best case scenario? come to fruition with Bush, but not if Kerry was elected.

Over the past couple of years Bush has consistently lowered my belief in the best case scenario happening. I'm sorry, but I can't take the Bush administration's policy on Iraq seriously. These were the same guys who thought we'd be greeted by the Iraqis with open arms and flowers, and therefore did very little to plan for the post-war situation. They're the ones who flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner, failing to realize that the real mission was the one that lay ahead, not the battle with Saddam's military. You're right, Kerry may not do any better. But from where I stand I don't think he could do any worse.

 

[ylimeU2]

Over the past couple of years Bush has consistently lowered my belief in the best case scenario happening. I'm sorry, but I can't take the Bush administration's policy on Iraq seriously. These were the same guys who thought we'd be greeted by the Iraqis with open arms and flowers, and therefore did very little to plan for the post-war situation. They're the ones who flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner, failing to realize that the real mission was the one that lay ahead, not the battle with Saddam's military. You're right, Kerry may not do any better. But from where I stand I don't think he could do any worse.

I agree. To me, the Bush adminstration doesn't see the whole picture and a lot of problems have arisen from that lack of forsight. I haven't noticed any reason to think that it is going to change. Kerry seems to have more of a concrete idea reguarding Iraq.

 

[swizzlestick]

Over the past couple of years Bush has consistently lowered my belief in the best case scenario happening. I'm sorry, but I can't take the Bush administration's policy on Iraq seriously. These were the same guys who thought we'd be greeted by the Iraqis with open arms and flowers, and therefore did very little to plan for the post-war situation. They're the ones who flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner, failing to realize that the real mission was the one that lay ahead, not the battle with Saddam's military. You're right, Kerry may not do any better. But from where I stand I don't think he could do any worse.

So in other words no matter what happens in the future...if this "scenario" that STING mentioned did followed through (you said it yourself you hoped it would) you still would not support Bush?

 

[ThatGuy]

Let's just say I'm not going to bank on it. If I had a time machine and could go to the future and see how things went, then I suppose that would make me change my mind. Is that what you're asking? How am I suppose to know that Bush's plan is successful before it happens?

There are also several other reasons I have for not voting for Bush. If I thought he had a reasonable plan for Iraq, or that I could trust those plans, I might consider holding my nose to vote for him. But seeing what he's done so far doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[BVS]

Being one and knowing many myself, I beg to differ. I had a lot of financial problems in the 90's, and so did a lot of people. America was hurt as many jobs left the country, were elimated or became lower paying. Credit may have been easy to get, but it was hard to pay for and led some people to their financial doom. Clinton's laws eliminated the standards of the 80's where there was a limit to interest rates and late fees a card could charge. I had some cards go overnight from 9% to 29% interest. House prices skyrocketed (as they continue to do) But most people I know were worse off in the 90's than they were in the 90's.

I understand that you and many you know were hurting there will always be that, but I'm saying that from everything I've read the overall general numbers show that the middle class had a higher standard of living then than they do now. There wasn't as big as a divide from the middle class to the upper class, and not as much personal debt.

I haven't found anything on the poverty numbers yet.

 

[popacrobat]

american

bush, but i can't vote since im only 17

 

[zoney!]

As for poverty, Clinton's welfare to work programs did not help, they only forced people into jobs that were not paying as much as the welfare. Many had to drive out of state to find work when they were forced to find a job and there were none in the area. I know one tragic story of two women killed while driving home tired one night, and another of a lady who jumped off a bridge due to the stresss. Even the 'job training' jobs mostly paid only barely above minimum wage and not enough to live on. Because of free trade and other factors, more good paying jobs were lost, and people were forced to work 2 or 3 jobs to make up for what one used to do. I saw no one drug out of poverty in the 90s but I saw many drug into it.

But has it gotten better in the last four years? Have you been able to pull yourself out of debt? What has Bush done to help you and your family get out of debt?

More questions for you...the new jobs that the Republicans take credit for "creating" (I hate when any politicians take credit for "creating jobs") - are they any better than the jobs the Clinton Welfare program people were forced into? I would bet that a lot of the lower paying jobs people were forced into during the Clinton Years have become even MORE scarce due to peoples jobs running off to foreign soil (ask ABEL how her job has changed in the last two years even!).

