Presidential Poll
 

*note - I did a search and didn't see a poll like this...

If the elections were today, who would you vote for.

/me votes for Bush again

Not that anybody would doubt which side of the fence I am on.....

/clicked on the first one

None of the above. (Badnarik)

Kerry.

Should definitely have a second poll on Nov 3, btw.

As is known here, I'll be voting to reelect the President.

Sorry for my ignorance!

Voted for Nader in 2000, voting Kerry this year.

Another for Kerry\Edwards.

I'm voting for bush/cheney.

Seriously
no, honestly.
I"m serious.

really

I think he'll do great for another 4 yrs

Why is there lightning and thunder outside, it's a clear night..

i think i see a bolt of lightning coming for me..


Ok ok ok, i admit it

Kerry/edwards here..

I am Canadian so I will not participate in the poll..but if I were an American Citizen, I would not only vote Kery/Edwards, but I would travel to a "battleground" state to vote.

Kerry/ Edwards, hands down.

Too bad the libertarians don't show as well nationally as they do on this poll. Normally I may have considered voting libertarian in Nov. but not this year. We can't have any more of this nonsense that Bush & Co. have been pushing us into and a vote for anyone but Kerry is a vote for Bush.

No more years! No more years!

Kerry/Edwards.

If I wasn't so apathetic about the whole political process, I'd vote for Badnarik, like I did in this poll.

chant: 3 more months!, 3 more months!

/john 2

Can't... Have to vote in the state which you're registered.

John Squared for me.

Gotta be the first choice for me!!

http://www.silverscreentest.com/koala/eucalyptus/3w.jpg

He knows

Kerry/Edwards. I'm tired of rising medical costs and my jobs heading to India. Since Bush has been in office my wages have remained static but my take home has dropped 20%. It's my opinion that Kerry Edwards gives me the most chance of reversing these trends.

Can you register in a state which you don't call home?

Kerry/Edwards...

Probably wouldn't be my first choice if I were king of the Democratic party...but a viable alternative to whats his name & Cheney.

Kerry/Edwards

I likes me sum eddicashun that don' cost s' much
and a good eddicashun for the young'uns

Kerry/Edwards with enthusiasm.

There are certain exceptions (military), but pretty much - no.

Also: I notice 5 Nader votes. At this time, he is only on the ballot in Nevada and New Jersey. I don't even know how many ballots Badnarik will get on...

Voting for Badnarik, if he makes it on the Oklahoma ballot. If not I will probably leave the Presidential choice blank. I just don't think I could fill in that arrow for either Bush or Kerry.

i know i replied once, but i honestly thought there were far more conservative bush votes on this board than kerry people. It's almost 2 to 1 right now for kerry...

'm kinda shocked, but i know message boards tend to be more liberal, but 2 to 1...wow, and yeah, i know, i'm not counting the other two choices in this

Many conservatives don't like Bush either though.

So they vote for the lesser of two evils instead of coming to the light side of us third-partiers :(

That and a lot of people can stop by and vote in a little poll.

Kerry. Im of the opinion that Bush has done too much damage already, and its time for him to go. Kerry has the best chance of making that happen.

Im also not too opposed to Kerry. He seems like a smart man, and, for a politician, not too sleazy (Im not a fan of politicians, if you cant tell ;)).

I fall into the part Republican part Libertarian crowd. I have some issues with Bush (stem cell, immigration etc) but would reluctantly choose him over Kerry. I read this in the Sac Bee.


Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called "one of the oldest Commandments: 'Honor thy father and thy mother'." Oldest? Were they not all published together?
Here are some other questions:
You invoke the Commandment to explain why you "will not cut" Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?
Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?
Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?
Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?
Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, "We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country." Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force — unilaterally, if necessary — to defend Taiwan?
The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because "we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed." Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?
You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?
You say, "I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam." Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?
The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?
You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?
When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had "crossed the line" because "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?
Your platform says, "The price of gas is at an all-time high." But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?
You have often said — e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished — that "there's too much money loose in the American political system." Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign — but of course without even a smidgen of "coordination" with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?
You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?
Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that "small towns are at the heart of America." Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where — Sun Valley?

