ZOMBIE FORUMS

So? Who are you going to vote for, and why?

My answer should be obvious from the avatar I'm using. As for my reasons... I'll explain them later, like when I don't have a 5-page paper due the next day.

I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate. Bush has my state. I couldn't stomach voting for a Dem anyway. I neither like GWB or dislike him. HE's generic. I'd like to see Bob Dole return to politics as part of Bush's entourage. That would make it interesting again. Dole was a political wizard for years, now that he can get hard who knows what he might be capable of!

Bush all the way. Like Clay said, I neither love him nor hate him, I just think he's done a good job given the current state of things. America just has too many "OMGZ WAR IS TEH BAD!!1" hippies these days. We freed an opressed nation, damnit! More power to Dubya.

Time to find a good George Dubya Bush pic for my av...

Mmm... I'm probably going to regret jumping in, but...

I'm voting for !Bush. That is, I'm goign to vote for whoever I think has the best chance of defeating Bush - which in all likelihood means Kerry. Granted that I'm frustrated with the way the Democratic party seems to basically be Republican-light anymore, but I think it would be an improvement.

Some may support Bush; I cannot but view his adminstration as a complete disaster.

On the international front, I will grant that his policies did remove two oppressive regimes. However, the invasion of Afghanistan did not appreciably reduce the threat of terrorism and the invasion of Iraq was managed entirely due to fabricated allegations (Clinton lied about sex and got censured - Bush lied about international matters and went to war. Can there be any contest?). In the process the US has managed to lose all the goodwill we had from the 9/11 attacks and alienate even our closest allies.

Closer to home, our economy has been in an unchecked recession for the entire time Bush has been in office. I do not blame him for what was a predictable economic downfall, but I do hold him responsible for failing to pull us out or even come up with a realistic recovery plan. He even supports outsourcing! Where, in the Bush economy, is there anything that *I* would want?

WIth other domestic issues, I can't say his track record is any better. The Patriot Acts and the Department of Homeland Security are at best redundant and wastes of money; they could very well be the beginning of much, much worse - beyond which they once again fail to meet their stated purpose of reducing the threat of terrorism. He has not even properly addressed the upcoming troubles with medicare, much less created a plan to handle it. And his education policy is a joke - but an unfunny one that has left educators laughing bitterly.

And social issues... perhaps best not to go there. Suffice to say that as a pagan with numerous friends in the BGLT community and as a supporter of secular government, I know of no social issue that I agree with current White House policy on.

I won't say that Kerry offers everything I would want, but he offers at least a moderating influence against Bush's mistakes.

IUf you think Kerry has the best shot, then either the Dems don't have a shot or you have a funny idea of elections.

The key to an election is attracting the swing voters. You do not do that by going Uber Right. You certainly do not do that by bringing in a guy from the People's Republic of Mass who is so far left he fell off.

I'm going to get very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very drunk that day and hope that the sobering up period takes at least 4 god-forsaken years.

The US political system sucks.
In Aus we have an election period of about a month. You take an entire goddamn year most times around.

Actor.

Well, given that most Americans today can't encompass the idea of electing a 3rd-party candidate, it's going to be the Republican candiate (Bush) or the Democratic candiate (current leader is Kerry).

Now, *I* would hardly say Kerry is off to the left.Perhaps he looks that way to you, but to me your viewpoint appears to be dangerously far to the right. To me, Kerry seems to be a moderate.

It's an apparent misconception among certain quarters that Kerry is 1) from Massachusetts 2) supporting Massachsuetts policy and 3) has any say at all in that policy. None of these are true. He was born in Colorado, not Massachusetts (granted, this is spurious, but so is the link between him and Massachusetts policy); he is currently espousing a tolerant but not excessive policy regarding gay marriage - civil unions yes but not marriage; he's at the Federal level, not state, and as such has no more say in state policy than any other Massachusetts voter.

Point of order, right wing is conservative, I am a libertarian, you are trying to put me in the same boat as Jerry Falwell and the Fascist Right, which will not happen without bloodshed.

Libertarians share personal freedom concerns with elements of Liberalism and Conservatism. We also hate that both the Republican Party and the Democrats would be trying to micromanage everyone's life if either got totally powerful. With Falwell on one side and the Political Correctness Thought Police on the other.

Fair enough. I agree with *some* points of the Libertarian platform

I see Bush as having much more in common with the far right, and as being far more dangerous to the rights that (presumably) we both hold dear than anyone the Democrats oput up against him. In addition to the other points I already brought up, of course.

Bush thows the the odd bone but he never really pushes their stuff. They are rabid dogs anything is a victory to them.

Rattle the saber a bit about gay marriage and they come in their pants. I can tolerte a bit of posturing to get the votes.

Bush has given the far right too much support - token or otherwise - for me to believe he's suddenly become a moderate. Most of the president's powers are to be found in such shows of support, after all.

I'm just not going to vote, not because I dont care but because I'm lazy, New York will vote Dem anyway and thats what I would vote... if I werent so lazy

Whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't care who it is, but he'll do a better job than Bush has no matter what.

[tangent]
congrats on your 16712000th post Baron
[/tangent]

I'm a member of the ABB, Anybody But Bush, party

Yeah I will vote for whoever has the most chance of beating Bush. I don't like the guy. He has divided the nation horrendously whether he was right in what he did or not. This from the man who said upon winning that he would be a 'uniter, not a divider'. His diplomacy skills are distinctly sub-par as is evident from his inability to sway foreign opinion (though he didn't seem to be trying very hard). His recent support of a Constitutional ban on gay marriage sealed the coffin as far as my vote is concerned.
He would have to undergo a dramatic change in character and attitude to win my vote this fall.

