Who will you vote for?

[monsoon]

[cityboi]

I support Kerry 100%

[Raleigh-NC]

I was hoping that UP membership will stay completely out of political discussions, civilized, or otherwise. Since several members of UP haven't made a decision to leave such discussions away from this forum, I will join them and offer my [civilized] input, without any comments that may give birth to endless debates...

As is, my vote goes 100% to Bush/Cheney... although I am not Republican.

[BrandonTO416]

PB, I couldn't have said it better myself. My life will go on no matter who wins. My personal life has never altered with the change of presidents. I have always been poor, with only occasional health insurance here and there(inner-city government funded hospitals pick up the tab)... I here about how everybody was much better off during the clinton years, Who was better off? I wasn't, even though my dad worked 2 jobs most of the time. I hear how bad the economy is, but nobody I know has been impacted by it. What it all boils down to is the prsidents do NOT really control the fate of our nation, congress and the senate does. They are the ones who vote on every law and every admendment, congress is the only one who can declare war. My advice for everybody is to Chill out, cuz no matter who wins your life will likely not change...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a pretty self-centered view on the election if you ask me. Voting isn't just about one's self, it is about electing people who benefits you personally - yea - but its also about electing someone who values the freedom of other people and will ensure it, and a president that works hard at solving problems overall be they education, healthcare, the wars, etc.

If you want to know something about Clinton, Clinton tried to pass universal healthcare in 1993 but it failed due to forces opposing him. Isn't it worth voting for someone who supports things you do - even if they can't always succeed in getting them done? It sure beats having someone in office that doesn't care about those issues at all?

If you take the viewpoint that it doesn't matter who wins because your life is never going to change, that is a defeatest position you make for yourself.

Don't take a self-defeating position. It hurts nobody but yourself.

[BrandonTO416]

After reading the rest of the replies, I must say I'm shocked that the comparisons between wars are coming up as if they are one in the same.

First off - Iraq was not an imminent threat, and no we did not have to rush to war like we did. It DOES matter when we go to war! How can anyone think "it doesn't matter when we went, we would have had to go anyway" when it matters in a diplomatic sense - getting more people to agree, when it matters in a planning sense - Bush had no plans to secure peace after major combat operations were stopped. His entire team just thought the Iraqi's would fall over and rejoice and be happy and love President Bush.

It obviously didn't happen that way. Now Iraq has become a terrorist battleground - something it was not before.

In October 2004, I am personally amazed at how many people are still confused between the difference of a dictatorship and a terrorist state - and the different levels of security threats between those two situations. Saddam Hussein is not, was not, and didn't have the potential to be a major terrorist threat to the United States. We have indeed made Iraq more open to terrorism by getting rid of Saddam's strong central rule over the country.

Fighting terrorism isn't as simple as saying "i'm going to go democratize country x so that it becomes a beacon of light so every other place changes" as Bush's doctrine is. Its this too simplistic, black and white view in the Whitehouse that is so dangerous. What is even more dangerous is how many voters are buying this line of thinking.

And again, this is a war that has had nearly 200,000 soldiers in active combat at the same time, and is draining the military's resources greatly.

You want to compare a 200,000 soldier war to take over an entire country and re-establish its government and build a new nation to a skirmish in Kosovo with only a few thousand troops to oust a President and let them keep the existing system they have?

Even Afghanistan was not a war quite like Iraq, and we are losing that country because of poor security forces there.

I'm highly upset at the fact that people want to compare apples and oranges as the same.

Kosovo is nothing like our wars with Iraq.

And to answer the original question, my vote is obviously going for Kerry.

We need better leadership.

[Raleigh-NC]

Heckles, you and I have crossed paths before on the issues you mentioned in your last posting. I tried to avoid too much confrontation before and I will continue doing so, but I want to encourage you to see beyond your partisan preferences and political ideologies, even if it is only for a day. You are a civilized person and I know that you can do this.

For starters, the war in Kosovo was far more significant than you realize. It wasn't done for humanitarian purposes but for one thing: Uranium. That is precisely why we went there and we lost the race to the Russians. Since, according to the Liberals, the war in Iraq was fought for oil and the war in Kosovo was for Uranium, then please tell me what is the difference between the two. You may say, "prove to me that what you say is true", but if I were you I wouldn't go that route because there is no way you can prove that the war in Iraq was fought for oil. I've heard that theory a million times and it has been debunked another million times by people who seem to be less fanatic.

If the war in Iraq was because Bush and his buddies were scum, then I recommend giving this theory some extra thought. If you were in his shoes, would you not wait until you were re-elected before doing this? That would have been the best strategy. Iraq, while there is no proof of its involvement in the 9/11 attacks, was clearly behind the first attack, back in 1993. Even Saddam's regime went as far as admitting that certain elements within the Iraqi government were involved in the first attack, and offered to "help" us, only to change their mind afterwards. Besides, most insurgents in Iraq are led by Al-Qaeda members. The cells were already in place and now they feel pressure... that's why they react the way they do. They don't give a damn about innocent civilians (especially Iraqis), as clearly demonstrated so many times since the war officially ended. This "mess" was going to surface at one point or another, and because Saddam's self-interests included his emerging as a leader for the Muslim world, the friction between him and those militants that cause today's problems were going to become the center of attention, sooner or later. Did we create this mess? Not really. We simply saw the inevitable and decided to deal with it before Al-Qaeda and Iraq started to compete as to who will strike the deadliest blow in order to gain "respect".

