Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

QotD: Elections

Question: If elections were held today, who would you vote for? Who do you think would win?

My Answer: Myself. Bush. That's as close as those two will ever get - and I used to consider myself a Republican. However, as a fan of people who aren't big flaming idiots, I'll never be a fan of Bush.

You are encouraged to answer the Question of the Day for yourself in the comments or on your blog.

18 Responses to "QotD: Elections"

  1. If Kerry actually had some opinions, I might be willing to vote for him. I think that I'll be looking into what the third party candidates have to offer... Makes more of a statement to vote for them than to not vote... obviously it's not apathy, even if it is "throwing away the vote." Who knows? Maybe if enough people took a serious look at the options (either an idiot who can't make decisions of his own or a man who refuses to make decisions for fear of alienating voters), they will all turn to a third party. (not likely, but we can dream, right?)

  2. I don't know eeny meany miney moe. I do vote in all elections since my mom is an election judge.

  3. I'd vote for a person that would try to change something, and not PR talk the audience down. I would vote for a person that, when I look in his face, I would NOT show mimics of a liar.

    Some are just talking to defend their seat, others are talking to change the current state (while this certainly is no black-white conclusion but grey, i do know).

    The best would be a dinner with them and decide afterwards. but wait, we can spare the dinner with george 😛

  4. I dunno. A couple months ago I would have said Kerry. Now, he seems just like Bush and I don't especially want to vote for him (or Bush, obviously). I wish there was more statement in NOT voting than an assumption of apathy. I don't want to give my support to either of the two political parties. And so sure, I could vote for a third party, and probably will, but I still can't shake the idea that I'd be "throwing my vote away." Sigh

  5. None of the above. However, since the only viable option for ejecting the smirking liar is Kerry, he'd get my vote. I vote FOR no one (well I did vote for Gep in the caucus) I vote AGAINST Bush.

  6. Yeah, I'm on the ABB ticket, too. Although I don't really have much of a problem voting for Kerry. I would prefer another choice, but at least it isn't Gore. Gore and Lieberman were the political equivalents of bland and diet-bland. In retrospect, I kinda miss the sex scandals. Those were entertaining...

  7. at this point I'd vote for Kerry. Sure he's the super-elastic man, but he's better than the alternative.

  8. Kerry isn't the best the Democratic Party can get, but its who we've been given to get Bush out of Washington, so... If I could vote in the next election: Kerry.

  9. Boy, not too many Republicans on here.

    I'll be voting for Bush.

  10. I'm a Republican. I don't want to vote for Bush or Kerry though. I think that Kerry will win.

  11. Kerry. Because Bush is a moron who has gone to war with Iraq without justification and streamrolling the U.N.

  12. At this point I'd go Bush since I like Kerry even less. For the second part, I think Bush would win right now. If Bush does win, my biggest hope is that we go back to the pre-Clinton tradition of the first term cabinet resigning for the second term. Either that or I want an asterisk on my vote that we get a new AG. Ashcroft is one guy I can't stomach at all.

  13. Bush would not win right now. if you look at it on a state by state basis (and even on a national basis, actually..) kerry wins.

    see: http://www.geocities.com/numbers_04/ for a great breakdown. Bush is really on the ropes. And i don't actually see PA swinging red, even if a few polls go that way now.

    And i just don't get the 'kerry is just like bush' nonsense. The two couldn't be farther apart, to say that is not being serious. Bush is the most radical president in a long time (in terms of where his policies stand on the political spectrum.. left or right.. Bush has no centrist or moderate policies at all. Literally, they are all far right)

  14. I'll vote for Bush, because under his leadership Iraq *has* been liberated (despite what the nay-sayers would have you believe) from a crazy dictator who should have been kicked out years ago. Because he's supported numerous bills defending the rights of unborn humans. And because, instead of paying lip service to being tolerant of "people of faith", he really is. Finally religious charities have been able to receive government grants on equal footing with secular charities. Now that's tolerance.

    Besides, I don't like Kerry's face. 😉

    Jared

  15. Point by point (in my opinion and nothing else):

    People haven't been liberated. We are occupying them and they don't like it. Until we leave, they aren't liberated. And I'm not convinced that we should have been there to begin with. Especially since Bush lied to get us there (no WMDs).

