Full Version: If the vote were held today...
QUOTE(offwind @ Mar 3 2004, 10:48 AM)
QUOTE(DreamPipEr @ Mar 2 2004, 09:23 PM)
When I first posted here I said my vote was with Bush. About a month ago I thought I was going to go 3rd party. Since Bush's recent desire to amend our constitution that expressly discriminates against a minority group I now am considering voting Democrat. Bush has lost my vote no matter what. Now it is between a 3rd party and a Democrat.
Wait a minute and think about it! Bush did not want this issue on his plate any more than Kerry does. But he does view marriage from a traditional perspective and does have a responsibility to uphold the "rule of law" and to insure the people have a right to express their will. That's what an amendment is all about.
Remember, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by a supermajority of the states. I happen to share your view that it is an issue of discrimination and would like the opportunity to vote on it. Wouldn't You? I would hope that as voters we're not of the "one issue" type.
Yes, offwind, I would like the chance to vote for it, but why isn't that doable through my own state legislature?
Most people I have talked with at work about this issue, think a constitutional amendment on this issue is a bad idea. That's liberals and conservatives. And why are we throwing out the very essence of states rights over this?
By the way, the Equal Rights Amendment never passed. It didn't get the required number of state votes for passage. From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
Three years after the ratification of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in Congress for the first time. For decades, it was entered into each session of Congress but rarely received floor time and was usually bogged down in committee. In 1972, the amendment was finally approved by Congress and presented to the states for ratification. Initially the pace of ratifications was quick, but it then began to slow. Congress had set a seven year deadline for ratification, and by the end of the deadline in 1979 only 35 of the 38 required states had ratified. Congress then extended the ratification deadline until 1982, but no further states ratified and by then several states had rescinded their earlier ratification.
And the constitutional issue isn't the only one I'm dissatified with. If the vote were helds today, I'm afraid I'd have to vote for whomever gives Bush the best run for his money. Right now, that looks to be Kerry, anthough I don't really like him. But like Wertz, and several others here, I dislike Bush even more at the present.
Thank you, Nite Guy. I thought I was having a pre-senior moment when I read that the Equal Rights Amendment had been passed by a super-majority. 
Big Government is upon us, but this time it is at the hand of the Republicans, and in the name of "peace and security" and "compassionate Conservatism." They are just words, after all.
It is so strange that on the one hand, to appease the senior lobby, Gee Dubya signed a bill for Medicare prescription coverage which means that the government has to pay top dollar for drugs from the pharmaceutical companies, while he opposes cash-strapped seniors buying less expensive medicine from Canada ostensibly because they might not be "safe," even though Canadians are not getting sick and dropping dead in droves taking these same medications, and the drugs come from the same pharmaceutical companies, only at negotiated, lower prices. Do ya think the pharmaceutical companies are among Bush's supporters?
On the other hand, I understand that now Bush is considering cuts in Social Security. Pity those poor peasants who worked all their lives (or at least since FDR) thinking that the funds they contributed to would be for them. Promises, promises...But hey, maybe they can all be re-trained to be greeters at Wal-Marts until they die!
9/11 is the showcase of the political commercials Bush will be approving for airtime. It's something that happened to him and the rest of the country, but particularly to those who were working in the World Trade Center, their families, and the valiant firefighters and police officers who worked to rescue them and minimize casualties. He made a fine speech in a devastating, demoralizing situation, then proceeded to work out a plan for revenge that unfortunately included a country that, by virtue of having a tyrant that would brook no groups unfavorable to him, had none of the terrorists involved nor the weapons of mass destruction that had been present during the first Gulf War. Whoops! How did that help anybody affected by the attacks on 9/11/2004?
(Revenge is a very Christian attitude, until one reads the Bible verse, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." But even if it were, the vengeance would probably need to be directed at those actually responsible for the crime.)
