How will you vote in the presidential election?

[Yevgeny]

As always, I am curious to see the demographic breakdown here in AppleInsider.

[Paul]

voted none of the above because I live in NY so it will be a landslide for Kerry and FUCK Nader... :D

Please put the state where you live in your post in order to put your comment in context a bit...

I'm leaning libertarian right now I think... any other ideas on a good candidate (besides write-ins) in NYC?

oh and if a mod could add an "undecided" option here I'm sure it would be appreciated...
edit: this is a longshot, but how customizable are the colors of the bars in the poll? could we make Nader green?

[quagmire]

None of the above. Kerry is a flip flopper who relies on his vietnam record and without it will have no chance. Bush is a con artists trying to cheat the Americans out of there money. Give me these 3 people(Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Dean) or give me windows XP.:D

[Yevgeny]

Well, I'm voting for Bush.

-I don't like the deficit spending that Bush is doing.
-I think that Iraq has gone _ok_ given what we are trying to do there (a better time to judge is about three months after the elections when it will become clear if we are going to have to keep our troops there to occupy or if the gov can start to take over). I'm a realist, but think that something good is being done, even if it is painful.
-The net loss of jobs during Bush's time conveniently overlooks the fact that at the end of Clinton/Gore, we were at the height of a bubble economy. The economy is doing well when we compare it to any normal economy.
-I love Rumsfeld. The guy is crazy enough to be a cabinet member who says what he thinks. Pure comedic relief. He ticks the Europeans off, but really, does that matter? The Europeans called Carter an imperialist.

-Kerry was campaigning on being a Vietnam vet. Cute. Relevant issue please?
-Kerry now is campaigning on the "Bush sucks" platform. This may/may not be true,but why should I vote for him? Kerry has reverted to running his primary campaign again.
-Kerry is a senator from Mass. Enough said.
-Kerry is in favor of the assault weapon ban.
-Kerry has said that he doesn't want as much freedom in the world, would prefer "stable" governments (read: our kind of dictator). I believe that there are times where only military force can make a better safer world. Call me supid, but I think that freedom is good and that it must be fought for.

[Paul]

quag... If your are really against Bush but you live in a "swing" or "red" state (take a look at the map in my sig to see the swing states... any state that is white) I think it would be in your best interest to attempt to get him out off office and at least give Kerry a shot at doing the job... I mean he may be retarded, but not moreso then Bush and if Bush got through 4 years and the country survived then so could Kerry...

edit: heh well then there you go...

[shetline]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Call me supid
Okay... you're supid!

I'm not sure what 'supid' is, but you sure are it! :D :lol:

[quagmire]

Originally posted by Paul
quag... If your are really against Bush but you live in a "swing" or "red" state (take a look at the map in my sig to see the swing states... any state that is white) I think it would be in your best interest to attempt to get him out off office and at least give Kerry a shot at doing the job... I mean he may be retarded, but not moreso then Bush and if Bush got through 4 years and the country survived then so could Kerry...

I already know that Kerry will win in a landslide in my state. My state has always voted democrat.It even said to Bush stay out. Granted Maryland is next to DC. How is Bush going to get to Air Force One?:lol:

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by shetline
Okay... you're supid!

I'm not sure what 'supid' is, but you sure are it! :D :lol:

Well, if stupidity is thinking that people are better off with a chance for democracy than under a dictator, then I am proudly stupid.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, if stupidity is thinking that people are better off with a chance for democracy than under a dictator, then I am proudly stupid.
For one thing, I was just having fun with your missing 't' in 'supid'.

But if what you've just said is true, why don't we go bomb North Korea too? And Turkmenistan? And Cuba? And Libya? And...

Are you proudly stupid enough for all of that?

If we can't free everyone, what made Iraq the right choice to try to free? Who put us in the position of deciding who gets freed and who doesn't? If we think we have that authority, doesn't responsibility for the outcome fall on our shoulders? Doesn't the President, if he ignores good advice and bungles the planning for the war and the aftermath of the war bear some RESPONSIBILITY (there's a favorite Republican word for you!) that this so called "chance for democracy" is much, much less of a chance than it could have been?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, if stupidity is thinking that people are better off with a chance for democracy than under a dictator, then I am proudly stupid.

