Bush or Kerry?

[Variable Rush]

In a few months, Bush and Kerry will go head to head in that Street Fighter knockoff known as "The Election".

Who will you vote for?

Some time tomorrow, I will post who will win. I have a foolproof method of finding out who will win: WWF Attitude for the Sony PlayStation. It has been very accurate in finding out the winner of Every big election we've had for the past several years starting with the infamous 2000 election.

We had Bush and Gore create-a-wrestler's made up. They fought and fought for at least a half an hour. It was a stalemate, much like the actual election itself, when at the last minute, Road Dogg ran in and helped Bush kick Gore's ass for the win. So, if you're sore that Gore was Thor in the poor, it was Road Dogg's fault.

[joe_cam]

I WANTED to vote for Dave Barry...really I did...but I figure every vote for Dave Barry equals one vote taken from Kerry and that means a better chance Bush is re-elected...

[KWarp]

Kerry simply becuase he ain't Bush. Bush did a lot of things I wanted the country to do, but did it in such a horrible manner that it wasn't even worth going for. Bush is an idiot. <(-_-)>

[Ace!]

Except that every vote for Dave Barry is actually a vote for Dave Barry and you shouldn't worry about who may or may not win an election based on your vote.

It's your right to vote for who you choose. So choose and choose wisely. At this point in time I'm still voting a write in.

Your job as an American is to vote for who you believe would do the best. So do that. If you think Kerry would do a better job than anyone else, then vote for him. If you don't, then don't. Don't let pudits make your decision for you.

[mp]

pluralism is a terribly flawed system of voting--a vote for dave barry is a vote for no one. thinking otherwise tends to be somewhat blindly idealistic. the two primary candidates will be the only two that matter, and this is evinced by the fact that even if one does not attain the majority, he still may attain office. the two-party system is propped up by plurality. plurality undermines democracy.

i'm voting for badnarik, but i also am so fed up with politics that i know that doesn't matter, either.

[Walan]

I thought the idea of an election was that one votes for the person they want to get elected because they like the guy and his views, not because they just don't want the other person to win.

I have a voter registration card, but I'm not voting this year.

[Ace!]

Walan, please vote, even if it's a write in. Don't become a statistic that mentions how many Americans simply don't care about elections. That's why we're in this situation in the first place.

The elections are more polarized than they have been in my memory. It's simply not okay that Kerry will get so many votes simply because he's "not Bush". You can't vote against someone, no matter how hard you try, so why are so many people attempting this?

Pollard, my tack may be ideallistic, but so what? How else are we going to break out of a two party system? In the last election I voted against my ideals. I voted for Nader simply because I wanted an opportunity to provide our nation with another party that would be allowed in deabates, a party that would be allowed to take part in the system whole hog as opposed to hanging out on the sidelines, becoming another H. Ross gag on SNL.

I want the freedom and the right to effectively cast my vote for the person that I beleve is the best person for the job. That's something I don't have right now.

But I also realize that we have to start at Point A, not at Point Q. Voting for who I believe is the best choice is Point A. Rallying around Lyndon Larouche is Point Q. Before we support a person on the sidelines we must ensure that this person is invited in to the headlines. We can't do that until we destroy the notion of the two party system. And the "Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" pundits make me physically ill. This is a group of people who simply don't get it. These people don't understand our duty as Americans.

I do. And I will continue to choose as my heart desires simply because it is my right. I see great things in our future, but these things will never occur unless we, as a people, are willing to take the risks and make the sacrifices.

My idealism is not blind. It is real. My name is Virgilio Ramon de la Cruz. Remember this, for I will change the world.

[HoundRogerson]

if i ever bothered to vote, id vote for bush. he's a dumb redneck whos not afraid to tell the UN to go fuck themselves, and take matters into his own hands.

[Ybrik Metaknight]

I live in Texas, so my vote doesn't really count, since we all know Bush is going to take Texas by a landslide because a) Texas is an uber conservative voting bloc most of the time and b) it's his home state. Therefore, I will probably be voting for a third-party candidate, most likely whoever the Libertarian candidate is (since I find myself agreeing with the Libertarian party on a number of issues). However, I WILL be voting, even though my vote doesn't matter.

