When voting in this or past elections, are you voting for the party or the candidate? I mean are you voting in spite of GWB or are you voting because you think Kerry/Gore will make a better president than the current or past? Or are you voting democrat no matter who the nominee is from Elmer Fudd to John Kerry to Al Gore. I personally think Kerry wins this election because of Iraq and the occupation. I just think it is a shame to throw all GWB's work to oust terror and terror's friends out the window. I just think the dems will put this issue on the back burner like their predecessors and concentrate on helping senior citizens and healthcare(not that i am against any one of these) i just don't think these two issues are life threatening and need to be addressed TODAY.
Follow up question for you Democrats
- Thread starter wareagle
- Start date
Sorry for not answering your question, Wareagle...but,
How was Turkey? I saw you posted a while back about going there, and I mentioned I was there in '96 and some of the things I saw.
I'm voting for Nader, FWIW.....
How was Turkey? I saw you posted a while back about going there, and I mentioned I was there in '96 and some of the things I saw.
I'm voting for Nader, FWIW.....
we, I just wrote this is another thread. Personally I wish everybody voted strictly on the individual and there ideals than just voting on party. That's so narrow minded and its ridiculous. What if you were a staunch Republican and your local representative was a former sex offender, you still mindlessly back him? No joke, some would, that goes for Democrats also. Many should do some reading & see what all candidates running in all elections stand for and what their beliefs are, it would the country and your neighborhood a better place.
What strikes me currently is How all the Republicans were screaming about Clinton lying about getting blown. Now we all know full well Bush and Cheney & Powell were lying about weapons of mass destruction, at least you should know they were lying. My only point is sometimes you HAVE TO LIE about things like BLOW JOBS & BOMBS.
What strikes me currently is How all the Republicans were screaming about Clinton lying about getting blown. Now we all know full well Bush and Cheney & Powell were lying about weapons of mass destruction, at least you should know they were lying. My only point is sometimes you HAVE TO LIE about things like BLOW JOBS & BOMBS.
Redsfann, Turkey was fine. I visited Adana, Guizentep(sp?), and Kayseri. We sold a bit of cotton, but a good trip nonetheless. I think i ate something funny and i was on the toilet the whole week after.
Shamrock, i don't want to turn this inot a war thread, but with all do respect Sadaam even thought he had WMD. That is what his people were telling him and that is what our intel picked up on. Bush and Co were wrong, but hell even the upper Iraqis thought they had them...
Shamrock, i don't want to turn this inot a war thread, but with all do respect Sadaam even thought he had WMD. That is what his people were telling him and that is what our intel picked up on. Bush and Co were wrong, but hell even the upper Iraqis thought they had them...
I do think Kerry will make a good president, but the biggest reason I'll vote for him is because I hate Bush and his marriage to the religious zealots on the extreme far right, and I agree with the democrats on pretty much all social and economic issues.
still think bush wins. it is very hard for an encumbent to lose. and besides, kerry is starting to show himself as a desperate candidate, imo by throwing out things that he can't back up. for instance at one time he said, without proof that bush knew about 9/11 & he recently has said that he has met with foreign leaders, who have told him that they are backing him, without naming names.
other than the new leader of spain, i haven't heard any other foreign leader come out for kerry. and after what happened in spain, if i was kerry i would distance myself from this new leaders endorsement.
as time goes by, kerry will be shown as a person who endorses 2 sides of many issues & somebody who will say anything, just for effect.
other than the new leader of spain, i haven't heard any other foreign leader come out for kerry. and after what happened in spain, if i was kerry i would distance myself from this new leaders endorsement.
as time goes by, kerry will be shown as a person who endorses 2 sides of many issues & somebody who will say anything, just for effect.
I voted for Bush. I know everyone blows a gasket when I say that. We just had 8 years of the Dems. I thought it was time for a change in differant direction. I almost voted for Nader as redsfann did. Bush really does not give a chit if I vote for him this time. He ran away from most of what he said in 2000. And the excuse on terror is getting old. War and Terror has been on going for 100's of years. It's not stoping tomorrow or in next 10 or 20 years no matter who is president. So we need to take care of so many issues that were falling behind on. I just dont see Bush getting to fired up about many of them. I will listen over next 8 monhs. But so far all parties ads are typical BS. The one thing I wish would happen is more then 54% cast there votes. The greatest country on earth and almost half the voters just dont bother to vote.