"This economy of ours is uh, is uh, strengthening" George W. Bush was recorded saying by CNN to some unnamed group he was campaigning for yesterday. It's hard to say that since jobs continue to be lost, and a pale shadow of the number of jobs Bush's administration proclaimed would be created during the past few months have actually materialized. What's the problem? This dynamic fundraiser who had no problem raising $150 million dollars for his campaign somehow cannot get his wealthy cronies to pony up the jobs, even after his much-touted tax cut? Maybe it's a question of motivation; maybe he (and they) are more willing to invest in his second term than actually provide some relief for Americans who want to work and keep the bills paid but cannot find the jobs for which they have been trained.
George W. Bush was fired up about "No Child Left Behind" until it came time to finance those new books and equipment, repairs on dilapidated buildings and furniture, and the recruitment of more teachers to ease the teacher to student ratio, especially in inner city classrooms. He deemed it unworthy to spend tax payers' money on such an enterprise. Heck, these are only the future leaders and workers of America--why should they get any advantage? This is one way that Bush's touted vision is short-sighted. No, just impose standardized testing (that's cheap enough!), and if the students do not produce the desired results, can the teachers! That's the ticket!
Of course, our military was a shining success conquering Iraq. It is not their fault that the Commander-In-Chief ordered them to attack a country that had not waged war against us; they do as they are ordered, period. Our military is less than a shining success during the occupation (and that is what it is--no euphemisms, please), because all kinds of terrorist groups that were previously unable to get into and remain in Iraq under the tyrant Saddam Hussein are now streaming in to get a crack at America's best and brightest, no airplane ticket necessary. Now the Iraqis have a chance at establishing their own government, providing it is okay with George W. Bush and Company, except that anything okayed by them will automatically be seen as a puppet government and therefore not okay to devout Muslim Iraqis. As far as those Iraqis who believe in the process and are trying to bring peace to the country, just blow them up as they stand in line to become the peacekeepers. Can anyone disagree that this is a quagmire, and that our current President is ultimately responsible for it?
The Department of Homeland Security started out unfunded, like No Child Left Behind. But the idea of consolidating the various Federal agencies to get them to work together made sense. Only there are still tons of freight that aren't inspected on California docks which might hold bomb or chemical or bacterial agents to be used by terrorists, gaping holes in security.
In the meantime, the Patriot Act was instituted to nip aspiring terrorists in the bud. If there really was a MacGyver, he would be cooling his heels in Guantanamo Bay, even if he were just checking out of the library instructions on explosives that involve bubble gum, bailing wire, bat guano and WD-40. His apartment could be tossed with the execution of a search warrant approved by a secret court, or he might not be home when the Feds came and had a look around, and he might not ever know it was done. If incarcerated in Guantanamo, he might not be told what he was charged with, and he might not have an attorney, especially if his background were Middle Eastern. This all in the name of keeping our country safe, except that the citizens are not safe from our government.
For these reasons, I am backing John Kerry. I am not thrilled that he was a member of Skull and Bones as were Gee Dubya and his Presidential daddy. But the leadership SO needs to change. I am even willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt about his backing the President, believing it to be the right thing to do at the time, only to change his mind after the major blunders Bush committed. He has also expressed displeasure with the way the Patriot Act has been instituted. Maybe he would change it; maybe he wouldn't. All I know is that Dubya seems pleased with the way things are going, and I and many other American citizens are not pleased.
Kerry is not ideal (who is?), but he has had been decorated for his military experience and has seen (and reported to Congress) the seamy side of the Vietnam war as well. He has served in Congress for many years, earning re-election from his constituents. I believe that he is more in touch with Americans than Bush the Younger.
Big Government is upon us, but this time it is at the hand of the Republicans, and in the name of "peace and security" and "compassionate Conservatism." They are just words, after all.
