Who Should I Vote For?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mr. BAW

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
12,334
Location
Life's too short to drink cheap wine!
I'm terribly confused at what's at stake during this Presidential election; I would like to hear your take on your candidate and why I should vote for him...

I'm not fielding any questions, I just want some advice, I'm very undecided at this point and its getting close...help me out.
 
Easiest way to answer this is to ask yourself a few questions:

1. Do want your taxes to go up or down?
If down: Republican If Up: Democrat

2. Do think that the majority of people have the innate ability to care for their own needs?

If Yes: Republican If No: Democrat

3. Do you like the idea of having a strong and broad government presence with many faucets for the public.

If Yes: Democrat If No: Republican
 
boosterjuice said:
Easiest way to answer this is to ask yourself a few questions:

1. Do want your taxes to go up or down?
If down: Republican If Up: Democrat



If you want my taxes to go up vote Kerry.

If you want less deficit spending and the vast majority of the American users of this forum to have less national debt obligation for themselves and their children vote Kerry.

If you want an Administration that will not admit any errors and modify mistaken policies vote Bush.

If you want to have to tell people you are Canadian while traveling abroad vote Bush.
 
Another tidbit of info:

Don't let the media influence your vote. For instance, the media will try focus minor details of the election that really don't have anything to do with one's political stance. The flu-vaccine shortage is a prime example. Here, Kerry is attempting to play to ignorant voters. He's hoping the voters who want a flu vaccine will say ; " hey, I want a flu vaccine, I better vote Kerry because I'm not getting one under Bush." This is one issue that has nothing to do with political ideology. On the flip side, Bush is trying to get across the message that he will best choice to handle future terrorist attacks. That may true but it has nothing to do with political ideology. Your ideology should be the deciding factor. Big government or small government. It is really that simple. Also, the candidates and their parties always try to demonize the other. Both candidates are competant people and leaders. Don't make it personal. Don't vote based on a persona displayed in the media. Kerry handled himself very well in the debates. What does that prove? Nothing.

Kerry promises to raise the standard of living for middle class families. But how is that feasible? I'll tell you; he's going to tax everyone else into oblivion. If you agree with other people paying your way, then Kerry is the vote for you. But if you agree with idea that you need to work in order to be successful, if you agree that those who work hard should be paid, then BUSH is your man.
 
deep said:


It really is unfair to reach out to a large part of W's constituency


lol, I get it. You know what I mean though? Both candidates do it. They try to make non-issues into major issues. This is in hopes of appealing to voters who are unsure/unaware of their political idealogy.
 
boosterjuice said:
Another tidbit of info:

On the flip side, Bush is trying to get across the message that he will best choice to handle future terrorist attacks.

/B]


What if the US captures Bin Laden in the next 96 hours....should that influence my vote...? is it possible we've already got this guy or is he yesterday's news waiting to re-surface...???
 
Seriously,

On the tax issue.

What has the National Budget before Bush became president. The deficit? The The deficit spending? How much has the national debt changed? Up or down?
Which direction is it going? What effect will this have on the economy, long term?
How will this debt be paid? By who? When?

What is the best course of action regarding debt?
 
Strange as it sounds, maybe an election year isn't the best time to decide who to vote for. I'm more interested in what they do when the camera is off than what they say the last weeks before the election.
 
64.gif
 
Mr. BAW said:


What if the US captures Bin Laden in the next 96 hours....should that influence my vote...? is it possible we've already got this guy or is he yesterday's news waiting to re-surface...???

Absolutely not! You shouldn't base your vote on something like this. Seriously, catching Binny Laden would be a matter of circumstance mostly. Same with having elections in Afgahnistan. That is nice and all. It points to progess, but it has nothing to do with the shape of the next government. Whoever is president is going to be able to catch this guy eventually. What is at stake is the big government vs. small government. Vote on that.
 
I'm trying to be as fair and as non-biased as possible. I think that "deep" has picked up on the fact that I am hoping Bush wins.
 
Mr. BAW said:


What if the US captures Bin Laden in the next 96 hours....should that influence my vote...? is it possible we've already got this guy or is he yesterday's news waiting to re-surface...???


It won't happen.

I keep saying BinLaden is the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If they got BinLaden at Tora Bora it would have been difficult to SELL the Iraq War to Americans.

Binladen is the "Joker" in Ws deck of cards.
And he can keep playing it over and over again.

Think about it-
they got Saddam and his two sons in a matter of a few weeks.

BinLaden is much more valuable on the loose. The run. They constantly play the 9/11 tape (verbaby) to maintain fear and uncertainty to their advantage.

Remember Bush 1 peaked too soon with desert storm 1. Ratings in the 90s only to lose to Clinton.

Why did they not get BinLaden is short fashion?

Like they got Saddam and Sons?
 
Last edited:
boosterjuice said:
I'm trying to be as fair and as non-biased as possible. I think that "deep" has picked up on the fact that I am hoping Bush wins.

We all have bias and believe OUR opinions are well-reasoned.

Mine have changed, in some regards, quite a bit over the years.
 
Last edited:
deep said:



It won't happen.

I keep saying BinLaden is the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If they got BinLaden at Tora Bora it would have been difficult to SELL the Iraq War to Americans.

Binladen is the "Joker" in Ws deck of cards.
And he can keep playing it over and over again.

Think about it-
they got Saddam and his two sons in a matter of a few weeks.

BinLaden is much more valuable on the loose. The run. They constantly play the 9/11 tape (verbaby) to maintain fear and uncertainty to their advantage.

Remember Bush 1 peaked too soon with desert storm 1. Ratings in the 90s only to lose to Clinton.

Why did they not get BinLaden is short fashion?

Like they got Saddam and Sons?