It's not taking instructions from the Church when the party swings that way to begin with. And personally, I figure that even if John Paul himself grabbed Kerry by the testicals and threatened excommunication, Bush is more likely to legislate his religion into the lives of citizens than John Kerry.

Good point

Kerry/Edwards. We have alienated the entire world and its the only place I have to live. I prefer friends and allies to occupation of the liberated.

Actually, if you felt like breaking Arizona law, you could just take a name out of the telephone book with the address and vote for that person without the bothersome task of providing identification. Ahhhhh, what a great way to mess-up another election! :(

Bush

There could be better conservatives but he wont do the damage I see Kerry pledging to do. Liberal economics is an economics of slavery. They enslave the poorer classes by promising to take money from the wealthy and give it to them without realizing the economic effect of that and how it always backfires.

Economics is the prime reason I vote Republican. Trust me I am not rich.

Does anyone remember what happened to the yachting industry in the early 1990s? I cannot remember the details however they wanted 'the rich' to pay their fair share so the gov't added a special tax cause only the rich have yachts. Well what did the rich do, they refurnished their yachts or bought yachts overseas and registered them in other countries or simply did not buy a yacht cause they were now too much money.

Hence the yachting industry was devistated, people lost their jobs, some yacht companies went out of business.

So who got hurt by taxing the rich? Joe Yachtworker.

Kerry/Edwards

Just like trickle down economics that Bush tried to copy off Reagan but he fucked it up.

Im going to vote for who I think is the best candidate every year after this one. However I am voting Kerry this year because he is the best chance to overthrough Bush.

Only if you live there for more than 6 months per year (like a college student whose school is out-of-state.)


I'm voting for Badnarik. I don't like Bush, I don't particularly like Kerry, and I am not going to compromise and settle for the lesser of two evils. I know my candidate is probably not going to win, but unless those who support him do so at the polls, nothign will ever change.

BINGO!! :thumbsup:

I constantly hear how a vote for the Libertarian Party is a wasted vote. I don't see it that way. No vote is wasted, so long as you vote for your beliefs. So what if Badnarik doesn't win? I hold no illusion that he will. But, if nothing else, I'm sending a message. That message is that I am sick and damn well tired of the same tired old business as usual. My vote is more than just another cog in the political machine.

Just one of my many reasons...

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.

Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Pass this on. Only 200 days until the election.

Although Bush isn't filet mignot either...

They all suck.

Vote anarchistic.

None of the Above.

We need some Socialist presidential candidates.

I just don't understand how a party with almost NO political influence in the system thinks they can get away with running for president.

I mean, I understand the premise of giving anyone and everyone the choice to run, but let's be realistic here, unless your party has a strong influence in the house/senate, forget about becoming president. It won't happen.

I also understand the idea of "How can he win if no one votes for him? That's why I vote for him!", however, it's not so black and white. They need to be more involved and have more of a presence to be acknowledged.

How is it a wasted vote? I will bet my entire next year's salary that the winner will be either Bush or Kerry. You already know this, so why pretend to think otherwise? You KNOW a 3rd party is not going to win. That's how it's a wasted vote. If it becomes a slim margin again... 48% Bush, 48% Kerry, 4% Nader, then you're pushing it. Those votes could've been used to help determine who the winner is.

It's crazy to see the amount of people who strongly dislike Bush who are willing to vote for a 3rd party again :lol: If he becomes Pres. again, you can't really complain because you could've helped sway it the other way. Well, I guess you CAN since you did vote.. but whatev ;)

We can complain all we want if we vote for our third party. Why? Because it gives us even more opportunities to tell people about our party.

How many people know about the Libertarian party? Not that many. What is the best form of advertising you can get? By having that third party candidate spoil the election for either Bush or Kerry.

I dislike Bush. I despise Kerry. I refuse to decide my vote on who is the lesser asshole. Now, if us third partiers can get that message to a larger number of people who feel the same, THEN things will change.

Sitting on our asses and going with the worthless pile of shit known as the two-party system isn't going to change anything.

