2004 TFP US Presidential Election
 

I’m just curious where the overall here in the TFP community stand. I’ve heard from certain members that they focus more on the candidates than the actual party philosophies and from other members there’s no question to where they stand. Then of course members like me that really belong in the paranoia section in thinking everything is a conspiracy and is not truly happy with any current politicians.

In any case cast your vote let’s see who the front runner is in TFP terms:

**I put Howard Dean because he seems to be building the most momentum at the present, but if you’re a Democrat and voting for someone else put them in other.

Here’s a couple of what appear to be good NEUTRAL links for info

http://www.opensecrets.org/about/index.asp

www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php

www.bop2004.org

As long as the person against Bush is a decent leader, i'm so voting for him.

Do you want potential voters only?
Because I'm not a U.S. citizen and thus have no voting rights.

Voted for other, because I am more likely to vote for Kerry or Lieberman(maybe Gephardt) over Dean, but most likely I will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is. I really wish that Biden had decided to run or that General Clark would run.

I want to get the money back under control.
I'm tired of the typical waste.

I'll vote Libertarian, unless they come up with someone better to vote for in the main parties.

Truthfully, I'm not all that happy with any of the choices.

Democrats have some good planks as do the Republicans but overall, there is no one party that accurately represents my political stance.

Nor am I happy with what has happened post-Iraq.

Other; I really haven't made my mind up yet. Too busy worrying about the CA recall candidates for the time being. :)

I'm voting Libertarian because neither Democrat nor Republican are parties to be entrusted with power anymore.

So... can we get someone besides Dean from the Democrats on here? I mean, sure he's leading now but he have almost a whole year til the DNC and I can't remember the last time a candidate leading this early actually got the nomination.

Sure its the TFP preliminary

I voted Green last election(Gore won PA, don't yell at me) but this time I'm going to have to cave and vote against Bush instead of for who I want. The man is such an anathema to me that I am forced into this action.

Sorry, I am going with Bush. I like the guy, I like what he is doing and I like his vision. I know I am going to get a lot of heat.

While I don't agree with you, I respect your right to your own opinion so I won't give you any heat. I just want to know what you believe his "vision" is. What specifically do you like. We hear plenty about what we do not like in these pages, so educate me about the good stuff.:confused:

Anyone BUT bush.

that said, i'd go with dean. www.deanfortexas.org

I'm going to wait and see who comes up in each party. My biggest concern at the moment is not Bush himself, although I can complain for hours about him. I don't liek the administration overall. I see Cheney, Rumsfeld, and especially Ashcroft as the biggest problems with the current government. I don't lie the fact that Cheney is tied to, and seems to be seeing profit from, nearly every corporate accounting scandal and bankruptcy. I disagree with Rumsfeld on a lot of issues on policy and how we should be going about doing things with the military. The person who I fear the most in the world today is not any terrorist or leader of a rogue nation, it's John Ashcroft. He contradicts previous statements he's made if it is in his interest at the present (example: saying that Oregon should have no right to have a euthanasia law because Fed. government officials oppose it, while he argued in the past that the Federal government should have no right to force schools to desegregate against the wishes of local and state governments.) He is taking every opportunity he can to get more power and remove civil rights, doing stuff like asking Congress for the power to revoke a person's citizenship if he feels it is necessary in order to be able to treat subjects of investigation as non-citizens or enemy combatants.

I'll vote for whoever I feel represents me best.

I'm interested to hear some elaboration on that. What about him do you like? If you think you're going to get a lot of heat for something, supporting your argument is the best way to cool it down. We make sure that everyone keeps their posts repsectful, even in heated arguments, so don't be afraid to come out and speak your mind.

Wesley Clark for President!!!!!!!!!!

Dang it. I'm still hoping he'll throw his hat into the ring.

If not him, I'm not really sure. Dean is a bit extreme for me. The other candidates aren't getting very effective face time. I've met Lieberman, but I don't think he can win. Way too centrist. Kerry seems to be a bit hypocritical about Iraq. And I can't remember any other names.