Now, it is unfortunate that Iraq is going through this troubled period, but I am not sure that Kerry would have handled it better, especially when during a 1997 speech of his, he declared Saddam a threat and called for his removal. All those "war as the last resort" talks are simply bullcrap, for public consumption and votes. Kerry would have done the exact same thing Bush did. They both serve the same interests. If you paid attention to Kerry's own words during the debate, you should feel very uneasy about his take on Iran and North Korea. Sure, we need to watch these regimes, but both countries, officially, were much less involved in 9/11 than Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not sort-sighted, and I will support Kerry's actions if he can make a clear case against Iran and North Korea, but I think Bush is handling this much better.

Heckles, neither the war in Kosovo, nor in Iraq can be seen as apples and oranges. To me, the average American, it doesn't matter in which war my friends or relatives get shot. What matters is if their sacrifice was worth it. If you tell me that bombing innocent Serbian civilians is less of a crime than killing civilian Iraqis, then you lack objectivity. Back then, nobody knew how long the war in Kosovo was going to last, let alone what the outcome would be. Luckily, it ended for us soon enough, although we achieved NOTHING. What pisses me off is that all those anti-war protesters who flooded the streets before the war in Iraq were nowhere to be seen back then. Oh, I am sorry... those were the Clinton years and the Peace-loving voters were sleeping. Unfortunately for us, it created a massive anti-American movement that simply peaked before, during and after the war in Iraq.

By the way, I agree with KCghettoboi... For the average American, not much will change if Kerry wins. However, I'd much rather vote for Bush, whose opinions are at least known. Kerry's opinions tend to change faster than I can count to 3. The American voters should send a message to the rest of the world that we stand behind our President during these difficult moments. Changing leadeship at this point in time will get us nowhere. It will feel more like the U.S. is afraid to take a position and stand firm behind its leaders when the going gets tough.

Just my [additional] 2 cents... That is, 4 cents

[BrandonTO416]

A response that refuses to see the difference between a skirmish of a couple thousand troops and a ground war to rebuild an entire nation with nearly 200,000 troops doesn't deserve a response, in all honesty. So I won't debate that point with you. Its not worth wasting the time.

I have a pretty independent way of thinking of things, even if I'm a convicted liberal person ideologically speaking. If the Democratic party doesn't support things closer to my values, I would not be voting for them.

You buy the flip-flop argument, and then you want to stand back and tell me to be a more independent thinker who is less partisan? Bush has been a bigger flip-flopper then Kerry ever has been.

*Bush campaigns against nation building, but becomes the premiere nation builder of modern history. And the nation he spends 90% of our efforts on wasn't the paramount terrorist threat. GO FIGURE!

*Bush campaigns on smaller government, yet he has made the government larger then ever before through both skyrocketing military spending (not all of that going to protect us) and bloating domestic programs such as Medicare's prescription drug program without negotiations for lower prices to save the government and taxpayer money.

*Bush's reason for the war in Iraq has changed repeatedly, and he fudged the data to support a war.

The facts are the facts: the deficit isn't because of 9/11 or the economy, its because of fiscal mismanagement. Bush has wasted precious resources on the fight against terror.

This is just the beginning.

Come on Raleigh, the flip-flopper argument is a joke and you know it. Its pure politics. You are as much of a partisan as anyone who debates you. And no matter what anyone says, you are a bona-fide Bush supporter. And because of that, I view you as the part of the problem with what is wrong in this country, not the solution. Its unfortunate.

I'm talking about domestic policy as much as foreign policy. Republicans forget domestic policy exists in 2004. Unless its tax cuts, that is.

You can be a convicted conservative and support Republicans. Bush is no compassionate conservative, he's a wacko extremist. I consider anyone who votes for him either misinformed and mistaken on the facts, or just plain nutty.

[paulblackgsx]

My beef isn't that Bush does flip flop (he does). He definitely does plenty I disagree with.

I just feel that Kerry isn't any better. His voting record isn't worth a crap. He flips flops on the same important issues Bush does (Iraq). He's no better. I can see how many liberals (and others for that matter) will vote for anyone but Bush because of the war in Iraq. I can understand that, even if I disagree. But I don't feel that strongly about the Iraq war being wrong. So when I step back and look at Kerry as a candiate, as opposed to just 'anyone but Bush' I realize that I don't feel he will be any better for America. He doesn't promote gay rights (an important issue to me even though I'm not gay). I've heard his words on some of the issues, but I'm not sure it's believeable what he would do. Judging by previous actions though, I don't feel it would be good.

At least Liberterian are on the ballot in GA

[monsoon]

[Cotuit]

Would it be better if Kerry stuck pig-headedly to one side of every issue regardless of new information brought to light regarding it?