What is stupid is thinking that the reason you went to war is to give someone a chance of democracy instead of the dictator.

[Northgate]

Big shocker...I'm voting for KERRY even though CA will go for him in a landslide.

Fuck Nader and his Republican cronies.

[faust9]

Originally posted by Northgate
Big shocker...I'm voting for KERRY even though CA will go for him in a landslide.

Fuck Nader and his Republican cronies.

Quick, move to a swing state for the election!!!

Kerry--Michigan.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by quagmire
None of the above. Kerry is a flip flopper who relies on his vietnam record and without it will have no chance. Bush is a con artists trying to cheat the Americans out of there money. Give me these 3 people(Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Dean) or give me windows XP.:D

I thought it was none of the above because you're not old enough to vote :p

[quagmire]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I thought it was none of the above because you're not old enough to vote :p

Why did you have to ruin my fun with these idiots.;) If I was able to vote I wouldn't for the reasons I stated.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, if stupidity is thinking that people are better off with a chance for democracy than under a dictator, then I am proudly stupid.

Strange that you'd support Bush, given how he's squashing democracy here in America. He refuses to meet with the press. He claims secrecy on a scale that would make Nixon blush. And he has protesters at his rallies ARRESTED.

Under Bush, the government is far, far less transparent than it used to be. It pisses me off that no one in this country seems smart enough to realize how bad that is.

[Existence]

Nader has gone mad so I am voting Cobb.

www.votecobb.org

There's no way I'm voting for Kerry. He's just too much like Bush--the Democratic party keeps moving to the right.

[Outsider]

Kerry - CT

[Gilsch]

Ex-Bush voting for Kerry in 2004. California Christian. ;)

[Placebo]

Barack Obama, 2012.

[trumptman]

I'll be voting Bush in a state that is so liberal that we will probably be sending Barbara Boxer back to the Senate in a landslide.

The only member of our executive cabinet that is Republican is Ar-nald. However at least we have Prop 13 and a balanced budget amendment.

Nick

[jimmac]

The local economy is so crappy here in Oregon ( unemployment recently went back up to 7.4 % ) I'd be surprised if Kerry doesn't win here.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Existence
Nader has gone mad so I am voting Cobb.

www.votecobb.org

There's no way I'm voting for Kerry. He's just too much like Bush--the Democratic party keeps moving to the right.

That's a vote for Bush.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
The local economy is so crappy here in Oregon ( unemployment recently went back up to 7.4 % ) I'd be surprised if Kerry doesn't win here.

Think about what it would be if people could pump their own gas. :p

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'll be voting Bush in a state that is so liberal that we will probably be sending Barbara Boxer back to the Senate in a landslide.

The only member of our executive cabinet that is Republican is Ar-nald. However at least we have Prop 13 and a balanced budget amendment.

Nick I'll be voting for Kerry and Democrats in a state that's probably more Republican than your state is Democratic. Although I actually think there's a chance that we'll elect a Democratic governor this time.

[shetline]

New Hampshire is definitely in play this year, and leaning Kerry. It's only four electoral votes, but we all know how much difference that can end up making.

[durin oakenskin]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, unlike Fellowship, Trumptman, or BRussell, my vote actually counts. Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, SDW's vote cancels out mine. :p

Look at it from the positive side: Your vote cancels out SDW's...

If I was able to vote (I live in Switzerland), I'd vote for Kerry... Bush has to go.

[Neø]

Bush Cheney '04

-Neø

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Neø
Bush Cheney '04

-Neø

Nice use of colors to convince the viewing audience of your, ahem, patriotism... However, I like mine better.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by durin oakenskin
Look at it from the positive side: Your vote cancels out SDW's...

