Jump to content

Who are you going to vote for and why?

This topic is 6608 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Who are you going to vote for and why?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you going to vote for and why?

    • John F. Kerry/John Edwards (Democrat)
    • George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (Republican)
    • Michael Badnarik/Richard V. Campangna (Libertarian)
    • David Cobb/Patricia LaMarche (Green)
    • Ralph Nader /Peter Miguel Camejo (Independent )
    • Michael Anthony Peroutka /Chuck Baldwin (Constitution )

Recommended Posts

Why I'm voting for Kerry


First let me say that when I registered to vote at age 18 I registered Republican because my family was (and still is) Republican. But, I have prided myself on being a swing voter that votes for who ever I feel is the best person. I'm still registered Republican because the Party means little to me and I vote as I please. With that said... this Republican is voting Kerry because:


1) I strongly feel that this country has swung too far to the right of center to the point of being extreme Conservative. That extreme is threatening many things that I hold dear as an American. In 2000 Bush stated repeatedly that he was a compassionate conservative. That was cool some moderation I thought, and the best way to change things many times is from within so I fell for it. But it is obvious President Bush is not a Compassionate Conservative but in fact an Extreme Conservative that lets his Religious views and pandering to that Extreme Right guide his decisions. It is time for a Liberal leader to pull things back to the center in this country.


2) Even though the President's intentions may have been good by going to war in Iraqi, the facts have proved his decision was based on faulty information. Plain and simple he made a mistake, a serious mistake. Taking this country to war should be a last resort based upon sound information and advice. If I make a serious mistake in my job I might get fired. I believe this mistake is serious enough to Fire the man who made it.


3) The US Constitution should protect its citizens. Gays have never been able to marry so being opposed to Gay Marriage is no big thing to me. But what is important to me is that the Constitution should not be a document that specifically denies anyone a right. If the Constitution is amended to deny this one thing, then what is next?


Do I think that Kerry is promising more things than he can pay for and making promises he can't keep? Yes.

Do I think an Anti-War protester from the 60's can be a strong leader in the new day of terrorism in which we live? Yes, I believe any man we vote for will try to protect this country.


Do I hate President Bush? NO. But, the scale of our Country has shifted too far to one side. I'll vote for Kerry in hopes that things can shift a little back to the center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Nader. I live in a state where all Electoral College votes go to Bush. My individual vote is meaningless.


So I signed up for a vote swap. A Nader support in Iowa has agreed to vote for Kerry in exchange for my vote for Nader.


I plan to uphold my end of the bargain and hope they do, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'm voting for Nader. I live in a state where all Electoral

>College votes go to Bush. My individual vote is meaningless.


That's not true. As kos of the dailykos.com wrote tonight (and I agree):


"Now I know Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. We all know that. And we all know he governed as though he had a 400-EV-mandate. But fact is, a president-elect Kerry who loses the popular vote will not get the same benefit of the doubt as Bush did. The media environment is still too hostile, and the hypocrites on the Right will wield it as a tool.


"If there's one thing Kerry has done, it's deny the Right much ammunition to use against him. We need to deny the Right the chance to delegitimize a Kerry presidency because of the popular vote. Let's make this a clean victory all around.


"That means voting for Kerry if you're either in the Bluest of states, or the Redest of states. Every vote will count...it can help legitimize his presidency."


Daddy sez: "Rick has picked this one. One comment per member, so please think CAREFULLY before posting!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Why I'm voting for Kerry


Like you, I have always voted for who, I personally, thought was the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Virginia no longer allows registration according to party affiliation, but when I was in college and registered to vote in 1972, the laws were that you had to register as either a Democrat or Republican, and as such I registered as a Democrat, against the express wishes of most of my family members who were registered Republicans (and who have always voted their party line).


So how weird was it that in my very first national election, I voted Republican (Nixon)? The only time I ever voted Republican, but I would vote for Nixon again over anyone who has ever run for president since he left office. I loved RN, and I believe when history writes it's final evaluations, that RN will get the praises that he richly deserves.


>With that said... this Republican is

>voting Kerry because:


With all that said.... this Democrat is voting Kerry because:


I want the President of the United States, regardless of his policies in any arena, whether that arena is the economy, the environment, foreign policy/international relations or any other arena, to be someone that I can BELIEVE is telling me the truth or at least comes across as telling me the truth, and not someone that I KNOW has lied about so many things, and as such, is someone, who I can not believe is telling the truth, even if he is telling the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



In a different thread, I already stated that I have voted (early voting) for Mr. Kerry and why (to increase his popular vote count). I believe legitimacy will be a major issue in the future, irrespective of which candidate wins. Winning is not the only thing; governing is. The winner needs tangible evidence of a mandate but also needs to respect the reasons of those who did not vote for him as well as consider and even include their concerns, opinions, and even their participation in any future administration.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for John Kerry. I feel we badly *need* a change.


This Iraq situation is an unnecessary mess. I don't think anyone can fix that overnight, but a change in leadership would be a start.


Bush is also way too conservative for my liking. The constitutional marriage amendment and possible Supreme Court appointments are terrifying possibilities that could set gay rights and other freedoms back inefinitely.


Kerry's plans for the economy and health care make sense to me right now, even if they aren't what some people want to hear.