I like Canada's system where a certain % of votes that went to a candidate determines their influence within the govt.

Like if 5% of people vote for a third party, then that party gets a certain amount of seats, etc.. (right? isn't that how it works there?)

We definitely need some kind of change in our system to accept these other parties.

You're right...to a point. I know that Badnarik has a snowball's chance in hell. I've already made that point. Right now, it's fairly even money between Bush and Kerry. My point is..I do not like Bush...at all, and Kerry doesn't flip my skirt up either. Why would I vote for anyone except for the candidate of my choice? My vote is my voice. And with that voice I'm saying that I am sick to death of the crap spewed forth by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Bad politician...no vote for you!

Let me ask you this: What do you think it will take for a 3rd party to become widely recognized? Do you think it will happen eventually?

Being that all the media in this country is controlled through only SIX corporations, those parties never get any coverage whatsoever. Would it take a law on the part of the dem/repub. parties to regulate media or..

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how are they going about trying to gain influence in our current political system? They have a lot of great ideas, but it just seems like no one is paying enough attention. Everyone is so caught up in the dem/rep parties.

If I believed that Nader had a chance of winning, I'd vote for him, but I'm really having a hard time trying to convince myself that it's not a wasted vote. Maybe one day I'll think differently, but for now... hard to do.

Kerry/ Edwards,...interesting results...thought it would be closer

The Libertarian party is going about it the only way they can. By slowly growing. Starting small with elections, in towns across America and has been growing exponentally over the past 25 years.

The next way is to turn heads. Being a spoiler in a political election would be a great step. The next is to try to grow into a viable contender for seats in congress.

The Republican and Democratic parties actually have very little hold of the entire public. A growing amount of people are just fed up with the bullshit from both sides.

Voting for a third party candidate is only a wasted vote if you think your candidate can win. However, keep in mind that various Republican organizations are funding Nader and helping him get on the ballot in the swing states (do a search for Citizens for a Sound Economy.) So in their minds, it is definitely not a wasted vote; it's a means to get Bush elected. If you're anti-Bush, please keep that in mind.

If you hate Bush and hate Kerry it's not a wasted vote. It's your choice.

Frankly, me voting for Badnarik is taking a vote away from Bush because Kerry is just making me sick. If he would come out and make a stand, bluntly say what he would do differently I might vote for him. Instead he's talking about what Bush did immediately after the towers were hit and how he would have bolted out of the room. Well whoopty friggin doo, you would have had a couple minute head start on something you probably already knew the answer to and created panic where it could be easily avoided.

Wasted vote my ass. If the big two are such mudslinging assholes they don't deserve anyone's vote.

Stompy, your asking some very fair, and extremely valid question. I like that. It shows that you're not completely dismissive. I'll try to answer as best as I can.

Media coverage. Pure and simple. It's out of sight...out of mind. The Libertarian Party is larger, by far, than all of the other so called 3rd parties...combined. Yet, all we seem to hear is Nader Nader Nader. Libertarians can't buy airtime. Why is that? For that matter...why won't Republicans or Democrats debate a Libertarian? The reason, I believe, is that while Nader is no threat to either of the two major parties. The Libertarian Party, on the other hand,...is. The Libertarian Party has had remarkable growth just within the past decade. And, believe it or not, Libertarians are gaining a foothold in city and state elections countrywide. So...yes, I honestly do believe that, in the near future, the Libertarians are going to break in and take some federal elections.

The only way that a third party can gain popularity is to start small. At the age of 20, I will be registering to run for local office as a Libertarian. I will be speaking to local residents about real issues that affect them, because I will only be representig a small group of people in a small town. If I can build up trust in the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the mudslinging an dpartisan bickering of the two big parites, and earn the trust of enough people that they allow me to represent them, then I can move up yo higher office when people spread the word about what I did for them. If I could get enough people to support me, and to agree that a Libertarian candidate would do a good job of running our country, a significant number of people might actually vote for our candidate. If we could get a significant number to vote in a small area, it could be built up from there.

Exactly!

I'm not using my vote as a bet on the winning team...I'm using my vote to be heard.

