Election Day

[blkrider]

I just don't think we're any safer.  At least before, we knew they were in Afghanistan.  Now we don't know where they are...they're all over the place.

Yeah, 10 months in the Bay Area is about all I can stand.  We're moving at the end of this month.

[Susan]

I stood in line for an hour and 20 minutes to cast my vote that I knew would be null and void because texas historically votes republican, we're in a conservative bible belt state.  I only wish that more YOUNG PEOPLE, more MINORITIES and more LOWER INCOME people would get registered and VOTE! They can literally change this country. I am not a bush fan, i along with most of my coworkers voted kerry, the one person who voted for Bush i questioned if he knew why. He had no answer. When he asked me the same, I had a long, elaborate, and well researched answer. I wasn't for Bush the first time around, right after they announced him the winner (prior to the chad fiasco) i basically stormed out of the room and said "that's it, we're going to war with iraq again guaranteed)

I am tired of this administration instilling fear and paranoia into the public. I am tired of outsourcing which has caused my immediate family to lose their jobs and Bush's rebuttal for that was "get an education'. It is the educated, highly trained people with degree's who are losing jobs BECAUSE they are educated and can ask for of a salary than someone living in India who will work for 1/3 less. I am tired of the war, which by all means and purpose should have never been nor should be going on this long, I'm just highly p**sed that I have to live through another 4 years and i just need to vent. I also would appreciate if nobody attatcked my views, i'm not here to shove politics down anyones throat, just venting (This will probably be my only post on the topic and then I'll go back to movie chat)I work for a health insurance co and even tho Kerry's plans may cause us money, hey...that's a working plan for those who can't afford insurance.

there are two people at work who are seriously considering leaving the country. I won't because that would be one less vote in the next election that may count.
Btw for what it's worth i honestly thing if hillary had run with him for VP, they would have taken the win

nitwit!
nitwit!
nitwit!



Post Edited (11-04-04 18:47)

[daveblackeye15]

The one this that gets me the most angered with is something that people rarely bring up, not Irag, not Afganistan, not his lack of grammar, not him loosing jobs, not his policies on the enviroment...it's his lack of support for education which p**ses me off the most, college is coming up for me (I HOPE!)

And if the constitution allowed it I would DEFINETLY voted. I think the voting should be lowered at year at least.

And at least Eirik showed me that not all Bush supporters are stupid, rich, racist, white people (but my grandma is one of those except she's not rich.)



Post Edited (11-04-04 22:07)

[The Burgomaster]

"Election Day" would be a good name for a horror movie.  Here are some potential tag-lines:

"You man never vote again."

"The polls are closed."

"The night HE was re-elected."

[wickednick]

Its been a very long time since I posted on the board, but after seeing this topic I need to put my 2 cents in. Im a Bush supporter and while I do admit he never was the best republican candidate I'd much rather have him in office rather than Kerry. At least with Bush I know that he will remain firm in his polices and beliefs unlike Kerry who flip flops on every issue according to what's currently the most popular political stance at the time.
One of the big issues brought up of course with Bush is the war on terrorism. I feel Bush has handled the war on terrorism extremely well. We succeeded in toppling the Al-queda supporting Taliban and we have been constantly on the offensive with the terrorist there. We have not found Osama yet, but remember this is a guy who has been running and hiding from governments most of his life, not to mention that he is also hiding in one of the most desolate and unforgiving terrains on the planet.
As for Iraq, I'll admit that we did not immediately have to go in there but we would have sooner or later. When people criticize the war in Iraq and say how ill planed it was, they seem to forget that it was one of the fastest and most successful land wars in history. We had taken control of a country the size of california in a little over a month! What do you people want?
Now we are in the second and most difficult part of the war and that is to try and restore order and put in place a stable government in a already very unstable region.  The insurgents will be a problem for awhile but that is to be expected. Many people don't know this but after the Nazis were defeated there were many terrorist attacks committed by die hard Nazis as the Allies tried to stabilize the country.
The biggest thing people need to understand is that wars are rarely quick and easy. The war on terrorism is much like the war on drugs because you cannot have an out right win in this war. You can win battles and keep the terrorist at bay but as long as there are hateful radicals in this world there will always be terrorism. So far we have won every battle since this war began.

[trekgeezer]

I've got problems hearing people blaming the president  for  losing jobs or giving him credit  for creating jobs. The government can only create government jobs.

The job loss in the US is due to the globalization of  industry.  If Kerry was going to keep jobs here maybe he should have started with his wife's company, something like 80% of their products are produced in other countries.

You can blame Bush for the war or whatever else you want to that he has control over, but a lot of  factors affect the economy and how companies do business.  Whoever the president is he can do very little about it . Kerry couldn't have kept those jobs here anymore than Bush is responsible for them going elsewhere.  This is all poliitical nonsense.

[daveblackeye15]

The job loss in the US is due to the globalization of industry. If Kerry was going to keep jobs here maybe he should have started with his wife's company, something like 80% of their products are produced in other countries.

You can blame Bush for the war or whatever else you want to that he has control over, but a lot of factors affect the economy and how companies do business. Whoever the president is he can do very little about it . Kerry couldn't have kept those jobs here anymore than Bush is responsible for them going elsewhere. This is all poliitical nonsense.>

All right, I admit I included loosing jobs under Bush's resume of stuff I didn't like but what I meant was the subject of "loosing Jobs" was always mentioned along with Irag, Terrorism ect. and education never seemed to be mentioned.

