85 replies to this topic

[bryman10]

Not trying to start a huge political war here, folks.
Just wondering what you thought of the debates and who you think will make a better president.

Let the political heat begin!


bryman<-----still undecided

[rally25rs]

i think America is F'd either way really... but I'd sooner vote for a coil of my own poo over Bush, not that I think Kerry is perfect, but I'll vote for him on the fact that he isn't Bush.

I like how Bush is the first presedent I've ever seen that can't even talk. He's the worst presedent at giving speeches that I've ever listened to.

Actually I'd rather vote for a representative from one of the other party's, because some of them actually have good ideas, but people have it so ingrained in their minds that there are only 2 candidates, and the media only covers the democratic and republican candidates, so no one even knows who else is running. Problem is, say 50% support bush, and 50% don't, then Bush gets 50% of the votes, and the only way to get Bush out of office is for everyone else to vote for Kerry. If the votes against Bushgot split up between teh rest of the candidates, we could end up with like 50% Bush, 40% Kerry, 10% Nadder, and then we end up with Bush for 4 more years... and I'd have to move to Canada...

It's a sad state of affairs my friends... sad indeed...

[DarkHand]

Kerry dodged his share of questions, but he owned Bush at every turn this time. He had a good rebuttal to everything Bush threw at him this time.

I want to vote for Badnarik, but I've got to be realistic and vote for Kerry to get Bush out of there.

I'm looking for that sign that looks like a real political sign that says 'ANYONE BUT BUSH 2004' to stick in my front lawn.

[cbstdscott]

I would not use the "debates" (they are not really debates in the classic sense of the word but rather a chance to rant in front of a large audience with the other guy looking on) as a basis to make my decision on how to vote. I think I will wait for the swim suit competition before I make my decision.

The choices we have are not very attractive. A Fundamentalist Mental Midget and a Limousine Liberal.....

The real issues facing America have not be discussed in this campaign:
Access to Caspian Sea oil and gas
People's Republic of China's rising military capability and threats to her neighbors

Bush must not be reelected if for no other reason for the appointments to the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve the next president will make.

I am NOT a Kerry fan. But at this point he represents the least of two evils.

Scott

[Ghost-One]

missed most of the debate this time oh well all bush says is

no child left behind
POLAND TOO!!!!
we must win iraq

[JDN14]

id like to take pocketrockets stance on this one, refusing to vote in a presidential election until the electoral college is removed. But to those of you who ARE voting, vote libertarian!

[84bluerex]

I think Kerry is just full of emty promises in which he uses just to get into office. I think we need a predsident with balls who isnt afraid to bomb innocent people in order to retaliate with out enemys. Bush defenatly has my vote.

[eastsidemav]

I'm voting for Badnarik. If both of the major candidates are bad, is it really worth it to vote for one in an attempt to keep the other out of office? Third parties don't need to win to influence policy. They just need to get enough votes so that the major parties start pandering to that party in an attempt to "recover" those votes in the next election.

[DarkHand]

id like to take pocketrockets stance on this one, refusing to vote in a presidential election until the electoral college is removed.

That's a whole new argument.

Without the electoral college, Presedential candidates can screw over anyone that dosen't live in a large populated area. They can cater to the needs of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York and not worry in the least about people in Idaho, Nebraska, or anywhere else not as populated. The electoral college ensures that people from every state have an equal say in who the next president is.

I dislike George Bush as much as the next Bush-hater here, but Bush still had more electoral votes than Gore did. The electoral college did it's job.

States that voted for Bush in red, voted for Gore in Blue:



Without the electoral college, the blue states would have elected the president, overriding all the red states. Dosen't seem very fair. Don't forget, our country is a union of federated states. They're wholly independant from each other. If the voting problem kept up for long periods of time the less populated states might try to secede from the union because they had no say in who their president should be. That's exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent with the electoral college.

Edited by DarkHand, 14 October 2004 - 11:27 AM.

[Old School CRX Swap]

i dont like bush or kerry but i think change can be a good thing i hope kerry gets elected

[Jus BlaZe]

GO NADAR!!!!!!

[JDN14]

Unforunately, the people in those states that voted democratic still got screwed over. We'll use florida as an example, as it caused the most debate last election. Even though nearly 50% of the state voted democratic, the electoral votes still went to Bush. How can the people who voted for Gore still be told their votes counted when in reality they were ignored.

The electoral college was also originally created because the American public was not educated enough at the time to be trusted to choose their president. This is not the case today. Not to mention that the folks in the electoral college do not HAVE to vote with the popular vote, although this would surely mean an end to their position.

Without the electoral college, Presedential candidates can screw over anyone that dosen't live in a large populated area.

They can still do so with the electoral college. The presidential race can be won with, what is it, five or so states using the elctoral college system. Without the electoral college perhaps the Midwest would get more attention as a whole because when combined there are a large quantity of people there. With the electoral college they focus on the five states (what are they....CA, FL, NY, PA, and MI....proably not right, but you get the point.) Electing a president based on the popular vote would ensure that the millions in the midwest got their voices heard instead of being looked at as only a few votes apiece in the electoral college.

I admit that it has not been a huge problem thus far but is does seem a trifle unfair that a president can be elected without getting a majority of the votes does it not? When someone is voting for something, it is assumed that the majority wins, this should apply to electing our president as well.

thanks for listening to me rant,

Jacques

[down4ce]

I think Kerry is just full of emty promises in which he uses just to get into office. I think we need a predsident with balls who isnt afraid to bomb innocent people in order to retaliate with out enemys. Bush defenatly has my vote.

Lame.....

[DarkHand]

The electoral college was also originally created because the American public was not educated enough at the time to be trusted to choose their president.  This is not the case today.

Not the case today? Are you sure about that?

One thing I would like to see come up is the possibility of changing the election process, to instant runoff voting or something similar. This question was actually asked in the Presential youth debates, but Bush and Kerry both dodged the question.

Edited by DarkHand, 14 October 2004 - 12:32 PM.

[Ghost-One]

to me its comes down to this kerry who maybe fulled with empty promises or bush who is filled with empty promises and a crooked cabnet