AR ? I think that playing both sides will be what gets Kerry elected. Remember that the last election was won by electoral and not the popular vote. Did this not scare the hell out of everyone else. I can't remember a time that the whole country was divided down the middle like that. Understanding both sides is called bi-partisan, playing both sides is called running for president. Ctownguy (I'm not calling you out ? your beliefs happen to come out clearly when you type) leaves little doubt to which side he represents and though I happen to be on the other side of almost every issue, I at least understand some of the reasons why he feels the way he does. Someone attacks the US, your damn right we're going to get them back. I work hard as hell for this money and you want me to give it to someone else. But, when it comes to individuals we cannot live by the end justifies the means.
I remember one election I voted a straight democratic ticket and about 6 months later I was glad that whoever I voted for, for Texas Comptroller, lost. I voted against Carole Keeton Rylander because she ran as a republican, but after watching the way that she has performed I am glad that she won. Since then I have decided to not vote a straight ticket and to vote for who I think would do the best job.
When I know nothing about the candidates involved, I tend to side with the dems. My personal feeling is that the democratic philosophies tend to lean towards preserving individual rights better than the Republican views. (The rights of all, instead of the rights of half)
Gay marriage is a good example. I am happily married and have not the slightest interest in delving into the homosexual lifestyle. (Not even back in college) That being said, I know that going through this thing we call life by yourself can suck. We are actually trying to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual marriages. I can remember one constitutional amendment that took rights away from people, It was called prohibition. That turned out well. In the end it turns out that I, personally, am not a fan of homosexual marriages, but do believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married and the benefits that go along with it.
Health care should not be a luxury, it should be a right. How dare our president address this nation and say publicly that his goal is for every Iraqi child to be provided with free Health Care, when that doesn't happen here in the Good Ol' US of A. My dad recently died after a 2.5 year long fight with lung cancer. In mid January my mom sent me to the pharmacy to pick up a new medicine. By mid January they had exceeded their prescription coverage limit for the year and had to pay for medicine out of pocket. She handed me $3000 in cash and a credit card with the prescription. When I picked up the medicine the guy said 'That'll be seven fifty'. I handed him 800 and he said no, 7 dollars and 50 cents. When I got back we all had a little laugh and I asked why she gave me all of that money for something that costs less then 10 bucks. She said that on the norm it was costing 1500 a week for medicine and that she had paid just under 3000 for a 30 day refill for one prescription the month before. We protect U.S. Pharmaceuticals (by not allowing drugs to be bought in Canada) but (back me up on this wareagle) US cotton mills have been shutting down right and left because the janitor at the US mill makes about the same amount of money in a day as the a mill worker in China makes in a month. - Not to start a rant, but capitalism is not democracy. Free enterprise has nothing to do with a governments job of protecting the citizens. (physical, economic, etc...) Special rights groups are catered to while the average citizen sits at home and takes it from behind. Why? My favorite ignorant answer, That's the way it's always been. Horse Pacocky, We need to say, Huh, how about doing it the right way instead. How about a list of priorities. How do you rank: National Security, Economy, Health Care, Education, Global Trade, Space exploration, etc...
Since 9/11 we shot National Security straight to the top, which in my opinion is a good thing. The government should take the steps to protect it's citizens but how can we do that without infringing on people's personal rights. The answers can not be found on the far left or the far right. Wire taps used on American citizens without a court order is a bad idea IMHO. Eaves dropping into American citizens personal e-mail without a court order is a bad idea IMHO. On the other side, opening up borders without background checks is a bad idea.
So what do we do
Be informed. Ignorance is not an excuse in law and shouldn't be an excuse when it comes to electing political officials. Plus the Internet has opened up access to countless area's of information. Some people just can't be swayed, but it is important to keep an open mind. When was the last time that a good argument changed the way that you viewed an issue?
Get involved. Today, I kicked off my campaign for School Board. Here's what I like about school board as far as being one of the purest forms of democracy. No parties involved. It's not a paid position, what you receive for serving doesn't have a price tag on it. Instead of gaining more power you actually reduce yourself down to 1/7th of a person. The board speaks as one, and cannot pass personal agendas without the support of others. Open Meetings Act, which defines that all meetings involving a quorum must be held in public. Although certain instances allow for closed session, you have to do your job in front of the people who elected you. If nothing else, it gives you the opportunity to do the right thing for the right reason with nothing more than personal satisfaction as your reward.