If I was able to vote (I live in Switzerland), I'd vote for Kerry... Bush has to go. The entire planet can see it. It's just that here in the US, Bush(or any high ranking Republican for that matter) says jump, and 90% of them jump. He tells them the earth is actually shaped like a donut, and they go "ooooooohh. I bet you them Liberals prolly think it's round. Traitors!!".
Why? Because "we're at war". "You're either with us or gainst us"....and many actually believe Bush was "annointed" believe it or not. :lol: :no:

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nice use of colors to convince the viewing audience of your, ahem, patriotism... However, I like mine better. Nice colors. The funny thing is the little neocon can't even vote yet.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Think about what it would be if people could pump their own gas. :p

Nick


Uh, yeah.....:no:


I guess we've got plenty of " Burger manufacturing " Jobs however.....:p

[applenut]

Originally posted by Paul
quag... If your are really against Bush but you live in a "swing" or "red" state (take a look at the map in my sig to see the swing states... any state that is white) I think it would be in your best interest to attempt to get him out off office and at least give Kerry a shot at doing the job... I mean he may be retarded, but not moreso then Bush and if Bush got through 4 years and the country survived then so could Kerry...

edit: heh well then there you go...

that's fucking stupid and horrible advice.

[Paul]

Originally posted by applenut
that's fucking stupid and horrible advice.

well I would have to disagree with horrible, but stupid I could live with. Really its just BIASED... :p

then again this is just your opinion.

care to offer better advice that A)gets my point across without being "stupid" or "horrible" or B) adds anything positive to the conversation?

[crazychester]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nice use of colors to convince the viewing audience of your, ahem, patriotism... However, I like mine better.
Snot green, piss yellow and shit brown.

Perfect.

[Outsider]

It's CNN but it gives you a good idea where the candidates stand on specific issues:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html

[Neø]

Originally posted by crazychester
Snot green, piss yellow and shit brown.

Perfect.

I choose to look at the colors in a little more positive way....golf course green, golf ball yellow and shoe brown...

-Neø

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Neø
I choose to look at the colors in a little more positive way....golf course green, golf ball yellow and shoe brown...

-Neø We are talking about Bush...

Money, Piss-Poor-Performance, OIL!

[Neø]

Originally posted by Outsider
We are talking about Bush...

Money, Piss-Poor-Performance, OIL!

oh i get it now...i guess i just have to get some more sleep...

-Neø

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, unlike Fellowship, Trumptman, or BRussell, my vote actually counts. Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, SDW's vote cancels out mine. :p

Yeah but SDW is married and will drive his wife to the polls, and thanks to Democratic legislation that allows just about anyone to register, he also registered his kiddo and his cat.

So you are going to have to work a bit harder ShawnJ.;) :lol:

Nick

[bauman]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yeah but SDW is married and will drive his wife to the polls, and thanks to Democratic legislation that allows just about anyone to register, he also registered his kiddo and his cat.

So you are going to have to work a bit harder ShawnJ.;) :lol:

Nick

I got your back Shawn... I'll cancel out his wife. Any takers on the cat?

(I'm registered in PA)

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yeah but SDW is married and will drive his wife to the polls, and thanks to Democratic legislation that allows just about anyone to register, he also registered his kiddo and his cat.

So you are going to have to work a bit harder ShawnJ.;) :lol:

Nick

SDW's wife is secretly going to vote for Kerry.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by shetline
For one thing, I was just having fun with your missing 't' in 'supid'.

But if what you've just said is true, why don't we go bomb North Korea too? And Turkmenistan? And Cuba? And Libya? And...[/QUOTE

Are you proudly stupid enough for all of that?[/B]

You forgot Iran. Hopefully we won't bomb them, but continue to engage them.