If you believe in Bush...vote for Bush. If you believe in Kerry...vote for Kerry. Personally...I don't believe in either one of them. I do, however, believe in Badnarik and the message that he is trying desperatly (albeit in vain) to get out. Therefore, Badnarik gets my vote.

Bush.
Do I agree with everything he's done? No.

The only thing that matters now is the war on the Islamist terrorists. That's it. We must win. For me, there are no other issues. Zip.

Bush is the best candidate to win this war, so he will get my vote. Give him four more years and we have a chance of putting those sick Islamists fucks to bed. The "crazed cowboy" will not back down. For that, he gets my vote.

No offence, but your location says it all. I mean you really think that Bush is the best leader to win the war. He has already sacrifised over 900 soldiers, many from your state, probably even your county, or city. How many more soldiers need to die for his war. Please vote Kerry.

I hope all the people who voted in this poll vote again in November.

I second that vote!

Bush of course. I'm from Texas and feel i know his politics from experience. I was in the same Boat group as Kerry in Vietnam, albiet a few months later, and his boast's of his Navy carreer don't hold much water, in my belief. I also don't like his social politics.

I thought Badnarik would have more votes here, people must not know who he is. That said, I chose Kerry/Edwards.

Id love to, but Im voting Kerry/Edwards because at this point, Im in damage control mode and just wanting Bush out of office. The candidate with the best chance of making that happen is Kerry--hence, thats where my vote goes.

And how is he going to do that? What is he going to do that will stimulate the economy? Oh Wait, Posted today:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After months of being buffeted by higher energy costs, consumer prices posted a rare decline in July while output at U.S. factories and construction of new homes and apartments rebounded from their June swoon. Analysts said the trio of government reports released Tuesday gave hope that the economy is already emerging from what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan termed a "soft patch" in early summer.

"The picture painted by today's numbers is very positive," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "The economy is not stalling out."

Meanwhile, industrial production rose by a healthy 0.4 percent in July, after having fallen by 0.5 percent in June, while construction of new homes and apartments rose a better-than-expected 8.3 percent in July, erasing a 7.7 percent decline the previous month.

So I guess the economy isn't as bad as you say.

Must be those tax cuts finally taking effect!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's put it this way, if Bush wins, we're moving to Canada.

I'm voting for Nader. Kerry voted for the war, he voted for the PATRIOT ACT, and he supported NAFTA. There are no real differences between Bush/Kerry on any of the important issues. I also want to throw my vote away.

As stated above, my vote goes to Kerry because third party is a wasted vote any which way you look at it. Although I would rather see Nader in office, my hatred for Bush is much stronger than my feelings toward Nader. Voting for Nader is voting for Bush. If you truly despise Bush as I, myself do, vote Kerry. This election is too close to vote for third party, every ballot counts.

Agreed, I got family up there anyway :). At this point I would rather vote Saddam into office over Bush.

Either way, we'd be puppets.......

my vote for nader is a vote for nader. the only wasted vote is the one that isn't cast.

nader can't be voted into office if his "supporters" won't even vote for him.

kerry doesn't represent my interests, now that'd be a shame to vote for someone who doesn't represent me.

if the party wants to fix this, join in instant run-off change.

if the people vote bush in, they get what they deserve.

my vote isn't going to alter the larger picture of california's voting trends. I'm even tempted to suggest that should bush win the popular vote, the EC might go ahead and award them to kerry anyway--because they can.

finally, nader (and any other party) needs enough votes to be considered a viable party next year or they won't get airtime and a seat at the debate table. I don't remember the percentage off hand, but I'll do what I can to make sure the platform gets national attention.

That is the problem. Either way he does not have nearly enough supporters to ever put him in office. American citizens only see Democrat and Republican, they are blind to independent. I wish this was not the case, but unfortunately it is, and it is not going to change anytime soon. Therefore, a vote for Nader is wasted because he does not stand a chance in hell. Why let a man who has done nothing positive for this country have another 4 years to destroy it just because you think you are being heard and standing up for your beliefs. Although I respect nothing more than that normally; in this case, Bushie is counting on the 3% 3rd party voters to keep him in office, and will use that against you as well once he is in office.
If you ONLY could choose between the two, which would it be? If your answer is Kerry, than read what I said above.