[paulblackgsx]

Sorry, going from 'Iraq is critical to the war on terror' to 'wrong war' wrong place, wrong time' is still a flip flop on the issue. Maybe not one the GOP pointed out in their add, but hey, I mean, you gotta believe the conservative hype if you like anything Bush does or dislike Kerry. Right?

Which is not to say that Bush doesn't flip flop too, even on Iraq. Like I said above, they both do it. But there was a real, terror related reason for going after Iraq that either has bothered to mention. Very disappointing.

Like the Liberterian party presidential candidate says, when you continue to pick the lesser of the two evils... you still get evil. Even though I'm not 100% behind the liberterian party line, makes a lot more sense than many of the Kerry/Bush comments.

[Brickell]

Like the Liberterian party presidential candidate says, when you continue to pick the lesser of the two evils... you still get evil.  Even though I'm not 100% behind the liberterian party line, makes a lot more sense than many of the Kerry/Bush comments.

I thought like that last year. But anyone who doesn't see that the Bush Administration is really, really evil has not been paying attention. This election is not about Kerry. The sooner Kerry understands that, the better off we'll all be. Consider it a refferendum on the last 4 years.

[paulblackgsx]

I wish I had a dollar for everyone who assumes that if we don't think Bush is Hilter II we must sleeping...

Between 'Well I have black friends' and that line, I'd be paid. Of course... then I would surely vote Bush... I'd get a tax break!

[Spartan]

I was hoping that UP membership will stay completely out of political discussions, civilized, or otherwise. Since several members of UP haven't made a decision to leave such discussions away from this forum, I will join them and offer my [civilized] input, without any comments that may give birth to endless debates...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can be assured that the Moderators keep a close eye on these threads to make sure they don't get out of hand.

[monsoon]

[paulblackgsx]

you will no longer see in the American mass media as they too are a part of the problem exposed here

Well, this article appeared on the CNN main page:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/...a.ap/index.html

Here it is again from Fox, and we know how they feel about Carter and Florida.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133651,00.html

[monsoon]

[KCghettoboi]

The truth is Saddam would have had to been dealt with sooner or later. Even if Kerry were president France and Germany wouldn't have been behind us, because France and germany had illeagal dealings with Iraq,form the "Oil for Food" program. Bush got the same intel everybody else in the government got. I don't usually take presidential campaign ads for facts or even the truth, but if you saw the new Bush ad you would see kerry agreeing with the president on the issue with Iraq.

It bothers me to see how far liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats will go to oust a president just because he isn't affliated with your own party. We all need to change our mentality.

[Cotuit]

My voting record has crossed party lines on numerous ocassions, I am not a registered member of any party.

My support for Kerry has nothing to do with partisanship. There are actually many republicans I would like to see President rather than Kerry. But the choice is between Kerry, Bush, and a number of 3rd party candidates.

[paulblackgsx]

Actually I was referring to the first link more than the second which I added after the fact.

[Spartan]

I don't see why its news if Carter says Florida will see a repeat in 2000. If you have watched the news in the past {insert your time frame here} then you know that America is evenly devided about who they're going to vote for. It stands to reason than Florida will see a similar scenario.

[BrandonTO416]

The truth is Saddam would have had to been dealt with sooner or later. Even if Kerry were president France and Germany wouldn't have been behind us, because France and germany had illeagal dealings with Iraq,form the "Oil for Food" program. Bush got the same intel everybody else in the government got. I don't usually take presidential campaign ads for facts or even the truth, but if you saw the new Bush ad you would see kerry agreeing with the president on the issue with Iraq.

It bothers me to see how far liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats will go to oust a president just because he isn't affliated with your own party. We all need to change our mentality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are coming from the vantage point that war was inevitable with Iraq regardless, and you are coming from the vantage point that Iraq was an imminent threat with clear and present danger against the United States.

The facts show that is not true and that Iran, the former Afghanistan, and Pakistan - particularly Karachi - poses the biggest terrorist threat to the United States in the Middle East. We are taking on the former Afghanistan insurgency with mixed results, and Pakistan is allied with the USA and they are taking care of themselves pretty much. Who knows if they are doing a good job?

On the whole Iraq was/is a threat, but not even close to the top threat. Borrowing words from John Kerry, you do not take your eye off the ball. We've went out of our way to destroy an anthill in Africa when there are other things causing our problems.

You refuse to see the facts because your judgements are clouded by the political campaign debate. Luckily I'm not in a state with any TV ads for either Bush or Kerry. They cloud judgement.

TV ads accomplish nothing except false opinion.

[KoRn_Snake]

before i vote, i wana say im 11 and want to know if u guys will let me. i mean, i would say i WANT to vote for ...., not will vote for .... . but if u guys dont want me to vote thats completley fine with me.

[Spartan]

It helps to be old enough to vote, and in the same country. Russia has its own problems. Ol' Putin over there is layin down the commie law again- Appointing governors to some of the various oblasts and such.

[monsoon]