Though I would love to cast a vote for Kucy-sama, I don't think he has the best chance of winning (the primaries that is, much less the general election).

Good to see the usuall level of intelligence in the "We H8 BUSH, LOLZ" Camp.

Of course wars divide opinions. There are morons, and there are realists. Morons and realists are typically divided anyway between what has to be done and batshit insane idealism.

But I wouldn't expect logic from BDM05

Much Love.

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party, I'm fairly confident he'll win the primaries.

I will vote for him because he supports invididual rights.

Bush does not support invidividual rights, he's shown that with his treatment of US citizens with respect to terrorism. Nor will, it seems, any other republican. They tend to infinge upon individual rights in the area of social issues.

Kerry and most democrats do not support individual right either. They tend to create and support socialist programs that steal the profit of one's work with the threat of physical violence if you don't hand it over.

Other third parties I've looked into tend to be various extremes of the of either the democrats of republicans, or just not organized enough to matter.

The Libertarian party has been, and will be on the ballot in all 50 states (unlike the Green, only in 47, weak). It also has the most officials in public office of any third party. Frankly, it's the only third party that actually has a chance--which is why you never hear the media talk about it. Instead they ramble on about the Green to convince voters that third parties suck...but I digress.

I'm voting libertarian.

Well, if I was in the states, I would probably vote for him. I like his stance on individual rights, but some of his ideas are just, well, crazy. But I like crazy ideas. So yeah.



[raging ultimate rant]
Bush on the other hand, is crazy. I have yet to see ANY terrorist threat in the US in the past 30 months. I only see thousands and thousands of people being killed in a war meant to intimidate people into accepting the US as the power behind everything. All I see is one terrorist attack that killed as many people as car accidents do in a month, and nothing else in 30 months. The so called "terrorists who are a threat to the world" have killed another one or two thousand people in the past 30 months since 9-11. I don't see big terrorist deathcounts, I see big civilian death counts caused by americans (around 13000 so far, 10000 in Iraq).
I don't see world peace, I see a country invading other, weaker countries for reasons that don't exist, to intimidate the world and make it do what it says. I see the UN, which is devoted to ending all forms of war, being scoffed at and being left powerless. I see the media pumping your heads full of fear that the evil arabs are going to kill you, when you have higher chances of drowning in your bathtub then dying in a terrorist attack.
I see the US saying the Iraq has nuclear weapons, and they are a threat to the world. If nuclear weapons are a threat to the world, what about the other countries, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, and Russia, that also have nuclear weapons? That have DECLARED they have nuclear weapons. I don't see us going to war with them. And I also notice that India and Pakistan, both with substationally large quantities of nukes, are on pretty bad terms (getting better, but still). I also see him saying nuclear weapons are horrible to everyone, when he is in charge of the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another country, and when he has more than anyone else on the planet.
I see president Bush telling the world how aseful a man Saddam is. I agree, but what about all those otehr dictators who are as bad or even worse? I don't see them getting invaded. Perhaps because they aren't sitting on a substantial quantity of high-quality crude oil, and haven't had all their civilians starved, currency devalued and hospitals useless because of sanctions enforced upon them (like Iraq). Then I see Bush bullshitting the world with his "crusade" crap, and how it is a noble act, when he wanted excuses to invade Iraq in the very first meeting after bein elected. And I haven't seen a single trace of evidence for the so called WMDs, including nukes, thousands of tons of nerve gas and biological weapons. And so he says that the goal was to establish democracy. I don't see the US letting Iraq go ahead with the election that they and the UN wants. I see them setting up an american government, which will supposably give them elections. Hmmmm, starting to act like a dictator Bush. And his BS about the nuclear weapons facilities was complete shit. Nuclear weapons facilities are NOT mobile, and would be impossible to have a complete developement facility that is mobile. I KNOW what it takes to build a nuclear weapon, and it doesn't fit in anything the could drive away when weapons inspectors show up.
And I see people getting arrested for no reason because of the patroit act, and being deported to their countries to be tortured, while totally ignoring the legal system "in the name of justice". All this is doing is giving the government an excuse to lock people away for being islamic or whatnot.
I see him floating "gay marriage is immoral and against the bible" shit, and trying to BAN it! And then he talks about giving people rights and freedoms! Well I guess he means if you are a heterosexual white christian you have rights, but otherwise, I guess not.
[/raging ultimate rant]

Ok, had to get that of my system. ARRGG Chris Hate Bush!

Chris hates bush for liberating people, yet advocated a massive convential war to invade India AND Pakistan to remove their nuclear weapons. Logic?

It's astonising how vivantly I'm reminded by that post of The end of the world.


As for voting, I'm just about three weeks too young to help give Bush the boot. I'd spend time finding a third party I liked if I could, and I intend to by the next election. Some of Mr. Badnarik's stances seem good to me, but others I'm not sure about (AA and the non-inflatable currency), while others of his policies (abolishing the income tax, the "right" to bear arms, and abortion) are crap.

If we all have a right to bear arms, then how come I can't go out and buy weapons grade plutonium? Everyone seems to assume that "arms" means guns. Well, I've got news for ya: that ain't quite right. "Arms" are everything from 2001 bone clubs to strategic level nuclear missiles. The Second Amendment was witten in a time when greatest "weapon of mass destruction" was (and don't quote me on this, I'm not sure) exploding/fragmenting/shrapnel(ing?) cannon shells. Pistols and muskets (I don't believe rifles were around yet) fired once, and you had to muzzle load it to get it ready for a second shot. The most effective means of self defense were training and a sword or knife.
Also remember, the right to bear arms was for the purposes of keeping an effective militia. The founding fathers were in charge of a small, relatively defenseless nation, they never imagined having control of the world's most powerful military force.