    He's also weakening the rights of women. I believe strongly in women's reproductive rights. If you outlaw abortions, only outlaws will give abortions. Then your "sanctity of life" is flushed down the crapper as desperate women get substandard care. Quit vilifying women and try to understand.

    First amendment = NO GOVERNMENT FUNDED RELIGIOUS CHARITIES. No, no, no, no, no. And only giving (or giving the majority) to Christian charities isn't tolerance. Separation of church and state is a good thing. Religious persecution should be a thing of the past (although sadly it isn't).

    Finally, put a beard and a top hat on Kerry and you've got Abe Lincoln. You wouldn't vote no to Abe, would you?

  16. Let me address Grayson’s opinions, similarly point by point:

    Yes, the Iraqi people have been liberated. Are some of them unhappy that U.S. troops are still there? Yes, of course. However, they are no longer under the rule of Saddam Hussein, they no longer have to worry about Ba’ath party members killing their families if they speak out against Saddam…and unlike rule under Saddam, they actually have a time in the future when the U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq. If you read some history, you will discover that there were actually terrorist attacks in Germany after the end of World War II. Would you argue that Germany was better off under Hitler?

    As for the basis for going to Iraq, we had numerous U.N. resolutions that Saddam violated, with U.N. promises of “severe consequences” if Saddam violated them. Those were enough of a basis for removing Saddam from power. Plus, Bush didn’t lie about WMDs; U.S. intelligence, like the intelligence of every other country in the world, said that Saddam was building those weapons. If the intelligence was incorrect, it’s a mistake, not a lie.

    We’ll leave the reproductive-rights argument for another time. Suffice it to say that many other people disagree with you.

    And what does the First Amendment have to do with government-funded religious charities? Charity is charity; what, now it matters where the money comes from? I’m sure that will be a great comfort to the starving families across the country, that they don’t have to worry about getting money from a religious charity. And you are aware that “separation of church and state” is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, aren’t you?

  17. Germany and Hitler was an animal of a whole different color. A direct correlation is simply wrong. As it stands, we've done more damage to the country's infrastructure than good. We didn't do a bang-up job with Afghanistan, either.

    So... the UN was dealing with the violated resolutions, but the US just had to go invading, right? Let the UN deal with UN problems. Bush utilized bad intelligence for his own political gain. I wasn't convinced before war and neither were a lot of Americans. If the intelligence is incorrect and many people see that it is incorrect and it is still used to perpetuate a war, then I see that as a lie. Not every country said that Saddam was building those weapons. The Bush administration built up a war on evidence that was known to be bad and told us it was an eminent threat. No go.

    Well, I disagree with those other people.

    First: Separation of church and state is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution using those exact terms. Rather, it is a Constitutional notion derived from the First Amendment. You are aware of this, right? Giving government money to religion-based charitable institutions is a clear violation of this. Religious groups are not taxed by the US and therefore should not receive government money. They can use any money that they receive to build a charity that espouses religious concepts to those that need the charity. This unfairly imposes religion on the needy. It also creates a state-sponsored religion (in this case Christianity, the Bush administration doesn't like giving much money to other religions).

  18. I would be interested in hearing your treatise on the differences between Germany and Iraq. Historically, whenever the U.S. has liberated a country from a tyrant, there have always been people who oppose U.S. presence, despite the overall benefits. And after World War II, we occupied Japan for what, seven YEARS before they had a democracy in place? It is far too soon to declare that we have done more harm than good in Iraq. The difference between Iraq before the war and now is that before the war, the infrastructure was in terrible shape, with no foreseeable improvements. Now, the infrastructure is in terrible shape, and the U.S. is helping to improve it, as well as helping the Iraqi people to have a democracy in place so that they can be self governing. If you can’t see that, I would have to seriously question your views on world matters.

    And no, the U.N. was not dealing with the violated restrictions. They issues plenty of resolutions comdemning Saddam and promising grave consequences, but they never actually did anything about him. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people were suffering, with no end in sight. And I’m sorry, but Iraq was a problem for the whole world, not just for the U.N. Just ask Kuwait.

    As for the intelligence about WMDs, even the U.N. itself stated that Saddam had those weapons. Hans Blix said so. Clinton said so. The intelligence was there; just because some people doubted it doesn’t mean that the intelligence was a lie.

    And finally, you might want to do some research on the concept of state-sponsored religion before declaring that helping faith-based charities is equivalent.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.