It is so strange that on the one hand, to appease the senior lobby, Gee Dubya signed a bill for Medicare prescription coverage which means that the government has to pay top dollar for drugs from the pharmaceutical companies, while he opposes cash-strapped seniors buying less expensive medicine from Canada ostensibly because they might not be "safe," even though Canadians are not getting sick and dropping dead in droves taking these same medications, and the drugs come from the same pharmaceutical companies, only at negotiated, lower prices. Do ya think the pharmaceutical companies are among Bush's supporters?
On the other hand, I understand that now Bush is considering cuts in Social Security. Pity those poor peasants who worked all their lives (or at least since FDR) thinking that the funds they contributed to would be for them. Promises, promises...But hey, maybe they can all be re-trained to be greeters at Wal-Marts until they die!
9/11 is the showcase of the political commercials Bush will be approving for airtime. It's something that happened to him and the rest of the country, but particularly to those who were working in the World Trade Center, their families, and the valiant firefighters and police officers who worked to rescue them and minimize casualties. He made a fine speech in a devastating, demoralizing situation, then proceeded to work out a plan for revenge that unfortunately included a country that, by virtue of having a tyrant that would brook no groups unfavorable to him, had none of the terrorists involved nor the weapons of mass destruction that had been present during the first Gulf War. Whoops! How did that help anybody affected by the attacks on 9/11/2004?
(Revenge is a very Christian attitude, until one reads the Bible verse, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." But even if it were, the vengeance would probably need to be directed at those actually responsible for the crime.)
"This economy of ours is uh, is uh, strengthening" George W. Bush was recorded saying by CNN to some unnamed group he was campaigning for yesterday. It's hard to say that since jobs continue to be lost, and a pale shadow of the number of jobs Bush's administration proclaimed would be created during the past few months have actually materialized. What's the problem? This dynamic fundraiser who had no problem raising $150 million dollars for his campaign somehow cannot get his wealthy cronies to pony up the jobs, even after his much-touted tax cut? Maybe it's a question of motivation; maybe he (and they) are more willing to invest in his second term than actually provide some relief for Americans who want to work and keep the bills paid but cannot find the jobs for which they have been trained.
George W. Bush was fired up about "No Child Left Behind" until it came time to finance those new books and equipment, repairs on dilapidated buildings and furniture, and the recruitment of more teachers to ease the teacher to student ratio, especially in inner city classrooms. He deemed it unworthy to spend tax payers' money on such an enterprise. Heck, these are only the future leaders and workers of America--why should they get any advantage? This is one way that Bush's touted vision is short-sighted. No, just impose standardized testing (that's cheap enough!), and if the students do not produce the desired results, can the teachers! That's the ticket!
Of course, our military was a shining success conquering Iraq. It is not their fault that the Commander-In-Chief ordered them to attack a country that had not waged war against us; they do as they are ordered, period. Our military is less than a shining success during the occupation (and that is what it is--no euphemisms, please), because all kinds of terrorist groups that were previously unable to get into and remain in Iraq under the tyrant Saddam Hussein are now streaming in to get a crack at America's best and brightest, no airplane ticket necessary. Now the Iraqis have a chance at establishing their own government, providing it is okay with George W. Bush and Company, except that anything okayed by them will automatically be seen as a puppet government and therefore not okay to devout Muslim Iraqis. As far as those Iraqis who believe in the process and are trying to bring peace to the country, just blow them up as they stand in line to become the peacekeepers. Can anyone disagree that this is a quagmire, and that our current President is ultimately responsible for it?
The Department of Homeland Security started out unfunded, like No Child Left Behind. But the idea of consolidating the various Federal agencies to get them to work together made sense. Only there are still tons of freight that aren't inspected on California docks which might hold bomb or chemical or bacterial agents to be used by terrorists, gaping holes in security.