Were I not in a swing state...I dunno. I'm not happy with Bush (but I think Gore would have been far, far worse), but I'm not too sure about Kerry. I'd probably be more informed if I lived in a state where my vote counted.

And, for fun...

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om

and

www.jibjab.com

Enjoy! (The JibJab animation in particular is quite entertaining)

[Iskandar]

I'm voting for GOOM!! %[ in 2004.

[mp]

i simply believe that the "revolution" will have to begin somewhere other than the apparatus that is presently as flawed as the whole from which it extends. it may be empowering to think that your vote is effective, but the system has denied you that and is denying you that. it is pitted against those who are outside of our rigid partisan boundaries.

the big picture is screaming for a critical readjustment, and until that readjustment occurs, i'm not going to tell myself that picking either the lesser of two evils or the invisible candidate is somehow productive.

[Walan]

I was very turned off by politics because when I signed up Republican, my parents wanted me to vote for Bush just because he's a Republican as well. (I might have my parties mixed up, correct me if I'm wrong.) Every time I bring up the question of which I should vote for, they suprised that I'm even thinking about voting for Kerry. My dad acts like I'm a foreign America-hater just because I might not vote for the President. (true example: Me - "I just don't agree with some of the things that Bush is going for." Dad - "Well, if you don't like America, then get out.")

To make matters worse, every time I search the internet for resources to look up the views of each candidate, I find nothing but sites that are biased towards one candidate or another (that John Kerry site is a good example). I'd like to find a website (or any resource, for that matter) that is completely unbiased so that I can make a good choice. TV ads never help, because all they do is mudsling and muckrake, and it just turns me off more.

And as far as other political parties, is there even any other third party besides the Green Party? I'm completely unaware of anyone else running besides Senator Kerry, the President, and Nader.

Sorry if I sounded uncaring before. I just really want to make the right choice, and for a while, not voting at all sounded right.

[Azar]

Ralph Nader wasnt in that poll, that is so wrong.

I'm voting for bush, I dont like Kerry's positions, and if Bush's positions are all bull, then I'll just have to live with it. I'm sick of this whole gay issue getting shoved in my face as well, why does this "life style" get so much support? They talk about it so much I wish they would just ban it. Or at least until the day the legalize dating minors of the OPPOSITE SEX, I wont support it, it's just unresonable and unfair.

[Kishin]

I'd vote for Donald Duck, at least he's got his temper under control.

[Jessperk]

Lewis Black gets my vote.

[mp]

walan: michael badnarik is running on the libertarian ticket.

http://www.badnarik.org/

[Walan]

I've been reading this guy's site, and I actually agree with most of the things he's saying, especially his views on gun control and the Iraqi war. I think I want to vote for this man.

[mp]

i'm glad i could be of service, then!

[FaithisHot]

I WANTED to vote for Dave Barry...really I did...but I figure every vote for Dave Barry equals one vote taken from Kerry and that means a better chance Bush is re-elected...

DROP OUT OF THE RACE, DAVE BARRY!


It's simply not okay that Kerry will get so many votes simply because he's "not Bush". You can't vote against someone, no matter how hard you try, so why are so many people attempting this?


Because it's unavoidable. Like it or not, one of two people is going to be the President of the United States at this time next year. One of those two people is George W. Bush. If I don't like Bush at all, then the chances are extremely high that I am going to like the other guy better, so that is who I would vote for. There is nothing wrong at all with being idealistic and thinking ahead... but there is also nothing wrong with being practical and thinking about RIGHT NOW.


I'm sick of this whole gay issue getting shoved in my face as well, why does this "life style" get so much support?

Because we all deserve to decide for ourselves whom we want to be with, and there is no reason why anyone should have to live their life based on someone else's personal viewpoints, I guess.


My dad acts like I'm a foreign America-hater just because I might not vote for the President. (true example: Me - "I just don't agree with some of the things that Bush is going for." Dad - "Well, if you don't like America, then get out.")

Yeah... that really sucks.

[joe_cam]

what a loving father...

[Gendo Ikari]

Imagine the surprise if, for once, a third part candidate got elected to office...
...do you think third party candidates EVER EXPECT to get elected?

They'd be like, "OMG, I got elected! OMG, now, what do I DO?!"

"Yeah, what WOULD you do if you got elected?"

"Well, I just thought I'd rule...and stuff..."

[Shonen Samurai]

Vote John McCain 2008

[Walan]

what a loving father...

Don't get me wrong, I love my dad to death (and vice versa). I just think he's a moron when it comes to who's running the country.

[Hthe8th]

Vote John McCain 2008\


I'd have voted McCain 2000 and 2004 if he had ran. I want him to be president right now more than anybody out there but I'm not voting a write in.

I'm voting Kerry not that it really matter. NY is going for Kerry pretty much regardless of how I vote.

[Ybrik Metaknight]

walan: michael badnarik is running on the libertarian ticket.

http://www.badnarik.org/

Well then, sounds like I'll be voting for Badnarik.

[BAMAToNE]

I will be voting for Bush. My dislike of Kerry is documented on my LJ.

[Variable Rush]

In 3 years or so, be looking for The Mayor of Randomness to take over this town...

I aim to eliminate the homeless problem by making them ALL City Employees. Bus driver homeless people can live in their bus!

Jacksonville will mass it's army of footall players and used car dealerships and take over the state, then the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ace!]

It's simply not okay that Kerry will get so many votes simply because he's "not Bush". You can't vote against someone, no matter how hard you try, so why are so many people attempting this?


Because it's unavoidable. Like it or not, one of two people is going to be the President of the United States at this time next year. One of those two people is George W. Bush. If I don't like Bush at all, then the chances are extremely high that I am going to like the other guy better, so that is who I would vote for. There is nothing wrong at all with being idealistic and thinking ahead... but there is also nothing wrong with being practical and thinking about RIGHT NOW.


Right, I know you THINK it's unavoidable, but is it really? If not, WHY not? This is my frustration with the election process right now. Pollard is right when he says that the structure is flawed. It is very flawed. But how do we change it? And where do we start?

That's my ultimate point. What if, bear with me now, what if ten percent of the voting public wrote in? What if twenty percent did? What kind of message would that send? Sure, one of the two candidates would still win the election, one of the two would be in the White House. But that ten percent can't be ignored.

In the 2000 election, Nader had his six percent. Had being the operative word. Then the pundits struck out in full force and Oregon, my home state and the one that would have given Nader enough to allow third party involvement in '04, changed their collective minds due to the asinine "anyone but Bush" ideas. The "vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" posterboards were thrown out on lawns, the radio and the papers (even our independants) tore everyone who supported Nader a new one, and he was ignored.

He still got my vote. You have no idea how many people yelled at me for that. Because, supposedly, it's my fault that Bush is president. Did I want him to be? No. But I wanted a multiple party system more than Bush to remain Governor of Texas.

The problem is that people don't think for the future. They pretend to, but they really don't. You are right, Faith, when you say that there is nothing wrong with thinking practically about right now. But most people are only thinking about the latter and not the former.

What else could Bush accomplish in a second term? I don't see him doing too much. Not with such a split nation. And what could Kerry pull off? Again, probably not too much. Kerry is the Golden Boy, but don't forget that for the half of the country that loves or accepts him there is another fifty percent that hates him. No matter who wins this election all eyes will be turned to the White House, and all they have to do is fuck up once.

But if Kerry wins the Republicans will be able to do more to him if he fucks up then the Democrats could possibly do to Bush, which we saw when no one tried to do anything about the election mishaps.

Bottom Line: I don't see things getting better anytime soon, no matter who wins this election. So I will make a statement and vote for whom I choose. Who knows. Perhaps some time in the next four months I will see something in either candidtate that will make me support them. But if that revelation never happens then I will stick with my write in and be lumped in the three percent.