Folks, we are at an important juncture in the life of these Great United States. We are no longer one of the Super Powers, we are the Super Power. We must lead by example if we wish for others to follow. We must ask the question, where are we heading in the 21st century? Is the next step to unify into a global economy? I don't know, but somewhere down the line that needs to happen. We have seen Super Powers before, Egypt, Italy (Rome), England, Spain, Germany, USSR, etc... and they all have fallen. Let's not be arrogant and say that it can't happen to us, because believe me that all said above, made that same statement.
I remember one election I voted a straight democratic ticket and about 6 months later I was glad that whoever I voted for, for Texas Comptroller, lost. I voted against Carole Keeton Rylander because she ran as a republican, but after watching the way that she has performed I am glad that she won. Since then I have decided to not vote a straight ticket and to vote for who I think would do the best job.
When I know nothing about the candidates involved, I tend to side with the dems. My personal feeling is that the democratic philosophies tend to lean towards preserving individual rights better than the Republican views. (The rights of all, instead of the rights of half)
Gay marriage is a good example. I am happily married and have not the slightest interest in delving into the homosexual lifestyle. (Not even back in college) That being said, I know that going through this thing we call life by yourself can suck. We are actually trying to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual marriages. I can remember one constitutional amendment that took rights away from people, It was called prohibition. That turned out well. In the end it turns out that I, personally, am not a fan of homosexual marriages, but do believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married and the benefits that go along with it.
Health care should not be a luxury, it should be a right. How dare our president address this nation and say publicly that his goal is for every Iraqi child to be provided with free Health Care, when that doesn't happen here in the Good Ol' US of A. My dad recently died after a 2.5 year long fight with lung cancer. In mid January my mom sent me to the pharmacy to pick up a new medicine. By mid January they had exceeded their prescription coverage limit for the year and had to pay for medicine out of pocket. She handed me $3000 in cash and a credit card with the prescription. When I picked up the medicine the guy said 'That'll be seven fifty'. I handed him 800 and he said no, 7 dollars and 50 cents. When I got back we all had a little laugh and I asked why she gave me all of that money for something that costs less then 10 bucks. She said that on the norm it was costing 1500 a week for medicine and that she had paid just under 3000 for a 30 day refill for one prescription the month before. We protect U.S. Pharmaceuticals (by not allowing drugs to be bought in Canada) but (back me up on this wareagle) US cotton mills have been shutting down right and left because the janitor at the US mill makes about the same amount of money in a day as the a mill worker in China makes in a month. - Not to start a rant, but capitalism is not democracy. Free enterprise has nothing to do with a governments job of protecting the citizens. (physical, economic, etc...) Special rights groups are catered to while the average citizen sits at home and takes it from behind. Why? My favorite ignorant answer, That's the way it's always been. Horse Pacocky, We need to say, Huh, how about doing it the right way instead. How about a list of priorities. How do you rank: National Security, Economy, Health Care, Education, Global Trade, Space exploration, etc...
Since 9/11 we shot National Security straight to the top, which in my opinion is a good thing. The government should take the steps to protect it's citizens but how can we do that without infringing on people's personal rights. The answers can not be found on the far left or the far right. Wire taps used on American citizens without a court order is a bad idea IMHO. Eaves dropping into American citizens personal e-mail without a court order is a bad idea IMHO. On the other side, opening up borders without background checks is a bad idea.
So what do we do
Be informed. Ignorance is not an excuse in law and shouldn't be an excuse when it comes to electing political officials. Plus the Internet has opened up access to countless area's of information. Some people just can't be swayed, but it is important to keep an open mind. When was the last time that a good argument changed the way that you viewed an issue?
Get involved. Today, I kicked off my campaign for School Board. Here's what I like about school board as far as being one of the purest forms of democracy. No parties involved. It's not a paid position, what you receive for serving doesn't have a price tag on it. Instead of gaining more power you actually reduce yourself down to 1/7th of a person. The board speaks as one, and cannot pass personal agendas without the support of others. Open Meetings Act, which defines that all meetings involving a quorum must be held in public. Although certain instances allow for closed session, you have to do your job in front of the people who elected you. If nothing else, it gives you the opportunity to do the right thing for the right reason with nothing more than personal satisfaction as your reward.
Folks, we are at an important juncture in the life of these Great United States. We are no longer one of the Super Powers, we are the Super Power. We must lead by example if we wish for others to follow. We must ask the question, where are we heading in the 21st century? Is the next step to unify into a global economy? I don't know, but somewhere down the line that needs to happen. We have seen Super Powers before, Egypt, Italy (Rome), England, Spain, Germany, USSR, etc... and they all have fallen. Let's not be arrogant and say that it can't happen to us, because believe me that all said above, made that same statement.