My point (if you able to answer those questions) - I am not sure if anything has really improved in Bush's term in the way of poverty in America.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I would say the answer is no, we are not better off than in the 90s but we are no worse off. I do not believe anyone really cares about the poor or will do anything to help them. I really don't. While I agree Bush has done nothing and will do nothing, neither will Kerry, the only difference is, Bush isn't going to lie about it.

 

[zoney!]

True...Bush will not do anything (not giving him an opportunity to lie about it). I think Bush has already had his share of lies!

So, he will not do anything for poverty, AND will continue to lie!

Great reasons to vote for someone!

 

[Lilac]

You think Kerry's not a liar too? That convention was some of the most theatrical, contrived, prewritten propaganda I've ever seen since history class. They're all liars. Bush is the devil you know vs. Kerry being the devil we don't really know.

 

[zoney!]

Never said Kerry wasn't a liar....

Bush is the devil you know vs. Kerry being the devil we don't really know.

quite possible...

 

[BVS]

You think Kerry's not a liar too? That convention was some of the most theatrical, contrived, prewritten propaganda I've ever seen since history class.

I guess you have paid attention to the last 4 years of propaganda huh?

Bush is the devil you know vs. Kerry being the devil we don't really know.

An interesting risk. 4 more years of a known devil, or 4 years of a possible devil...

 

[cell]

american-bush.

i dont trust kerry with the war.

 

[odowdpa]

The thing I didn't like about the convention was seeing the crowd go absolutely bonkers when the most ridiculous items were said by anyone that stepped up to the mic. You could have sent a chimp up there and the crowd would have cheered.

Another interesting fact was how Kerry didn't spend 15 seconds talking about Iraq in his speech. Maybe that was a safety move because he knows he's going against 84% of the people who will be voting for him if he mentions it.

But what will be interesting will be seeing how much bounce he gets. The latest general poll by ABC/Washington Post has Bush ahead slightly.

"A US public poll indicates that if the elections were held today, Bush would win the general election. The ABC Television/Washington Post poll indicates that while Bush gained four percentage points in July, his rival, Democratic candidate John Kerry lost two percentage points. Researchers point out that these figures show the two candidates are locked in a virtual dead heat. According to a poll conducted in late June, the number of voters preferring Bush was 44 percent. By the end of July, that number had risen to 48 percent. Kerry on the other hand was at 48 percent in June, but fell to 46 percent in July."

Another issue is I think is that the liberals hate Bush so much that they just want him out. They don't care who it is. I'm pretty sure if the Dems chose Bart Simpson to be their representative, they'd vote for him, as long as it wasn't Bush.

Also, I think Michael Moore should stop eating so much and give more food to the homeless and needy. I'm pretty sure we can stop hunger in small cities if he went on a diet.

 

[zoney!]

The thing I didn't like about the convention was seeing the crowd go absolutely bonkers when the most ridiculous items were said by anyone that stepped up to the mic. You could have sent a chimp up there and the crowd would have cheered.

This is ANY party convention! In fact, give it a few weeks and you WILL see a chimp with a suit on get up on stage and have a crowd cheer...right in your own back yard! I call this chimp "dubya"

Another interesting fact was how Kerry didn't spend 15 seconds talking about Iraq in his speech. Maybe that was a safety move because he knows he's going against 84% of the people who will be voting for him if he mentions it.

His whole speech sounded pretty damn "Old Republican" to me. Tax cuts, increasing military.....

He talked about how the country is divided....I can't figure out why we are so divided. Both parties are claiming they will bring the same thing to the table!

Also, I think Michael Moore should stop eating so much and give more food to the homeless and needy. I'm pretty sure we can stop hunger in small cities if he went on a diet.

Agreed!

 

[odowdpa]

I almost did mention that the Republicans will be doing the same thing in a month's time, but it went against my whole theme - so I'm busted.

Actually, after reading Zoney's response, I think I agree with it entirely (except the knock on Bush)!

And going off topic for a second, if Kerry does win (major if!) who do you think is the next in the pipeline for the GOPers. I think a Guilliani/Powell team is almost unbeatable, no matter who they go against. Thats just me though.

 

[zoney!]

Would Rudy step up?

What about McCain?