Yes, they do get what they deserve, but the 50% of us who did not vote him in, will get the same negative treatment as them.

Cant argue with that, look at the last election. But at the same time, we cant go on assumptions.

I respect your wish to vote for the candidate of your choosing.

I don't vote for democrat or republican citizens' votes. I don't even vote for what's best for this country. I vote for what's best in my interests. I happen to think that my interests are the best course this nation could take in its development.

But I refuse to accep the notion that I owe this country anything. This nation is formed on a document and its only purpose is to serve me and others who entered a contract with it when we remain citizens.

Once it ceases to serve my interests, I will go someplace that I feel does serve my interests. Over time, people have migrated in that past and there are all types of ideologies that have coalesced in various parts of the world. The cool thing about his nation is how fluid it purports to be. The idea is tha t enough people can get together and change its course. I haven't seen it in my lifetime, but I have read about it occurring in the past.

But the only person I care about when I cast a vote is myself. That's the most personal thing that we do in this country. It's even one of the last anonymous things we do--if that tells you anything about its sanctity.I would much rather vote for something I believed in and lose than vote for something I didn't really believe in and win.

I think a lot of US citizens feel like I do and I think the refusal to engage that attitude is a critical mistake of Kerry's. The people who support Bush don't always like or agree with his statements, but they sure seem to support him and respect the fact that he sure believes in what he's doing. They even seem willing to give him a pass on misjudgements based on the fact that he was doing what he believed in.

I think that's due to our notions of the value of entrepreneurial attitudes, individualism, investing, and risk-taking in the quest for future dividends, etc.

Politics is all issues, they will never change. The economy will go up, it will go down. Industries will change as technologies and markets evolve. Taxes will go up, taxes will go down.

If I know one thing, I know that Kerry has no balls. He doesn't stand by his own beliefs, his own convictions. He pisses to the wind to see what direction to take, he is a pollster, he has no spine, and he doesn't have MY best interest.

Love him or Hate him, you have to admit, Bush has stuck by his guns on everything he has preached. I trust Bush to win this war against the Islamo-facist/terrorists. I fear for my country if Kerry becomes president.

I'm voting for Badnarik. What gets me is that Nader gets all this press, yet is on a relative few state ballots. On the other hand, Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, will likely be on all or nearly all state ballots. Bill O pointed out exactly why that's the case though - Nader poses little real threat to the two major parties, but the Libertarians do. There are MANY people in the US that hold Libertarian values and that is seen by the large (for a 3rd party) number of Libertarians in public office. Compare that to any other 3rd party and it's a joke.

Do I agree fully with all Libertarian stances? No. But I like the general message and I feel it's a good one, so I'm voting Libertarian in November.

I would rather have a pollster than someone who sticks "by his guns on everything he has preached" even when the evidence shows that his decision was the incorrect one. His is a dangerous attitude--I don't want a stubborn individual, who has bragged about not paying attention to what the public thinks, to be leading a nation that is supposed to pay attention to its people.

At least a pollster is willing to place his agenda on the back burner and do what the majority of the people desire. But he obviously has balls. That comment just demonstrates ignorance and vitriol. Also, the only reason he wouldn't have your best interest, and if he only listens to the majority of the people via polls and political winds, then the conclusion I am left to reach is that you are not in the majority of the population. You might want to think about that when you start blasting off at the mouth.

But the cool thing about this election is that I don't have to choose between ONLY the two of them. I actually like what the other candidates have said and their perspective earns my vote. And if anyone else wants my vote, then he or she needs to incorporate my interests into his or her platform. Voting against someone is the only way I know of that forces a candidate to care about you. When you are already voting for someone, your vote is mixed in with other people who may or may not agree with the candidate's position. But if I vote against someone, then he or she has to look at the issues I voted for instead of his or hers if my vote is wanted.

Wait a second are we talking about the same MAJORITY that is opposed to abortion? Or the same MAJORITY that is OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to partial birth abortion? Perhaps Gay marriage? Perhaps the majority that going to Iraq was the right thing to do?