We don't bomb North Korea because we've thought that out for the last 50 years and come to the conclusion that we would win any war with them, but that South Korea would be mostly destroyed (Seoul the south Korean capital is within artillery range from the North). I would cheerfully support the bombing of the DPRK, it just can't happen because of some straightforward pragmatic considerations, specifically that we don't want the South Koreans to die en masse. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of bombing Stalinistic dictatorships into oblivion. I'm just that kind of guy ;)

Bomb Cuba? Hadn't thought of that one. I think that the current thought of the state department is that Castro isn't getting younger and that we can hope that the next dictator is willing to not toss his press in jail and to incarcerate people who speak against him. Failing that, I say we bomb Havana ;)

Libya got some clue. There is no need to bomb them, and probably what cause that was the persistent leaks of the US using nuclear bunker buster bombs (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IYzas750xaQJ:www.csmonitor.com/2002/0509/p01s02-usmi.html+Libya+Mountain+Nuke&hl=en). Heck it was Clinton who threatened that, and Bush makes for a more impressive "bad cop" than Clinton. Qudaffi smartened up, abandoned terrorism, gave up his nuclear equipment and is hopefully going to begin opening his society. He's made some nice first steps.

Bomb the Turkomens? How interesting. Perhaps we should do something before we bomb them, like say encourage President Saparmurat Niyazov to not oppress their citizens by changing the names of the months in their clanedar (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:t23l8fJgkXAJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2181151.stm+Turkmenistan+calendar&hl=en). Oh heck, drop bombs anyway ;)

Don't forget that we had twelve years of interaction with Iraq between the first and second gulf wars. Sadly, Saddam wasn't willing to play ball with the civilized world, so parts of the civilized world removed him. War is never the first option, but there are some problems for which it is a uniquely well crafted solution. The trick is knowing when the blunt cudgel of warfare can bring about the desired end. Many times, this is not the case.

Originally posted by shetline
If we can't free everyone, what made Iraq the right choice to try to free? Who put us in the position of deciding who gets freed and who doesn't? If we think we have that authority, doesn't responsibility for the outcome fall on our shoulders? Doesn't the President, if he ignores good advice and bungles the planning for the war and the aftermath of the war bear some RESPONSIBILITY (there's a favorite Republican word for you!) that this so called "chance for democracy" is much, much less of a chance than it could have been?

And here we see that your argument is based on the percieved notion that we are inconsistent to free Iraq when we aren't fighting ten other wars at the same time.

Iraq was the right choice to try to free because they were in violaiton of UN security council resolutions (by firing missiles at our planes that were enforcing the no fly zones, by not fully disclosing their weapons programs), because we could achieve regime change through force without undue casualties (unlike the DPRK), because 12 years of UN approved sanctions killed more people than the war, and because if we had lifted the sanctions while Saddam was being a child, we would have shown the rest of the world that if they can ride out sanctions by passing the pain to their citizens, then they will break the will of the UN.

Yes, we do have responsibility to make Iraq a better place. Yes, it does fall on our shoulders. 1000+ American soldiers and countless Iraqi police and civilians have died to make Iraq a secure, better, and free nation. I desperately hope that their sacrifices won't be in vain. I think that the responsibility is being shouldered. War isn't simple, and rebuilding a nation isn't simple. Rebuilding Germany took seven years. Rebuilding Iraq will take less time, but it is still complex and difficult. As for this being "much, much less of a chance than it could have been" for democracy and freedom, what are you talking about??? Much less of a chance than when Saddam, Uday and Qusay were around to terrorize Iraqis? There was NO chance before, and now there is a chance. I hope it works out.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Yevgeny (not exactly in this order)
As for this being "much, much less of a chance than it could have been" for democracy and freedom, what are you talking about???
I wasn't talking about war vs. no war in the above context. I was talking about a well-planned war vs. Bush's incompetently planned war, a war where neocon wishful thinking and chickenhawk armchair generals lead the way, disregarding professional, pragmatic and experienced military advice.

And here we see that your argument is based on the percieved notion that we are inconsistent to free Iraq when we aren't fighting ten other wars at the same time.

Iraq was the right choice to try to free because they were in violaiton of UN security council resolutions (by firing missiles at our planes that were enforcing the no fly zones, by not fully disclosing their weapons programs)

The fact that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions seemed to me, before the war started, one of the best reasons for going to war with Iraq. It did indeed bother me that the UN seemed to be acting very toothlessly. Iraq's violations weren't enough in-and-of-themselves to convince me that going to full-scale war was a good idea, but with the so-called evidence for WMD added in, there seemed to be a more compelling case.