I guess nobody's gotten me excited about the election yet. I'm waiting to be "stirred."

There are two votes. Votes for a democrat and votes against a democrat.

I'm going to vote Libertarian, no matter who's running. (Short of a convicted serial rapist and cannibal.) The party politics are right. If there was a Libertarian candidate for every election on the ballot, I'd vote a straight party ticket.

I'll vote for the Libertarian Candidate.

My first vote cast was for the Libertaraian Presidential guy in 2000 - in Florida.

What a way to begin!

other - Lieberman. Kerry possibly...

Dean, I simply don't like him. I'd have to seriously examine his positions more, but for now Im going with shallow reasons. He has his chin jetting out with clenched teath or something, with his mouth slightly open. Makes me think hes a dog or something waiting to snap at someone.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate - he'll be the only one with any realistic chance of defeating Bush.

And please, folks - remember - a vote for the Libertarian or Green candidate will only keep Bush in the White House, just like all the 2000 votes for Nader.

Yes - in a perfect world we should have better choices, and the ability to voice our displeasure at the two-party system by voting with our hearts. But this isn't a perfect world - vote with your heads, please. This country can't survive another four years of economic ruin.

In the next poll like this, I hope that there'll be a selection such as, "who-ever has the best chance to oust 'W' ", that's who I'm voting for. I truly believe any of the current candidates running for the office, Sharpton included, would easily perform his/her duties better than 'W'.

what i want to know is, who the hell voted for Bush?

I'm going to go Libertarian. No real big surprise there. While I don't necesarily agree with the <i>entire</i> party platform, the Libertarian party does reflect my values more than any other party. Which is why I joined the party.

People need to get over the myth that they are only "throwing their vote away", if they vote Libertarian. Vote for the candidate of your choice...not for the candidate that you feel has the better chance of winning. If more people voted that way, the Libertarians would be more than just a threat to the Democrats and the Rebublicans...they would become a danger. Does anyone believe that it's not time for some <b><i>real</b></i> change?

I will be voting for Bush. He is a leader and takes a stand on things even if they are unpopular. His domestic policies are less than ideal and I've never liked his energy policies but he is going in the right direction in terms of Iraq and the "War on Terror". There are many other things that need to be done for long term success in the WOT and I hope they are doing them but they are not things that will be shouted from the rooftops so we may not find out for a decade or more.

Go ahead and flame away.

Man, all the candidates are leaders and most of them are good ones. Any of the democrats has a better foreign policy and all have actual PLANS for the WOT and Iraq. I can't fathom how people can vote for someone based more off an event than the politicians character, policies, or agenda. Honestly, any yahoo could do what Bush is doing now, what we need is some real leadership. Not to mention Bush has not acted outside of the popularity polls even once! I don't know where people get this idea that he takes stands on bold and contraversial issues. While it is true he takes unwaivering stands (which I would say is a ridiculous thing), it is also true that he has never made a bold stand without at least a majority (usually at least a 60% majority)of the Americans polled behind him. He is not a good leader, but he happens to be it for now. As the president and leader of this country in a time of some crisis he deserves a certain amount of respect simply because of the office that he holds (legitimately gotten or not) however it shouldn't go so far as meaning he deserves anyones vote because of it.

Bush has done things on his own schedule from the beginning. He took his time before entering Afghanistan when America was calling for instant blood, he went into Iraq without the "world" coalition and UN approval everyone was wanting.

To think anyone could do what he's doing is ridiculous. To point to the candidate's foreign policy plans as superior is misguided at best. They are, besides being incomplete, wholly untested and some are almost certain to lead to increased turmoil.

Certainly, to each his own, but to point to the entire field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls as leaders is unrealistic. Some have shown quite a bit of leadership the majority have not.