Question for AR182. Wasn`t Bush senior an incumbent who lost? I thought he was only in one term. I`m a Canadian and when I see what goes on around the rest of the world, I`m glad I live next door, whoever gets elected president.
Skanoochies.
Skanoochies.
joshnaudi quote:" Understanding both sides is called bi-partisan, playing both sides is called running for president."
yes, i agree that understanding both sides is called bi-partisan, both playing both sides is called waffling (sp?). meaning each day the politician takes a different side on the same issue. to me, that's pandering, which shouldn't be accepted.
skanoochies quote:"Question for AR182. Wasn`t Bush senior an incumbent who lost? I thought he was only in one term."
bush sr. was running against clinton & perot, who took the votes away from bush sr. and it still was pretty close.
even when carter(who had alot of problems as president) ran for re-election vs. reagan, in 1980, the race was very close until oct., when reagan started pulling away.
imo, it would take alot for kerry to win this election & because he has alot of negatives, i don't think he has it in him. we shall see.
yes, i agree that understanding both sides is called bi-partisan, both playing both sides is called waffling (sp?). meaning each day the politician takes a different side on the same issue. to me, that's pandering, which shouldn't be accepted.
skanoochies quote:"Question for AR182. Wasn`t Bush senior an incumbent who lost? I thought he was only in one term."
bush sr. was running against clinton & perot, who took the votes away from bush sr. and it still was pretty close.
even when carter(who had alot of problems as president) ran for re-election vs. reagan, in 1980, the race was very close until oct., when reagan started pulling away.
imo, it would take alot for kerry to win this election & because he has alot of negatives, i don't think he has it in him. we shall see.
Joshnaudi,
Best post I've seen around here. Good luck with your campaign. Hope you run for U.S. Senate before long.
I almost think we need to choose our government reps the same way we choose juries...by lottery. Get rid of the career professional politicians. That would get rid of campaign corruption cause noone would need to campaign. I know we risk getting some wooden heads in there but I'll bet our laws would get simpified down and then we wouldn't need so many 200 $ an hour lawyers to figure em out and to find loopholes for corporations and the wealthy to squeeze through.
And speaking of lawyers: How is it that they think the service they perform is worth hundreds of dollars an hour? I've never known it to take a genius to practice law. Why is what they do worth so much compared to what most other professionals do?
Best post I've seen around here. Good luck with your campaign. Hope you run for U.S. Senate before long.
I almost think we need to choose our government reps the same way we choose juries...by lottery. Get rid of the career professional politicians. That would get rid of campaign corruption cause noone would need to campaign. I know we risk getting some wooden heads in there but I'll bet our laws would get simpified down and then we wouldn't need so many 200 $ an hour lawyers to figure em out and to find loopholes for corporations and the wealthy to squeeze through.
And speaking of lawyers: How is it that they think the service they perform is worth hundreds of dollars an hour? I've never known it to take a genius to practice law. Why is what they do worth so much compared to what most other professionals do?
I always try to vote for the best man and in 00 I voted for Bush, I just thought Gore was a little too eccentric. At this point I feel I made a very poor choice and regret ever voting for this regime, what really sold me on Bush was that he said he was going to be a uniter and not a divider and since I was sick of the partisan bashing during the Clinton run I felt this would be great for the country. Wow was I ever wrong, this administration has become the greatest divider of the country in my lifetime and GW never mentioned that the wacky religious right wing would be calling many of the shots. I can live with the lies of the administration about Iraq and Halliburton as these types of lies usually go on in any administration but I cannot tolerate the right wing religious movement and the patriot act, both of these issues are just a forewarning of how this administration will violate our freedom of speech if given four more years. I think Bush could easily win this election if he dropped some of the dead weight in his administration such as Cheney (by far the biggest crook ever to operate inside the oval offices) and Ashcroft.
JOSHNAUDI said:
All elections are decided by an electoral vote. I for one think it?s a great idea.The constitution was designed to make this country a republic, not a democracy. I believe we should stick by the constitution and maintain the Electoral College. Popular voting would take away the influence of the voters living in scarcely populated rural areas.
If we change to the popular vote to elect the president then the large cities would get even more power in the election and the rural states would suffer.