I still leaned against the war before it started, but it was such a close balance of pros and cons for me that the benefits of ousting Saddam and the hopes for Iraqi democracy made it easier to swallow Bush's decision at the time.

I now realize, however, that it was too easy to blame UN corruption, blame German and French business ties to Iraq and plays for more EU power, etc., as the reasons we couldn't get more international support for this war. In retrospect, those other countries who opposed us seem to have gotten it right and understood the situation better than we did.

The fact that you could find, or at least imagine, less-than-honorable reasons for some countries' opposition to the war against Iraq didn't make that opposition wrong. Certainly none of our reasons for going to war, honorable or not, made us right.

Between Bush's obsession with finding any reason he could to go after Iraq, and Democrats afraid of being branded "soft on defense" and "soft on terrorism" (which is exactly how they would have been treated by Republicans, and often were anyway) for challenging Bush's so-called intelligence on WMD, it was harder to see then what we can see now.

That said, it doesn't get Bush off the hook. He's supposedly all for "personal responsibility" -- well, where do you see him taking responsibility for the massive failures in Iraq? All he does is try to shift blame or shift rationales for the war.

Also, the way Bush tried to insinuate connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq -- so much so that many people were convinced that Saddam was the main force behind 9/11 -- not just through endless talk of "ties", but by constantly mentioning 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq within a few breaths of each other in speech after speech -- was shameless and dishonest manipulation of the public, the kind of deceitful propaganda that shouldn't have ever come out of the mouth of a President of the United States.
because we could achieve regime change through force without undue casualties (unlike the DPRK),
The casualties in Iraq don't seem very "undue" (in your sense of lower than one could hope for) to me. Over one thousand US soldiers dead so far, many thousands injured, some quite horribly and permanently, and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties -- I'm not sure of any solid numbers on the Iraqi side because Iraqi deaths don't seem to matter very much to the US media telling this story.

Add on $200 billion -- think of how much good that much money could do spend on something other than war! -- and then do you still want to describe Bush's venture in Iraq a low-cost regime change?
because 12 years of UN approved sanctions killed more people than the war,
I wonder how true that is if you don't forget Iraqi casualties in the war, and especially if you consider all of the lives quite likely to be lost in an upcoming Iraqi civil war, and all of the lives we might lose both in Iraq and at home due to the wonderful breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists which we've turned Iraq into.

Yes, we do have responsibility to make Iraq a better place. Yes, it does fall on our shoulders.
And Bush has already failed this responsibility miserably. Even if we somehow manage to pull Iraq out of the chaos that it's in now -- something that's looking less and less likely -- the odds are very, very good that if Bush hadn't ignored plenty of good advice about using more troops and making better preparations for securing the peace, we wouldn't have lost so many lives, lost so much Iraqi and world good will, and squandered so much money.
Much less of a chance than when Saddam, Uday and Qusay were around to terrorize Iraqis? There was NO chance before, and now there is a chance. I hope it works out.
The way things look right now a fractured Iraq and the birth of a truly and massively Al Qaeda-supporting Islamist theocracy replacing Saddam's regime seems more likely than any Iraqi Beacon of Democracy coming into being. The way things are headed now is worse than Saddam having stayed in power.

Can Kerry make things any better? I don't know. Maybe the mess is too big to fix. But just showing the world that we've renounced Bush's leadership will do us a lot of good in getting international help I think. At any rate, it seems appalling to me that anyone is even thinking of rewarding Bush with another four years for having created this fiasco.

[G2G]

Any one ever think of getting an alt fuel source... that's why we are there in the first place OIL OIL OIL....!!!!...
Bush has made the world even worse..if he gets back in the White House we all lose its funny how you can watch tv msnbc this afternoone an see a Maj of the 24th marine's say that some of the car bomb's have ben planted my ppl who were payed $200.00 to do it {just your every day Iraqi}
they need to eat to right? and they have city's that are over run by AQ and we have a Pres who says gee we are winning the war..what war???...we have mad men beheading ppl ...and we will get these thugs ...Bush is a joke and the worst lier ever...send him back to Texas...and go on vacation for ever!!!