This idea of President Bush being a leader came solely from the tragedy of 9-11, just as it did for Rudy Giuliani. Bush's re-election team has exploited the fears and vulnerability of the American people and now try to pass off this supposed "leadership" as their prime strength. It's a farce and I hope all Americans realize this come election time and put someone in office who knows that true leadership does not come from staged speeches on aircraft carriers, but from actually helping and protecting Americans.

howard dean, dunno about him but his website is nice, and he's not bush and a democrat

I'll vote for Bush unless I am really wowed by what the left has to offer. I'm not a party player, but I don't have any major complaints about Bush at this point. I don't like everything he does, but he hasn't ruined my life yet.

Are you suggesting that Giuliani did nothing for New York City pre-9/11? If so, that is an incredibly ignorant statement.

Well, it may not be "throwing away" your vote, but it certainly won't yield the desired result.

voting Libertarian in 2004 = voting Republican in 2004
Why? Because any vote <i>not for</i> the Democrat nominee is a vote for Bush.

Sorry, <b>Bill</b> - I enjoy and admire most of your posts, but on this I respectfully disagree.

I guess that right now, I consider the non-reelection of GWB a higher priority than establishing a viable third party. Maybe we'll agree in 2008, if they're still allowing us to vote then.

Voting third parties isn't throwing away your vote, but it is going to hurt efforts to get Bush out of office. Its all a matter of prioritizing your election values. If you're voting to make a statement or to represent your ideology then you should vote for whoever you like best in the general election. However, if you are voting for a practical goal such as getting Bush out of office or electing a person who will enact change you approve of then the vote for third parties is not the right one. I suppose the real question is if the value of your vote comes from the act of voting or the election that results from that vote.
I am not saying that either is wrong because their are pros and cons to both. Not voting your heart defeats the beauty and purpose of democratic elections, however taking without being able to compromise on issues also defeats the nature of democratic processes. Personally, I am encouraging everyone to vote for the candidate who they honestly feel is the best person for the job based on character and ideas, in the primaries because that is the time for voting your heart and then voting for whoever the hell is the most likely to defeat Bush in the general elections.

Bush created the economic ruin, or the destruction of the WTC and the rampant stock market fixing that happened under the Clinton administration? Lets blame Bush, cause thats the naive thing to do.

Actually Bush did create the economic ruin by blowing the surplus on 2 over extending wars without a game plan (one of which had nothing to do with WTC) and though WTC wasn't his fault he did go it alone and blow our international ties which further hurt our economy.

Perhaps you would like to list the countries which will no longer trade with us because of the war on Iraq? I'm very interested in exactly how W. blew our international ties which further hurt our economy.

I would like that list also.

<b>FEL</b>,
How did you manage to both <b>quote</b> me AND put words in my mouth? Sheesh.

Yeah - you're right - the guy can turn a $270 billion surplus into a $307 billion deficit, while costing 3.2 million Americans their jobs; start two wars at a cost of another $100 billion; and give his campaign contributors a tax cut in the process. If he can piss away half a trillion dollars in just 3 years, think of what he could do in the next 5 !!!!

Sure - we need that. What was I thinking? Please forgive my naivety.

damn that Clinton!

/sarcasm tag provided for the severely impaired.

lol

if bush wins, i swear im moving to the UK.

end of story.

Its not that nations won't trade with us but you can look at the numbers of imports to continental Europe drop significantly post Iraq (especially during our rampant anti-France/anti-German phase). Hell, we had to threaten the EU with a WTO trial to get them to allow us to import billions of dollars worth of genetically engineered produce. That isn't to say they would have gladly excepted under another president, but it is to say our strained relations with continental Europe has cost us money and credibility which has effected trade.
Following up on the GE produce issue. We ended up not taking them to trial and instead agreed to specifically label all GE products so consumers could decide. Many of the big GE companies view this as a huge failure because of the cost of labelling and the knowledge that anti-American sentiment in the EU thanks to Iraq has influenced consumers their to shy away from American products when they can.