No?

Further more, Bushs' attitude is not that of a stubborn person, it's a position of fortitude, of conviction. I'm sure even someone of your political beliefs can respect that?

Using capital letters isn't going to convince me that your extreme views are mainstream. I'm just pointing out the obvious, if kerry only pays attentions to polls and goes by public opinion rather than his own conviction, and if he doesn't represent your interests, then you are not part of the majority opinion. You set up the premises for the syllogism, I just put it together for you so you would either reconsider whether your premises were correct, or that your viewpoints are extreme.

I'm not going to go through each one of them--I don't care what you think about them. I know my position and I know the complexity of the situations is far beyond what you just posted.

And someone has conviction when he or she does something out of faith. Someone is stubborn when the evidence demonstrates that one's position was wrong. Bush not only refuses to change his position when new evidence arises, he brags about refusing to pay attention to external evidence--that's stubborness, regardless of whether you agree with his rashness.

Even in the military this is technically not correct. Service members have a specific state of residency for taxation purposes (Michigan is nice as they charge no state tax for military personnel). Once you register that state, you have to show cause to change the state or record, and can only change it once or twice in your military career without serious waivers.

I vote John^2 for the simple fact that, despite being a republican at heart, I just really dislike the man. I think he's a bad president, I think he's a bad leader, I think he's bad for the coutry, the economy, the military and the People. I think he's a bad speaker, a bad politician and a bad diplomat. He's a proven bad businessman (seems to lose a lot of money and put companies under).

I'd vote for the underlings, except that it's truly a wasted vote, and I'd prefer to use my vote only to unseat Bush rather than "make a statement".

Bah, I want a new Commander-in-Chief!

Since when does dropping bombs on civilians to fight the supposed "war on terror" with a country that had nothing to do with terrorism in the states, constitute fortitude and conviction? The "man" is a coward, who hid behind Daddy when it was his turn too serve for his country, but now is a big shot telling others to go do his dirty work because of his status as commander in chief; he knows his safety is assured. This is the exact opposite of how you describe him. He is only interested in his own well being. He could give a shit less how many soldiers and civilians pass, as long is it is benefiting him. Convictions and fortitude? No. Cowardice and greed? Yes.

don't stereotype anyone. his location says nothing about him. you can't tell his political background with such certainty from his location any more than you can tell it from his gender or race. if he's from "deep in the heart of texas" he's just as able to make his own decisions and come to his own conclusions as if he were from can....ada.

anyway, you can see the demographics that TFP politics tends to skew towards. in the general population... bush and kerry are neck-to-neck yet on tfp kerry has twice the support he has in the general electorate. what's more, 3rd party candidates have about 5% support in the general electorate but nearly a fifth of the votes on TFP.

interesting... and, a bit lonely. :)

I have libertarian views but will vote for Bush because I don't trust Kerry at all. He has a dishonest way about him. How can a billionaire claim to champion the middle class? How can he possibly now what it's like to live like an average person. He doesn't, and I don't think he cares. He will say anything to get into office as can be proven by his flip flopping record. If the Dems had a better candidate I would consider voting for them because I'm not thrilled with Bush but I'm not voting for Kerry

I just hope that people can try to just really get the feel for the candidates, and not just pick a side just because they "have a feeling" or don't understand the other's "ways". Study, read up, watch the news, don't just gather bits and pieces and make your decision from that or from what others say or from what party you are or what you've voted before.....
Now is the time- a very criticle time- in the life and future of America.......we've seen a lot of darkness, confusion, turmoil, and changes through the past 4 years, but really understand these candidates and vote for who you feel will bring peace, unity, and freedom back into our country, and the world. I'm not saying I hate Bush, I'm not saying Kerry's the one, nor am I leaving out Nader and Badnarik, no matter what, we still have 2 months to make our decision- this doesn't mean we have to protest, rant, persuade, argue, or "work" for a certain candidate to win. Just study, follow your heart, think about your future and America's children's future, and the world's future....and vote. 2004 is a big year, folks. Many of us think our country's gone to craps, many think that we've made the right moves.....but stand out of the circle and just observe with no prior thoughts, as a "third person" point of view" and realize that your vote will make all the difference.

Where did you come up with this information?

The majority of people in the U.S. are pro-choice for non-late term abortions. The majority of people in the U.S. are not anti-abortion for late term abortions which are deemed necessary for the safety of the mother.

The majority of the people in the U.S. do not even know what "partial birth abortion" is - do you know what it is? It's so vague as to be essentially undefinable or omni-definable. The only thing that is certain is that it has nothing to do with BIRTH - it has to do with the location of the fetus at the stage of abortion. I imagine that the majority of the people in this country do not believe Congressmen and Clergy should define what is and what is not a medical necessity.

The majority of people in the U.S. are opposed to any type of Constitutional amendment to define marriage. The majority of people in the U.S. believe that the legalities of marriage should be left up to the States.

The VAST majority (over 70% according to polls in the weeks running up to the war) of people in the U.S. did NOT support the war on Iraq WITHOUT U.N. authorization.

I think this is the majority that smooth is referring to.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Gay Marriage:Just about every poll people vote they are opposed to gay marriage. Weak pluralites favor some legal recognition, goes back and fourth on that note in just about all of the polls taken.

Abortion: Early term seems to go back and fourth with weak pluralities. Every major party opposes late term abortion (6 months +).

Iraq: I'll concede that support has significantly decreased so that it is about even. But you are wrong about the pre-war UN support thing. Way I remember it, and too lazy to check right now, but 60% still favored without UN support.

it sucks to be voting against someone rather than for someone but it´s basically anyone but bush.

I'll need you to correct if I'm wrong, because Kerry isn't my candidate, but did he grow up monied or did he marry into it? I thought he was one of the candidates that grew up middle class. I agree with your reluctance to believe that a billionaire can champion the middle class. But why does that translate into support for Bush? He has done everything you listed as negatives and reasons for your not voting for kerry. I don't understand why you support him over one of the other 3d parties?

Please explain that to me, because it has me very confused why you would castigate one candidate for being a billionaire, yet support the other billionaire, one for not possibly understanding the average joe, yet support an equally unlikely person, and claim that he doesn't stand firm on anything, but Bush has waffled on some things he spoke about during his first campaign.

Most important, you claim that you aren't satisfied with Bush. But your vote ratifies his presidency. How is he supposed to know that you aren't satisfied with him. Your vote is the same anonymous vote as the person who is totally thrilled by his actions. Even if he wanted to change his position if he felt that the US public didn't want it, he wouldn't know to change it because people claiming to not agree with him are still voting for him. There isn't any support more clear cut than a vote.

I told you that I wasn't going to get into this discussion with you because the issues are too complex to be shouting out figures to one another.

I will remind you, however, that I was setting up a syllogism for you. If you have concluded adequately in your mind that the polls represent your position, and that kerry does not represent your position, then you must conclude that kerry does not sail with the polls. That's a republican talking point that your own decisions cast doubt upon. I don't mind that you have determined that the polls represent your position, because that proves my point:

(for the sake of example I stipulate the following; I'm open to discussing the full implication of those polls in another thread)

Polls show, to your mind, that the public and you overwhelmingly share viewpoints.

Kerry does not share your viewpoints.

Therefore, kerry does not base his convictions on the polls.

If he did base his beliefs on the polls, he would share your positions because you think the majority of the people share your beliefs.

edit is italicized

I see a rather consistent MOE that eliminates anything approaching a majority on this issue, when viewed personally. When viewed as a Constitutional amendment vs. State laws, I see a relative split in polls with majorities favoring one over the other. So we're both wrong.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
By far, the number of polls that show a majority support pro-choice outweighs the number of polls that show a majority support pro-life.
You remember incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...of_war_on_Iraq

I don't like professional politicians, and since there is no write in section for this poll i will just abstain.

I have voted as a write in for presidents since 1988.

as far as I'm concerned those "voting for the lesser of two evils" still voted for the person that they didn't want to be in the white house.

---------------
 

--------------