The Electoral College ensures that each state will receive some attention. Do you think that the candidates would have spent time in Pennsylvania if it weren't for the Electoral College? The answer is NO because the stakes wouldn't have been as high. The Electoral College ensures that candidates have to pay attention to every state. It's the same reasoning behind why every state has 2 senators. If we removed the EC, the candidates would spend all of their time in NYC, California, etc....giving the large urban centers much more of a say in things.
The vote of New York City (not the State of NY) would over-ride the votes of all of the states of ND, SD, MT, ID, WY, AK and KS by itself...
CLOSEST ELECTIONS IN THE POPULAR VOTE
1880: Garfield 48.3%, Hancock 48.3%
(actual percentage: Garfield 48.27%, Hancock 48.25%)(.02% margin)
1884: Cleveland 48.5%, Blaine 48.2% (0.3% margin)
1844: Polk 49.5%, Clay 48.1% (1.4% margin)
1876: Tilden 51.0%, Hayes 48.0% (3.0% margin) (Tilden lost Electoral vote)
1888: Cleveland 48.6%, Harrison 47.8% (0.8% margin) (Cleveland lost Electoral vote)
1892: Cleveland 46.1%, Harrison 43.0%, Weaver 8.5% (3.1% margin)
1916: Wilson 49.2%, Hughes 46.1% (3.1% margin)
1960: Kennedy 49.7%, Nixon 49.5% (0.2% margin)
1968: Nixon 43.4%, Humphrey 42.7%, Wallace 13.5% (0.7% margin)
1976: Carter 50.1%, Ford 48.0% (2.1% margin)
If we changed to the popular vote the large cities will even get more power in the election and the rural state would suffer?
Looks that way already. The more populated states get more electoral votes now. The days of these elections being about the little guy liveing out in the country are long gone.
Looks that way already. The more populated states get more electoral votes now. The days of these elections being about the little guy liveing out in the country are long gone.
Thanks for posting the outcomes of those elections Turf.
In no way, am I for changing the current electoral system.
I was trying to show how split we are as a country. By your numbers, it had been over 100 years since we had a split in the popular and electoral vote. The difference in the amount of available information (and the number of voters) that we have now compared to 1888 is not even comparable yet we had the same results as that election.
I was born in '75 so when I look back through my life I remember Reagan hands down (twice) Bush Sr. (not close) Clinton (Jazzing it all the way) and then you have Bush/Gore - which resembled none of the above races.
I guess the underlying tone I was trying to get a across was, as a country, we need someone near the middle In the big house, and not someone that represents his party and only his party.
In no way, am I for changing the current electoral system.
I was trying to show how split we are as a country. By your numbers, it had been over 100 years since we had a split in the popular and electoral vote. The difference in the amount of available information (and the number of voters) that we have now compared to 1888 is not even comparable yet we had the same results as that election.
I was born in '75 so when I look back through my life I remember Reagan hands down (twice) Bush Sr. (not close) Clinton (Jazzing it all the way) and then you have Bush/Gore - which resembled none of the above races.
I guess the underlying tone I was trying to get a across was, as a country, we need someone near the middle In the big house, and not someone that represents his party and only his party.
MC
My brother and his wife live in Jeff City, Mizzou.
They told me, when Ashcroft was elected governor, he held a victory party and invited some of his biggest supporters. No alcohol for the evening, and after dinner the whole group was treated to 2-3 hours of piano playing by Mr Ashcroft himself. The kicker, No dancing. I can't confirm the happenings but I can at least spread the rumors.
My brother and his wife live in Jeff City, Mizzou.
They told me, when Ashcroft was elected governor, he held a victory party and invited some of his biggest supporters. No alcohol for the evening, and after dinner the whole group was treated to 2-3 hours of piano playing by Mr Ashcroft himself. The kicker, No dancing. I can't confirm the happenings but I can at least spread the rumors.
Excellent post JOSHNAUDI. I 100% agree that healthcare coverage is a right not a entitlement/luxury. How that is accomplished is certainly up for debate. I doubt socialized medicine is the answer. Aside from it being a moral/health issue, it is a economic issue. As debt burdened as average americans are does it help that money they could be saving or spending is being spent more and more on healthcare? Same for companies that provide for their employees.
As for the election process, not sure if I would change the electorial process but still feel campaign finance needs to be reformed. Someone should not be able to outspend another opponet by 3-1, 4-1 margins.
As for the election process, not sure if I would change the electorial process but still feel campaign finance needs to be reformed. Someone should not be able to outspend another opponet by 3-1, 4-1 margins.
