GokuDBZ3128 wrote:

Just wanted to point out that after that Farenheit 9/11 movie, plus all those "disses" against George W. Bush in South Park and other shows, he still won by both popular vote and by the Electoral College. This just goes to show how many people want Bush.

I disagree. Bush's approval rating is hovering just a bit below 50%. No incumbent has ever won reelection with such a low approval rating. Jobs overall were lost during his presidency (just a statement of fact, not blame). The last president who saw that happen during his term (Hoover) was not reelected. A lot of people are very upset about the handling of Iraq for various reasons. This election was practically Kerry's to lose.

I'd say Bush won (or will win, in the end) despite all of the above because his opponent was horrible. Kerry was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign. He tried to be on both sides of issues (I'm not talking about the flip-flop accusations - those were, as nearly all negative political attacks, taken out of context) but ended up sounding incoherent and without a plan. I sympathize with neither party, but surely the Democrats could have nominated someone better than him?

Both sides had their base that won't cross party lines, and a lot of the voters in the middle felt confused - even moreso than in 2000. Many people wanted Bush out but Kerry was not a palatable alternative. So my opinion is that Kerry and his team lost the election all by themselves.

yeah, P Diddy...what up...No, not working for me, however I do find it amusing that now (since it is a day after election day) that the same amount of voters age 18-29 voted as last time, about 17 percent. I'm 19, and this was my first chance to vote, so I I voted Bush, hurray. Just goes to show you though that the dems idea that young kids are all a bunch of liberal democrats is incorrect. But nice try P Diddy, Rock the Vote (a democratic group), etc. Well, it makes me happy to rub it in the face of every ignorant radical Kerry supporter to point out that a young guy like myself is educated enough to understand how blatently wrong the daily show, MTV, and liberal media can be. Think about this very slowly and logically, most TV shows come from NYC and Southern California, now, both are liberal. So, we can conclude logically that both are indeed liberal.
Furthermore liberals generally have no basis for their ideals, morals or values, they are mostly unreligous people who base everything on how they feel. Short-sighted folk to say the least. The greatest paradox about a true liberal is that he or she can claim to accept everything and everyone, until that person's political agenda is challenged, then that person's mind is the farthest thing from acceptance.
Myself, I don't claim to accept all people. I know certain people are inerrantly bad. I have no clouded judgement, and though I question precepts, laws, and even my own religion, I do not waver in my convictions.
Kerry, showed no conviction in his religion (i.e. I'm a catholic but I support abortion, just not personally.) or his politics, for instance: he claimed to not support same sex marriage, and yet is recorded as voting for a bill to allow same sex marriage. There are countless other examples, but, what do I care...Bush already won.

Rockinawsome wrote:

Myself, I don't claim to accept all people. I know certain people are inerrantly bad. I have no clouded judgement, and though I question precepts, laws, and even my own religion, I do not waver in my convictions.

I don't think this needs an argument, you know that's not true <_<

Racism = Evil

Xooxer wrote:

I didn't let anyone make any decision for me because I chose not to decide. I don't have a choice to make, I refuse to choose and my not voting does not mean someone else voted for me. They voted for themselves. They didn't cast a ballot in my name. I am not affiliated with any decisions made because I am not part of this. I choose not to be part of it and no amount of you saying I am is going to make it so.

Well, sure you did; you allowed another's action by your inaction

And, I most certainly can complain. I don't know where you people get off telling me I don't have the right to speak my mind. I do. Look:

Bush is a bad president. I don't like Bush. I wish Kerry would have not quit before the end, the loser.

Then why didn't you vote for Kerry? <_<

See, I can still complain. I can rant and rave and throw a tantrum if I want to. I can protest and petition and march on Washington if I want to. I can becuase I have those rights granted to me by THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! I am a US citizen with certain UNAILIENABLE RIGHTS. That means I have EVERY RIGHT to speak my mind.

Well, no. The Consitution does give you the right to Freedom of Speech, but that's in the Bill of Rights. Your unalienabble rights are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Also, the unalienable rights are only mentioned in the Declaration of Independance, not the constitution.

Not voting does not invalidate my citizenship here. It does not take away any of my rights, and you telling me I have no right is a lie, delusion and just plain rude. It's my life, my choice. You don't have to understand it, but you do have to accept it. If you don't like it, too friggen bad. Deal with it and quit telling me what I can and cannot do.

I don't remember saying that voting invalidated your citizenship... <_<

~X

Xooxer wrote:

I am no more affected by someone else's vote than a dead man is.

Well, some dead men vote...

People can vote early, and die before election day. Their votes usually get counted.

I dislike Hillary Clinton as well, but a man being stronger has nothing really to do with it. She is not getting in a fist fight or anything (well, that's talking physically). If you mean mentally strong, such as going to wars and all, well, I think Hillary wouldn't have a problem with that. She is more of a "man" in my mind. She is a total tomboy. I mean, she must be strong mentally knowing her husband got [insert sexual saying] from Marilyn Monroe and still is married to him, I think she is mentally tough. Or maybe she is still married to him so she has more power and money, I dunno'.

GokuDBZ3128 wrote:

I mean, she must be strong mentally knowing her husband got [insert sexual saying] from Marilyn Monroe and still is married to him, I think she is mentally tough.

hahahahaha
Sorry, but I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton was into necrophelia. You mean Monica Lewinski, right?

~X

Yes, sorry. Was too long ago, I forget things I try and forget.

Voting is not agreeing to abide by the majority vote. People who are oppinionated enough that they don't want to abide by the will of the others have more reason to vote than the others.

Hedgemistress wrote:

People who vote for a third party candidate with no shot at winning, though, give up the right to complain because they participate but they do so in a way that they have no predictable effect on the end. They're saying "I agree with the process... but don't care who wins."

Very, very wrong. It is that very thought, that disgusting idea, that keeps the third party candidates down. If everyone who thought they would do better voted for them as they should, they would have a better probability of winning even if still not good enough. I voted for the libertarian for my state's US senator, but that does not mean in any way that I do not care. It means that I care enough that I'm willing to go against the flow, which too many people are afraid to do.

So what if neither candidate is that good? Choose the lesser of two evils. What's so wrong with that? Less evil is more good, isn't it? If someone gives you a choice of getting kicked in the shin, shot in the kneecap, or a "mystery box" with one fate or the other written inside it... you'd have no problem picking, would you?

I would try to take out the assailent, probably taking the shot in the process. It's like the whole US policy of not giving in to terrorist demands, do whatever is best in general - not just what is best at the moment.

Nader voters are picking the box... and so they've got no right to complain when the nation gets shot in the kneecap.

Nader voters are going up to the person that gives them the kick/shot choice and kicking him in the nuts and taking the consequences. That is much better than saying "I'll take a kick in the shin please."