But I will have done my civic duty and I will have followed my heart and my mind. I will not back down. I will see the change in the way our nation acts and reacts.

I will start at home. Change the way the world is run in my city, then my state, then my country.

Pollard is right when he says that writing in a candidate isn't going to change anything. Not by itself. Raising awareness is where we must truly begin. I've been seriously thinking about going back to take a second test in a year so I am allowed to teach social studies. Teach a civics course.

We are currently a nation run on ideologies and black and white opinions. This, as we have seen with Walan's story, has the potential to drastically alter our children's higher level thinking skills. Think about how many ADULTS you see who don't think about the gray area simply because they don't think of one existing. Politics has become so emotionless on the part of the politicians and so emotional on the part of the voters. This emotion, as emotion tends to do, often gets in the way of reason. The two are opposites.

We need to be voting with reason and not with emotion. We need to take stock of our situation. We need to take a breath. We need to take a step back and reassess the situation. This cannot happen in our current system.

And by buying into the "Anyone but Bush" campaign one is refusing to think logically and is refusing to change anything at all. Change cannot come without taking risks. Change cannot occur safely.

Are you ready to take a risk? Because I am. I would gladly risk it all for the potential to change the world around me.

And I will.

[Symmetry]

That's my ultimate point. What if, bear with me now, what if ten percent of the voting public wrote in? What if twenty percent did? What kind of message would that send? Sure, one of the two candidates would still win the election, one of the two would be in the White House. But that ten percent can't be ignored.


If I'm not mistaken, Perot did win approximately 15% of the popular vote in one of his election campaigns. Its not the people that are keeping third party candidates out of office, as much as it is the rules created by the incumbents that force us into the two-party sysetem. There really is no way to change all of these rules unless you were already in power - and once you're there in office, you have no incentive to alter laws to hurt yourself.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I've had my wisdom teeth pulled today and I'm still pretty woozy.

[Almasy Marquis]

Closer to twenty percent. Must be the ears.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1992

[Ace!]

You are right. Ninteen percent. But Perot also spent $57 million of his own money on that campaign, launched on election day.

But you're right. The percentage has been reached, and the world didn't care. So. I guess I have a new rhetorical question that I must ask... What will it take to allow a regular guy run for political office? Why must only millionaires run for office? And who was it that said that the president should be the man who wants the job the least?

Locally the man who raised the least amount of money (the leader in the funding race earned almost three times over) won the mayoral election. Could this be the start of something? I'd like to think so.

I guess what I'm uliimately trying to say is this: We, as the people of the United States of America, need to stop being apathetic. We need to stop shrugging our shoulders and stop the perpetuation of the standard.

Because we can do better. We can do a lot better.

[Moguta]

Why must only millionaires run for office? And who was it that said that the president should be the man who wants the job the least?
1) They need all of the money to be taken seriously, and to get a pre-presidential political position in the first place.
2) I don't remember who said this, but I know exactly what you're talking about. Well, I think. The quote I'm faintly recalling made mention of "power" not presidency.

[Hthe8th]

If Jesse Ventura ends up running in 2008 like he's alluded to, I think that will definitely stir things up. Politicians and scholars will look at him for being a barbarous retired wrestler/actor, and an embarassment to the office of the governor of Minnesota. But your average Joe see's Jesse Ventura as a mere reflection of himself, an American who built his way from the ground up and isn't afraid to say what he thinks and do what he wants and I think he'd have a real shot at turning some shit around whether he gets elected or not.

Some countries have the option "none of the above" on their ballots. I think this country should too. Course I think the party system should be flat out abolished and then pare down the candidates from there rather than just one. Drawing out the process would definitely cost more money and time but I think it would be much more worth it. Take a look at the NFL for example. You start off with 31 teams that all claim to be the best. By the end of the season, that number of teams is halved and all the sports shows focus entirely on what got those teams to where they are. And it keeps getting focused further and further until you have 12 hours of pregame coverage of the remaining two teams before the Super Bowl and at that point you should have a damn good idea of what each teams primary strengths and weaknesses are, even if you're a casual fan. Did that make any sense?

[Ace!]

That's actually a pretty good analogy.

But why do our politicians have to have money to be taken seriously? I have less money than any of them, but I know how to take care of it and treat it right. Wouldn't that make me a better choice moneywise?

I'm not against people making money. People have the right to make money and have as much as they want, as long as they aquire it legally. But this three percent aren't the only people in the country. And they certainly aren't the only people who know best.

[Symmetry]

Running a successful campaign takes a lot of money, but you're right - money isn't a requirement to hold high office. While a well run campaign will attract voters, generally they serve more to strengthen previously held positions rather than converting more to the fold.

I think the need for money is more related to the "respect" and the knowledge that generally is obtained or earned in the process of becoming wealthy. You can find rich people to back your run for office, but that respect and authority - the clout of being able to say "hey, look how successful I've been in the real world" - is harder to achieve.

We don't see as many common people in office as we do wealthy people probably because the common people simply don't run. Your average Joe and Jane are content with homelife and really have no desire to become a community leader. They're not in the race for prestige, they're spending their time making a living to get by. On the other hand, the wealthy have a little more breathing room and have a better base to start from. (More likely to have more education, wealthy friends, etc...)

[Ace!]

But what if we were able to remove all campaign contributions from the equation. Federally subsidize all candidates, or at the very least offer up equal air time for advertisements. Or just invite every candidate to the debates.

You are right that money seems to equate education, and that equation makes sense. If one comes from a wealthy background then one could easily attend the best institutes of higher education.

But does that make it right? I certainly don't want the uneducated in office, but at the same time I attended a state school and recieved a better education (in my subject matter) than a friend of mine who attended a major institute.

Along with money comes elitism, which is something that political office should never have.

[Symmetry]

Shouldn't, but unfortunately does.

I'm not saying I like the way the system works, I'm just saying that's the way things are - and much of it is realistically beyond our capacity to change.

I definately think the government should regulate airtime for elections differently. Airtime is increidbly expensive, and the government owns the rights to non-cable channels. (And maybe possesses rights over the cables ones, not sure... not my area of expertise.) By allowing reocgnized candidates limited amounts of free airtime, it would help tremendously in local (or heck, even national) election campaigns.

[Ace!]

Shouldn't, but unfortunately does.

I'm not saying I like the way the system works, I'm just saying that's the way things are - and much of it is realistically beyond our capacity to change.


And this is why we fail.

[Symmetry]

Because I am "a realist" or because I am "a defeatist"?

[Ace!]

Both.

Idealism is brutally worked out of us from a very young age. Calvin (the comic character, not the preacher-man), upon discovering that he would be in school until he was eighteen then would enter the real world, said it best: "What, you mean I only get six years to be a kid?"

We lose our idealism in our perpetual fall from Innocence to Experience, and we are constantly trying to get it back.

Idealism is never misplaced. Ever. Idealism is often considered the bedfellow of naivetie, yet I see many more naieve adults than I do idealistic ones.

Without idealism we wouldn't be here. Not on the internet and not listening to game music. How many times do you think these inventors heard the words "That'll never work"?

Of course it's easier to explain away the fight these people fought as they worked in a controlled environment towards a controlled goal.

We have the harder fight. But let's be honest. We're not the first to want this fight. Where was this realism in 1776? It existed. It existed everywhere. Ben Franklin wasn't too keen on the idea of fighting the British for economic purposes. He was happy where he was.

But it happened.

More recently, thirty years ago thousands of idealists rose up across the nation to change the world. Yes, they fucked what they truly wanted to do. But they tried anyway.

And they changed their world. Isn't it our turn? Shouldn't we be working to unite the country as opposed to simply sitting back and letting this all happen?

We all have our roles. There are many ways to change the mindset of a country. But it won't happen with the mindset you posess.

Sit by if you like. I will be working, for the rest of my life, to ensure a better world for my children. See this as a soapbox if you like. I see us on level ground.

I will change the world. Or at least I will begin the process.

Call me idealistic if you like, but don't call me naieve.