For me, it's a very clear choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ncm2169

Kerry. There are a myriad reasons, but the overriding one is that the next President will make enough judicial appointments (almost certainly including more than one Supreme Court appointment) during the next four years to affect the course of this country for decades to come. Finally, I second KYTop's wise words: this country has swung way too far to the right, and it's time to correct that. }(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tampa Yankee

The End of Compassionate Conservatism


I don’t like Kerry. He doesn’t inspire me with confidence for several reasons. However, I will hold my nose and vote for him… and should he win I will cross my fingers.


I have never been a one-issue voter before and truth be told I have several reasons to vote against Bush but I need only one. Never before to my knowledge has a President used his office to attempt to disenfranchise a segment of the population by weaving into the fundamental fabric of the Nation, the Constitution, a prohibition of basic human rights enjoyed by the majority of its citizens. The fact that it was probably attempted for crass political gain adds insult to heinous injury. That issue alone is enough even without the fact that his prosecution of the post war conflict in Iraq has needlessly sacrificed the lives of many American military personnel buy putting them in harms way with insufficient materiel. Anybody see 60 Minutes last night? Then there is the Supreme Court. But even without these and other concerns I need only the one issue to seal my ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The End of Compassionate Conservatism


Why Kerry?? Our country needs to be saved!


Bush by (just) the Numbers: 20 Jan. 2001 Today

US Budget: + $350 Billion (- $450 Billion)

Barrell of Crude Oil $24/B $52/B

GB Pound to $US Dollar $1.40 $1.83

Euro to $US Dollar $0.81 $1.28

Net gain (loss) in jobs (1.4 million)


The American Conservative', November 8, 2004 issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to choose between President George W.Bush and Senator John Kerry. I'd probably choose Mr Kerry. A presidency is divided between Foreign Policy and Domestic Agenda. My main interest or focus are on Foreign Affairs. With this in mind on an average day, I wouldn't be terribly interested by either candidate. There is one issue that does worry me in the world of Foreign Affairs. A country by the name of North Korea, they may have more than three nuclear bombs in their possession.


Now for the most part in the last eighteen months or so, Iraq has dominated the news media cycle. Once in a while there is a mention of North Korea. This country could quite possibly destabalise the Far East in the future. There are a bunch of disputed offshore oil fields located near Japan. China, Japan, Russia and North Korea all lay claim to those disputed oil fields. Every few months or so, tensions rise in that region and North Korea always threatens to drop a bomb on Japan. So far this hasn't happened, but never say never.


The Bush Administration seems to have very little interest in dealing with North Korea. They're too busy with Iraq. When it comes to Korea they seem more inteent in trying to force the Chinese and the Russians to negotiate with the Koreans in giving up their bombs. For me that's the wrong policy. Mr Bush wouldn't get my vote. Instead I'd vote for Mr Kerry, not because he's someone whose fantastic. The reason Kerry would get my vote is some of his advisors include Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, Strobe Talbert, Miss Albright, William Perry and Dennis Ross. Everyone one of these persons served in the Clinton Administration and some of them were involved with the 1994 Nuclear Freeze treaty that was signed between the United States and North Korea. It was a financial bribe to stop the Koreans from building more atomic bombs. In 2001, the Bush Administration decided to take a harsh line with the Koreans and the end result was the Koreans thumbed their nose at the Bush Administration openly. They even announced that they were going to resume their Nuclear Program.


Now, some people have used the Trojan Horse analogy to define what the Bush Adminstration have done in Iraq. Mr Bush and his National Security Team built a case against Iraq for WMD's, then invading Iraq, and finally ousting Saddam Hussein. In other words the son avenging the father's mistakes. This may not be accurate, but there are a lot of people who believe in this. With North Korea, the same analogy could be applied. If John Kerry gets elected and takes the Oath Of Office in January 2005. Mr Hoolbrooke who could be a future Secretary Of State in a potential Democratic Administration may very well try to confront the North Koreans and quite possibly try to correct the mistakes that the Clinton Administration made in 1994. He has said many times that they made mistakes in 1994. I would not be suprised if there is an open confrontation with North Korea in the future. Besides Senator Kerry has spent a considerable amount of time talking about North Korea.


It's only my opinion, nothing more and nothing less. With the above in tone, that's why I would vote for Senator John Kerry.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge, each of these Candidates obtained ballot access in a sufficient number of states to theoretically win the Presidency with 270 electoral votes. This list was created with information provided by http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/President-Details.phtml


The rules of the poll are fairly simple, and will be enforced vigorously.


1) You may optionally make ONE short, concise statement in support of your Candidate. The message must be less than 100 words and must be formatted in plain text. Please use the "Message format" check box to ensure this.


2) Attacks against other Candidates, Parties, or Individuals will be deleted without comment.


3) If you quote your Candidate, you must attribute the quote WITH a link to the quote. Rule 2 will be enforced even for quotes.


4) You must have been registered AND have been activated before 10/29/2004 to take part in the poll.


5) Daddy is the final arbiter and may impose additional rules as he deems fit. Anybody that attempts to tamper with the poll will be deactivated until the day after the elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Kerry.


I am not registered to any party, and in the past

have voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

However, I not only voted for Kerry, I voted a

straight democratic line (federal, state & local).

This is the first time (I believe) that I ever did

this (at least on purpose).Any party that has Bush

as their standard bearer does not get my vote.

Nearly 1100 dead military (tens of thousand more

permanently disabled); more anti-american terrorists

now than on 9/11; an economy in the toilet; and

a virulent anti-gay administration made this an easy


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is 6608 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

This topic is now closed to further replies.
In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...