Presidential Poll

Who will you vote for?

  • President Bush

    Votes: 32 45.7%

  • John Kerry

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Other (such as Nader, but I know a few others are running)

    Votes: 3 4.3%

  • Won't Vote

    Votes: 10 14.3%
  • Total voters
    70
  • Poll closed .
slipknottin said:
well, im actually going to vote for Badnarik.. But its pretty much the same thing as not voting at all.
Click to expand...

Slip... you are SO WRONG!!!

I lost my bookmarks a few days ago, and I cannot put my finger on the link to the article I read this information in, so I'll paraphrase and preface it by saying it's not my information, but it came from a realiable (impartial) source...

A vote for anyone other than John Kerry favors President Bush. Since I cannot find the article, I cannot quote the numbers, but this reporter had in depth numbers comparing voting last election, the votes for Bush, Gore, Nader, and others... it was so amazing to me.

If you 100% believe in a candidate, no matter what party he/she belongs to, then by all means you should vote for that candidate. BUT if you are voting for someone just so you can say you voted but didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, then essentially you ARE voting for Bush.

If you simply want change in the White House - 100% cannot stand Bush and what he stands for and his policies, then you MUST vote for Kerry. That is the only vote that will make change happen.

~Tara
 
Kerry has that very ugly, long face thing going, which puts him into the Abe catagory.
 
what are you, blind?!?

he clearly has no beard, and no stovetop hat
still a failure


and bush looks like an elf, so i dont think he could ever be an Abe
 
Ayrianth said:
I'm not voting. Neither is worthy of running this country but I feel Bush is the lesser of the two evils so I hope that he wins since someone has to.
Click to expand...


This pretty much sums up how I feel. :cool:
 
dwayne said:
Slip... you are SO WRONG!!!

I lost my bookmarks a few days ago, and I cannot put my finger on the link to the article I read this information in, so I'll paraphrase and preface it by saying it's not my information, but it came from a realiable (impartial) source...

A vote for anyone other than John Kerry favors President Bush. Since I cannot find the article, I cannot quote the numbers, but this reporter had in depth numbers comparing voting last election, the votes for Bush, Gore, Nader, and others... it was so amazing to me.

If you 100% believe in a candidate, no matter what party he/she belongs to, then by all means you should vote for that candidate. BUT if you are voting for someone just so you can say you voted but didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, then essentially you ARE voting for Bush.

If you simply want change in the White House - 100% cannot stand Bush and what he stands for and his policies, then you MUST vote for Kerry. That is the only vote that will make change happen.

~Tara
Click to expand...

Sort of depends on where you're from, Tara. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I wanted Gore but only because I didn't want Bush (wow, deja vu). Being from Mass, I knew a vote for Gore was like spitting into Niagra Falls. I voted Libertarian because, at its base, I agree with party platform but think they're not yet ready for prime time.

My thinking is that voting for those third party candidates when your state is a runaway one way or the other is a way of using your vote for a message. At some point even winning parties pay some attention to what gets third party candidates the few votes they do. Next election some of the pieces of that third party platform may make it to the major parties. Sort of the one-grain-of-sand-at-a-time method but if the ridiculous electoral college is all wrapped up in your neck of the woods what could it hurt.
 
It's to bad so many aren't voting...
 
There seems to be a lot of decent about our 2 party system.. Here is my opinion on it.

To vehemently bash 2 party system is a sign of ignorance of our electoral system. Yes our system is set up for that but it is foolish to say a Democrat from San Francisco is the same type of democrat from the south. Let me explain.

The two parties are also know as "catch alls" (both in people and ideology), therefore having, in essence a party within a party (almost impossible in Brittan. If your labor, you must vote party lines! Party whips have more sway in parliamentary systems). For example, in the republican party, you have one small segment that wants to ban immigrants/ foreign trade (enter pat Buchanan to represent this demographic) and a larger segment that embrace trade/immigrants (enter john McCain that represents this demographic) So, if you don’t like the 2 candidates, decide which side you lean, join the party and participate in the primary election. You have 9 candidates to choose from in the primary election then 2 in the presidential election. The only people I see that are screwed with our two party system are Left/Right wing fanatics (i.e. Extreme nationalist, Socialist, communist, KKK etc) and those that are dead center (Libertarians are commonly identified as centrist, but traditionally lean republican).

If Nader is really serious about being the president, he would join the democratic party, represent the far left of the dems and participate in the primary election. Instead, he flouts his ego, runs around spouting "Corporate conspiracy theories" and bashes our electoral system using it as an excuse why no one votes for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom