less than 3 weeks till the US election

[Nyke]

ANWR?

Oil drilling in the Alaskan Swamps.

Alaskan Swamps?

[Wp]

Yup, it's an interesting fact, but Alaska does indeed have swamps.

And Kerry for me. Bush is an utter moron, and I can't stand the thought of such an idiot leading America any longer. It's not even about the policies anymore. It's more of a character issue.

I probably won't be voting since registration closes in about 2 hours and I haven't registered yet... And besides, what am I going to do? Turn Kansas democratic? Yeah right.

[Cortland]

I like to think of myself as an open-minded non-partisan voter. I vote pro-Cortland, and that's all. Oh, and I'm voting for anyone who will help clean up the mess in the federal tax system. Freelancing is a nightmare with the IRS breathing down your neck every time you try to make a buck. And I would like to be able to help save some of that money being sucked down the black hole called social security and maybe see it again someday.

Yeah, you know who I'm voting for, and he won't have any problem winning Nebraska's five huge electoral votes. By the way, I'm quite amused at Kerry supporters who can't give one reason to vote for him other than "he's not Bush." Honestly, guys, he's been in the senate for 20 years now. Can you tell me anything he's done there?

One thing I would like to see after this election is for both sides to learn how to get the hell along with each other. Seriously, I know plenty of good people who disagree with me about politics, and just because you're pro-something instead of anti-something doesn't mean you're evil, ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted, something-phobic, or intolerant. It means you disagree, and you very well might have a damned good reason for it. So relax, and remember we're on stuck on this blue marble together. Let's make the best of it.

</soapbox>

[Dutch!]

...just because you're pro-something instead of anti-something doesn't mean you're evil, ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted, something-phobic, or intolerant.</soapbox>

Yes it does!

Don't worry...it will all be over in a few weeks and you can get back to making repetitive sitcoms and crime-shows and spin-offs and tricking the mindless masses into watching them all so you can make more without ever once requiring the skill of being original...

As long as you keep sending us each episode of The Shield...that show kicks arse!!

And no, I didn't spell arse incorrectly. You lot do, so nyer! 8)

[JexKerome]

Unlike Dutch!, I find (and funny, most of the rest of the world does too) that the U.S. presidential elections are a matter of global importance. The U.S. is, after all, the only superpower left. It can and does make its presence felt everywhere culturally, economically, and militarily. To say that it's of no importance who gets to lead such a giant is incredibly naive. The world is no longer isolated (and hasn't been since WWII); every continent and pretty much every country is linked to the rest by economic means. Take the Dragon effect, as an example. As a far clearer example, take the gas prices around the globe. Because of a war started on false pretense by the american president and his team.

I have nothing personal against Mr George W. Bush. He's a successful businessman and a family man, which puts him way above me in the human-o-meter, and, IQ scores aside, I suspect he's not at all dumb. So the path he has taken (and the U.S. with him) comes as pretty shocking to me. He has undone virtually all the trust and goodwill towards America, throwing years of efforts away; he has thrown an already volatile area of the planet into utter chaos, thereby throwing the world economy into a recession, and sky-rocketed the U.S. deficit to untold heights (they expect it to hit the 500 billion mark). While I respect Cortland's decision to vote for the guy, I can't say I understand it. The U.S. is far worse today than the day Gore decided to step aside and let Bush take the reins.

Mr. Bush has cut too much slack to special interests and the rich at the cost of the little people and the environment in the U.S. (the ANWR proposal, the mercury emissions ruling which he refused to make more stringent, the lift of the asault-weapons ban, the attempted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, etc). World-wide, he told everyone off, then launched a war to topple a bad guy (a really despicable bad guy, yes, but the ends never justify the means); a war that has misfired in his face though he refuses to admit it (even when the rebels have amply proven no zone in Iraq is safe from them), all the while making ridiculous claims he's winning the war on terrorism, when in fact terrorists are as active as ever, and now have a real gripe against the U.S. to boot. No, Mr Bush, IMHO, has already done plenty wrong.

And if he gets reelected, it's only going to get worse. He's already calling Korea and Iran an "axis of evil", has made overt threats to Cuba and Syria, and if given free-reign he will attack at least one of these countries. This could range from abusive (Cuba) to catasthropic (the korean powers-that-be wouldn't hesitate to let loose some atomic missiles as an spiteful parting shot), specially if the president acts on bad intelligence like it did with Irak. Even if you refuse to take into account the number of lives the conflict would claim, the economic impact would be felt everywhere.

It is my hope that Mr. Bush gets elected out of office this November. I disagree with some points of Mr. Kerry's agenda, and am also of the belief there wouldn't be any changes of essence but rather of form if Kerry takes over Bush's job, but this is better than what Mr. Bush offers.

[Alaina]

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

Before you scorn it! It offers facts about Bush's presidency in a more interesting way than me listing facts, like that he's the only president in 70 years to not only not create jobs in his presidency but to even lose jobs, or he's created the largest deficit ever, or he still won't admit that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or WMD (Hussein even said he stopped making them by 1991 because he thought if the U.S. even suspected he was making them then they'd start a war, something he definitely did not want to risk happening), or he ended up breaking campaign promises like not touching the $2 trillion Clinton set aside for Social Security (which would have lasted until 2075), or that he claims he can't even think of a single damn mistake he's done made...play the game. I bet eyes glazed over when I just stated the facts . The game makes hating fun!

[Alaina]

And I would like to be able to help save some of that money being sucked down the black hole called social security and maybe see it again someday.

Forget social security. Just get a Roth IRA account. If you put $1000 in it at age 20, it will double every 7 years, leaving you with $128,000 tax free in 49 years.

[Toxic]

For the record, my first choice to run on the democratic ticket was Howard Dean.

[Wp]

I agree, Bush is not as dumb as he is made out to seem. In comparison to the average person, he is quite intelligent. But for a leader of any kind, this is not the intelligence level I am looking for. His vocabulary is lacking and the things he says without a pre-written speech is just plain embarrassing. The debates show that he is not quick on his feet. If he is at a loss for words, he starts answering a different question or he repeats himself. He can speak well; I'll give him that.

Your "human-o-meter" is out of wack because you're praising him for being a family man. What part of that makes him better than you morally or on any level? Also, being a successful businessman for him is also supporting wealthy companies at the expense of the lower classes. His policies obviously show this.

I agree with you on most of your points, JexKerome. Bush's best moment was when he rallied America after 9/11, but that's about it.

[Psiogen]

Yeah, you know who I'm voting for, and he won't have any problem winning Nebraska's five huge electoral votes. By the way, I'm quite amused at Kerry supporters who can't give one reason to vote for him other than "he's not Bush." Honestly, guys, he's been in the senate for 20 years now. Can you tell me anything he's done there?

Some things Kerry has done in the Senate:

-Investigated and shut down major international money laundering operations used by terrorists and other criminals in the 80's and 90's.

-Uncovered the Iran-contra scandal under Reagan.

-Investigated reports of remaining Vietnam POWs, and eventually reestablished normal relations with that country.

-Been on the right side of a lot of votes.

But of course, the major reason to vote for Kerry isn't his public record, but Bush's. This is just the way things are with an incumbent president for the most part. One of the things about Bush is that his administration has been marked by such an incredible volume of petty corruption, incompetence, dishonesty, corporate giveaways, dirty politics and rank hypocrisy that it's almost impossible to absorb the full extent of it (and the media, 'liberal' or not, certainly lacks the attention span to make a serious attempt.) To catalogue these things would be beyond the scope of this post, but here's the quick summary:

-Attacks upon the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

-Steady erosion of environmental protections, and lax enforcement of remaining laws.

-Failed to thoroughly investigate shaky WMD claims before going to war.

-Failed to finish the job in Afghanistan before secretly switching gears and beginning preparations for Iraq war.

-Tax cuts for the rich, combined with heavy spending to create record defecits.

-Failed to take the necessary steps in the spring of 2003 to stabilize Iraq and prevent civil war. In fact, Rumsfeld actually fought against attempts by administration experts to come up with realistic plans for the occupation.

-Geneva Conventions ignored, leading to Abuu Ghraib tortures and helping to spark further violence in Iraq.

-Spent the first 9 months of 2001 fighting against efforts of Democrats to pass Homeland Security legislation, and did everything possible to avoid the issue of terrorism...

-...and then used it as a cynical bludgeoning tool in the 2002 elections-- among other things, the Republicans sabotaged the Homeland Security bill with a clause taking away the unionization rights of hundreds of thousands of workers, so that Democrats would vote against it...and then used those votes to attack their patriotism. See the $87 billion Iraq appropriations bills for a repeat of the same scenario.

-First negative job creation record since Hoover.

-Rising abortion rates as sex education comes under attack and poverty rises.

-Lied to Congress about the cost of bloated $500 billion Medicare bill which does little for seniors but a lot to pad drug company profits.

-Rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, which gives the executive branch numerous ways of circumventing the Constitution.

-And a whole lot more. These are the most obvious ones I can remember offhand...so yeah, I'm voting for Kerry.

[Alaina]

For the record, my first choice to run on the democratic ticket was Howard Dean.

He would never have stood a chance against Bush, though. He was too liberal. Funny how I wouldn't even consider Kerry a Democrat. We need more political parties with a chance...

(I saw Dean last, last week and he was amazing though.)

[Luprand]

... man ... forget I said anything in my last post. This is to be my first election, and now I'm afraid to vote either way. Neither candidate seems to be worth voting for, given what I've heard from either side, and if it's choosing the lesser of two evils ... what use is choosing evil, even if it's a smaller one? For all the benefits and advances of this age, there are times I wish I could have been born in one where the worst fear was you might wake up with a bear in the room. At least with the bear, you had some choices that didn't end unpleasantly.

--Sij

[Birdie]

I'm voting for Kerry because I think Bush's Agenda for the country has only to make money for him and his friends, while people like myself live without healthcare and having a hard time in the job market he is looking for more taxcuts? It's not right for me.

[JexKerome]

I agree with you on most of your points, JexKerome. Bush's best moment was when he rallied America after 9/11, but that's about it.

Everyone but the bad guys rallied behind Bush and America that time. The reason was obvious, the pain everywhere, and the evidence damning. Even countries that are cold towards the U.S. admitted 9/11 was a horrible act of brutality. The Irak case, however, was nothing like this.

Your "human-o-meter" is out of wack because you're praising him for being a family man.

Since his marriage is solid and his children seem as normal as any other american kid, it means he has the qualities of a social human being and a decent, responsible father. This speaks of other basic qualities of character that I decidedly lack.

[Cortland]

I have to say one more thing: the Kerry supporters on this thread are more articulate than any I've heard on the radio, TV, or anywhere else. I'm very impressed with your active involvement in the politcal process, so kudos to you guys!

And kudos also to grabmygoblin for opening this topic up. I'm afraid too many people talk politics only with those they agree with. I personally love getting outside my own circle and talking with those who disagree with me--I had many rousing debates with my old graphic design prof about the 2000 election, and we stayed very good friends even while disagreeing about everything.

[Wp]

Your "human-o-meter" is out of wack because you're praising him for being a family man.

Since his marriage is solid and his children seem as normal as any other american kid, it means he has the qualities of a social human being and a decent, responsible father. This speaks of other basic qualities of character that I decidedly lack.

So what you're doing is praising him for doing what he should? Do you praise people just because they don't shoplift? You shouldn't give someone credit for something he should be doing anyway. Being a social human being also has nothing to do with your worth as a person.

I don't know you personally, but I can't imagine you'd be that bad in terms of family. Anything that you can't handle in terms of maintaining a solid, happy family is probably not all your fault; certainly not a moral failing of any sorrt.

[Grabmygoblin]

But of course, the major reason to vote for Kerry isn't his public record, but Bush's.

exactly the reason I'm voting for Kerry. I don't even like Kerry. he is spineless, won't take a clear stance on many issues that are close to my heart.

but I can't take another four years of Bush.

frankly I'm frightened by the prospect of Bush winning. if he does. I feel it will be a grave mistake this country will not be able to recover from for years.
*sigh* maybe I've just been reading/watching too much sci-fi that involves post-apocolyptic situations.

[Luprand]

So what you're doing is praising him for doing what he should? Do you praise people just because they don't shoplift?

Y'know, maybe we ought to start doing that. I mean, look around at the world. We pretty much reward our celebrities for their sordid love affairs and criminal acts by showering them with more and more attention, shoving them farther into the spotlight, and giving them the eyeballs they crave.

Why NOT take a moment, look at the people who never get noticed, and say "Hey, y'know ... you're all right." I doubt people only give their dogs a scritch behind the ears when the dogs do some huge trick ... and yet we'll only pay a person attention if they do something slightly wrong or spectacularly good.

And for all of you who are voting against Bush, rather than for someone else ...

THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES.

Granted, on the other hand, the reason Bush would win is that while conservatives all seem to rally behind their champion, a lot of liberals or what-have-you are rallying behind their champions. And that's the blessing and bane of a two-party system ... both sides can present a united front ... but neither side seems to have a frontman worth bothering with.

--Sij

[Mercury Hat]

Yes, please, people vote for a candidate, not just against some other one. I don't care who anyone votes for as long as they have a better reason than "At least it's not so-and-so".

[BeefotronX]

The reason the other candidates "don't have a chance" is because people are too wimpy to vote for them. If people stopped believing that only two candidates were viable, and actually TRIED voting for someone other than the same two parties we've had for over 150 years, we might get some interesting numbers in the future. You don't have to choose the lesser of two evils. If you really believe Bush and Kerry are "two evils", then don't vote for either of them, but please vote.

I want a president who will keep the country safe without launching morally hazy wars, and a president who has a plan and tells you what it is. You can't have both with either Bush or Kerry. The odds are that one of those two guys are going to win, but you don't have to be defeated by that probability. You do have more than two choices.

The two biggest third candidates are of course Michael Badnarik(Libertarian) and Ralph Nader (Indy with Green/Reform sprinkles), and I'm only mentioning Nader because a lot of people don't know who Badnarik. The reason for that is probably because someone who does not pull any shenanigans in getting on the ballots is less interesting to the news media than someone who does.