[Symmetry]

By no means would I suggest not to try. I agree entirely with the sentiment that many things never happen because "that'll never work". If that's your goal - to change everything you see as being flawed in our system of government - by all means, try your hardest to change it. Just don't get so locked into your idealism that you fail to take into account reality - because then everything starts to break down.

In anycase, telling people that "with the mindset you possess, nothing will change" generally isn't a hot way to get across your proposed changes. Not only is it divisive, but it ignores the fact that other people are making similiar struggles of their own, ones that could be focused into your own movement, yet currently work towards a different end.

[Ace!]

You are very correct. When I reffered to "your mindset" I was referring to the direct statement you made, that of being a "realist" and a "defeatest". I apologize if that was misconstrued. I also realize that my final comment made it sound as though I was accusing you of calling me naieve, something that never happened, and a sentiment that I did not intend to display. If the statement was taken as such, please allow me to apologize.

There are many who wish to change the world, but so many of those people do not see things the way that I do. I'm not saying that they are wrong, merely misdirected in my eyes.

The majority of people I see working towards change here in P-Town, Oregon, merely wish things to change because they believe the masses that tell them the way the world currently is is terrible. These people have no idea what they are doing, or why. "Better than Bush" is the comment I hear most, the second would be disdain when I tell them that I know not whom I will be voiting for.

These people will not change anything. They work towards change in their nine to five signiture gathering job, get their money and go home feeling accomplished, while all they have done is divide instead of strenghten. Their arguements can be taken apart in moments, and their motives are far from their own.

I do realize that I am speaking of these people as a group, in stereotype. There are many more who actually know what they are talking about, but they seem few and far between. The masses are the members who dirty the name of those who seem to know what they are talking about.

As I said before, politics needs to be more rational and less emotional.

Change will not come easy. But it must start somewhere. I must also be honest. I don't know what will change or even what needs to change. I don't know what I'm going to begin change. I only have an idea. And I know that I won't be able to do much of anything right now. And that is the most frustrating thing in my mind, currently.

The knowledge that I have to finish school and teach for at least three years before anyone will take me seriously. The knowledge that my current educational peer group will not all see the end of the program. The knowledge that some of those people already are seeing Step G instead of Step A. The knowledge that, August third, Two Thousand and Four, I am helpless.

But I'm learning. I'm gathering my tools. My hope is that others begin doing the same. Thank you for your words, sir, and I look forward to reading more if you have them.

[Iskandar]

As I said before, politics needs to be more rational and less emotional.

[LunchBox]

Schwarzenegger!

[Walan]

Schwarzenegger!

The one thing that bothered me about Arnold is that I didn't know a single thing about his issues. Sure, I'd seen almost all of his movies (including Twins), but I didn't know his campaign promises. I guess it's that whole "name value" thing that got him the position.

[hillarygayle]

To make matters worse, every time I search the internet for resources to look up the views of each candidate, I find nothing but sites that are biased towards one candidate or another (that John Kerry site is a good example). I'd like to find a website (or any resource, for that matter) that is completely unbiased so that I can make a good choice. TV ads never help, because all they do is mudsling and muckrake, and it just turns me off more.

This annoys me, too, Walan. It's like no matter what you do, you can't help but get someone's biased viewpoint. Here's the way I get past that: I READ EVERYTHING. I get all the biased viewpoints I can. I watch speeches by both candidates, I look at voting records, and I read accounts by people who have been represented by these officials at a state or legislative level (to me, what someone does at a state or legislative level is VERY, VERY indicative of what they will do if they become president). I take all those things together, and base my choice on what I get out of that information.

I'll be voting for John Kerry, to the horror of the rest of my family. I do not approve of Bush's mishandling of the situation. I don't believe we ever SHOULD have been in Iraq, though I admit we must stay the course to some point now that we've gone in. I don't approve of Bush's "the military is the answer to everything" mindset, and I CERTAINLY abhore his use of his faith to support that. e_e Christianity is a pacifistic religion ("turn the other cheek", anyone?), and besides, it ought to be left out of governmental decisionmaking, anyway.

So. Kerry for me.