[Eirik]

daveblackeye...  Keep in mind that Senator Kennedy - a Democrat - wrote Bush's education bill.  When he was elected, he reached across the aisle and invited the very liberal Kennedy to lead the way in education.  This is one of those real partisan and divisive things he did that the Dems are always b***hing about, I guess.  Anyway, remember that it is Congress that ultimately controls the purse strings, not the president, and it is Congress that passes the acts that effect education.  All Bush can do is write up a proposed budget and his budgets have been no less generous with education than Clinton's budgets.  I honestly think your beef is with Congress more than Bush... and as it happens in this case, with Kennedy, a Democrat.

Note: This is the reason Kerry never attacked Bush on education.

[Eirik]

I see someone mentioned stem cell research.  A word to educate everyone: this is the most idiotic debate in the history of our country.  Yes - it is even more idiotic than the debate over which Friend should Rachel marry.  

One side wants to use embryonic stem cells for research... The other doesn't want embryos created just to harvest stem cells.  

To all the morons on both sides: every time a woman gives birth, the umbilical is loaded with guess what?  Stem cells!  Thousands of them!  They are thrown in the garbage each and every time a woman in this country gives birth (what?  thousands of times a day?).  You could stick a needle in the cord, harvest the blood, and never hurt a single embryo - in fact, it would be CHEAPER!!  Here we are, throwing enough non-embryonic stem cells every day to keep researchers supplied for a decade and instead we make it an embryo-abortion issue.  So to the left: stop harvesting embryos just to bring medical advancements into the abortion debate.  To the right: turn your brains on and see that medical research is not an inherently evil thing.  

For the sake of progress, this idiotic debate must end.  (Bonus to Catholics (I am one): The Pope himself approved using cord blood stem cells - how can you argue with that???)

[raj]

No, the most frightening tagline:
"The campaigning never ends"

[Fearless Freep]

When he was elected, he reached across the aisle and invited

The Repubs won the elections for the presidency and both houses of congress.  If this reflects what the people voted for then I think it is the Dems who need to reach across the aisle and heal the divides

[Eirik]

"The Repubs won the elections for the presidency and both houses of congress. If this reflects what the people voted for then I think it is the Dems who need to reach across the aisle and heal the divides"

Freep, I wasn't saying Bush needs to reach across the aisle, I said he DID reach across the aisle when he let Kennedy write his education bill during his first term.  And I wouldn't hold my breath on the Dems making nice-nice...  they lost seats in both houses and the presidency by 30 some electoral and 3.5 million popular votes and all I hear is how it isn't a mandate and Bush needs to heal our divided nation.

Don't ask me what a mandate is.  I've scoured the Constitution and see no restrictions on the policies of presidents who don't win in landslides.  Maybe its somewhere in there near the back?  Also don't ask me how our nation is "divided."  There are people who disagree with one another - that's called a healthy intellectual climate, not a divided country.  The invective is getting nastier.  Wish I could say "both sides are responsible" but I saw enough of the Democratic primary campaigning to know which side is more responsible.  But divided?  When the Democrats pick up muskets and rally at Manassas Virginia while firing artillery on Fort Sumter National Historical Park, THEN the country is divided.

[Fearless Freep]

Freep, I wasn't saying Bush needs to reach across the aisle

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did.  Your comment just sparked a somewhat related thought I had at the time.

[Max Gardner]

I disagree. We lost the war on terror as soon as it began, insofar as one can win or lose a war against an abstract concept. Let's call it the war against terrorISTS. The reason is simply this: George W. Bush is so universally hated throughout the Arab world that more and more radicals will line up to join whichever terrorist cell they can. He's a fantastic recruiter for Osama bin Laden, and I feel bin Laden released his most recent video message, in part, to ensure Bush's re-election. In addition to the enormously increased NUMBER of terrorists that will surface as a result of this election, there's also the fact that Bush doesn't seem particularly worried about catching any terrorists in his war on terror. He's more interested in using Echelon, Carnivore, Magic Lantern and all his other tech toys that have recently been made far easier to use with impunity by the Patriot Act to catch potheads.

In my opinion Bush has failed as President, just as he's failed every other job assigned to him. He's used fear and paranoia to gank electoral votes (a couple of my Pakistani friends from college have been badgered by the police on separate occasions because someone thought they looked suspicious - in other words, dark-skinned). He's obfuscated political issues into hollow moral rhetoric. As for his firmness of purpose, remember when he said we were winning the war on terror, then claimed in a subsequent interview that the war on terror can't be won?

Anyway, it's not as if we can contest the results of the election. We lived through eight years of Reagan, who was just as bad, so we might as well buckle up and prepare to make the best, if possible, of four more years of Bush.

[Dave Munger]

Kerry was percieved as having based his whole campaign on Bush being a Cowboy Hitlermonkey who had repealed the Bill of Rights in it's entirety. This left no room to argue that things could get WORSE with another four years. If I've already lost all my civil rights without even noticing it, and I can still do EVERYTHING I could do before I lost all my civil rights, what could be so bad about the status-quo? The hysteical paranoia drowned out any sensible critisism of Bush.