Interesting conspiracy theory.

Just remember, it's just your theory. If US had captured Bin, there would have been a conspiracy implicating Bush of capturing Bin for political timing. No matter what the dude does, there are whole army of people looking to sell books off it.
 
boosterjuice said:



Interesting conspiracy theory.

Just remember, it's just your theory. If US had captured Bin, there would have been a conspiracy implicating Bush of capturing Bin for political timing. No matter what the dude does, there are whole army of people looking to sell books off it.

hello,

it has been over THREE years

again how long did it take to find Saddam in a spider hole?

the isralies have no problem finding, and blowing away hezbollah leaders.
 
Mr. BAW said:
I'm terribly confused at what's at stake during this Presidential election; I would like to hear your take on your candidate and why I should vote for him...

I'm not fielding any questions, I just want some advice, I'm very undecided at this point and its getting close...help me out.

If you want a President to lead for the next four years - Bush

If you want a President who can second guess the last four years - Kerry


You may disagree with some of the steps or methods used by GWB, but the US will end up in a better place long-term because of his leadership.
 
deep said:


hello,

it has been over THREE years

again how long did it take to find Saddam in a spider hole?

the isralies have no problem finding, and blowing away hezbollah leaders.


You get what I'm saying though, right? Even if the US had found Bin Laden earlier, there would have been another kind of spin put on it.

The reality of the situation is that Afgahnistan has all of those cool caves to hide in. In Iraq, Saddam had to settle for some man-made tiny hole. I definitatly believe that the US has done everything possible in order to find him. I think you're reading to much into it. We're talking about finding 1 man on our large earth. I know we have great technology and all but claiming there is a conspiracy isn't a very solid arguement.
 
deep said:


hello,

it has been over THREE years

again how long did it take to find Saddam in a spider hole?

the isralies have no problem finding, and blowing away hezbollah leaders.

Hello,


There is a slight difference in geographic size and history of surveillance between the west bank and the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Perhaps if Kerry had supported intelligence agency funding over the years, the task of tracking him down would be easier.
 
No, that's not really true...while I'm registered in one party, I crossed party lines 4 years ago to vote...I simply need the information to form a solid and justifiable (to me) vote.

Please don't put words or thoughts into my posts that suggest I'm playing...I'm not.

But please, db9, let me know why you believe that I'm playing you (all),,,back it up....:up:

You should all know that I live in the OC;
I just may write-in B-1 Bob Dornan...that might solve everyone's problems...:)
 
Last edited:
Mr. BAW said:
I'm terribly confused at what's at stake during this Presidential election

many feel that the next president will fil vacancies forl as much as half of the supreme court.

this can not be underestimated, yet it is rarely discussed.
 
DrTeeth said:
Strange as it sounds, maybe an election year isn't the best time to decide who to vote for. I'm more interested in what they do when the camera is off than what they say the last weeks before the election.

That's the best damn post I've seen on FYM in some time. Election years are full of pollsters, pundits, spin doctors and every other damn person making pitches for Candidate X. None of this means a damn thing once the person takes office. I mean, hell, please don't tell me politicians never break their promises. The important thing is what they do in office, to hell with what they said or did to get elected. I'm sorry to sound so discouraging, Mr. BAW, I understand this is not exactly why you posted your note. I just got home from work at the library. When I was at work I thought, gosh, it'd be an intolerable state of affairs in this country if everyone was as damn cynical about politics as we historians are. Whatever you do, folks, never vote for a historian. :wink:
 
Last edited:
OK, now I'll just tell you why I'm voting for Kerry. I don't like Bush's policy on the environment. He's weakened rules for companies that pollute our air and poison our waterways. Even though I'm a practicing Catholic, I'm not really that wild about his position on abortion. I'm against it in principle, but I oppose laws that would make it illegal. It wouldn't make abortion go away if they made it illegal, it would just drive it underground and create a great big underworld market for unsafe and unregulated abortions. I do pray that it stops as I believe it is wrong. I prefer a President Kerry to pick our next few Supreme Court Justices. Four of the Justices have been diagnosed with cancer, and Renquists's case might end his career. I also favor letting people import drugs from Canada. I don't buy this stuff about drugs from Canada not being safe as many of these drugs are actually made in the U.S. and have been approved by the FDA. Also, I find it a bit strange that I, a liberal, disapprove of the deficit that Bush has run up. Traditionally, liberals don't give a :censored: about deficits, it's the conservatives who don't like them. I am conservative enough to not be wild about deficit spending. Can Kerry tame the deficit situation? I'm willing to give him a chance.
 
Last edited:
reread verte's post.

vote Kerry if you believe in the following:
-- separation of church and state
-- helping the world, not attacking it
-- catching bin Laden
-- spending money on education instead of unneeded wars
-- health care for all
-- social security reform
-- 20 years of leadership in the Senate
-- hope, not fear mongering
-- fiscal responsibility
-- no blood for oil
-- taking pride in being an American, especially when you are overseas

vote for Bush if you believe in the following:
-- strapping your children with HUGE taxes to pay off the present deficit
-- deficits that will destabilize the economy
-- being a bully is good, cooperation is bad
-- Saddam Huessin funded the 9/11 attacks
-- trading Sammy Sosa away from the Rangers was a good idea
-- reinstituting the draft [this will be a reality]
 
A_Wanderer said:
Its so obvious, Kerry is some sort of enlightened super-being and bush is a crude and undisciplined fool.

Not really. Kerry is not my ideal candidate. I'm not under the illusion that he's some sort of knight in shining armor. I just think he'd be better than Bush. The last thing Bush did something I agreed with it was right after 9/11 and we were invading Afghanistan. That's alot of disagreeing.
 
Back
Top Bottom