In the meantime, the Patriot Act was instituted to nip aspiring terrorists in the bud. If there really was a MacGyver, he would be cooling his heels in Guantanamo Bay, even if he were just checking out of the library instructions on explosives that involve bubble gum, bailing wire, bat guano and WD-40. His apartment could be tossed with the execution of a search warrant approved by a secret court, or he might not be home when the Feds came and had a look around, and he might not ever know it was done. If incarcerated in Guantanamo, he might not be told what he was charged with, and he might not have an attorney, especially if his background were Middle Eastern. This all in the name of keeping our country safe, except that the citizens are not safe from our government.
For these reasons, I am backing John Kerry. I am not thrilled that he was a member of Skull and Bones as were Gee Dubya and his Presidential daddy. But the leadership SO needs to change. I am even willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt about his backing the President, believing it to be the right thing to do at the time, only to change his mind after the major blunders Bush committed. He has also expressed displeasure with the way the Patriot Act has been instituted. Maybe he would change it; maybe he wouldn't. All I know is that Dubya seems pleased with the way things are going, and I and many other American citizens are not pleased.
Kerry is not ideal (who is?), but he has had been decorated for his military experience and has seen (and reported to Congress) the seamy side of the Vietnam war as well. He has served in Congress for many years, earning re-election from his constituents. I believe that he is more in touch with Americans than Bush the Younger.
QUOTE
On the other hand, I understand that now Bush is considering cuts in Social Security. Pity those poor peasants who worked all their lives (or at least since FDR) thinking that the funds they contributed to would be for them. Promises, promises...But hey, maybe they can all be re-trained to be greeters at Wal-Marts until they die!
Typical Democratic slant on things. Ignore the obvious (Funds were never contributed into Social Security for anyone's personal use, it was pay-as-you-go; Social Security was never intended to make anyone's full retirement; without cuts WE have to pay more into the system to continue to support unrealistic expectations; none of this was ever promised, nor will any of the proposed cuts take anything ever promised away), and paint an invalid picture of the evil Republican stomping on the down-trodden masses. I guess a picture's worth a thousand words, even when it's completely false.
QUOTE
Typical Democratic slant on things. Ignore the obvious (Funds were never contributed into Social Security for anyone's personal use, it was pay-as-you-go; Social Security was never intended to make anyone's full retirement; without cuts WE have to pay more into the system to continue to support unrealistic expectations; none of this was ever promised, nor will any of the proposed cuts take anything ever promised away), and paint an invalid picture of the evil Republican stomping on the down-trodden masses. I guess a picture's worth a thousand words, even when it's completely false.
Whether the funds were never contributed for "anyone's personal use," witness the problems it will cause and the resultant uproar when it becomes unavailable to those who have contributed to the fund all of their working lives.
Now the folks who can afford and attend the $2,000 per plate fundraisers that Mr. Bush is so famous for attending (while he won't give more than an hour or so to the commission investigating 9/11, mind you) probably do not need Social Security--do you think that they would be willing to give it up, either? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
Instead of the "evil Republican stomping on the down-trodden masses" picture, consider the masses of happy millionaires carrying Bush on their shoulders to another grandiose four years of conscience-free profits. Why, they can put it in the bank, literally, you know--the offshore one--while they continue to outsource the jobs to beef up that bottom line for the stockholders who seldom get their hands dirty any more since the Mexican landscaper took over the yard work.
Whoops!--another typical Democratic slant.
IMO, the majority of Democrats don't seem very happy period! Don't understand their anger...if the vote were held today, their "hold your nose" nominee, Kerry would probably win!
Don't know members' ages, but I can tell you that almost every Presidential election year, the old fear maneuver about Social Security and Medicare going bust has been threatened almost as many times as the sages have predicted the world was coming to an end! I grew up listening to this tripe and I am 62 years old and used to believe it. Somehow or other, our elected officials on both sides of the aisle always manage to get the crucial problems fixed for another decade or two. These are worn out fear tactics by the Democrats aimed at seniors in hopes of getting their votes to save their social security from being ripped out of their hands by the Republicans. The sad part about it is that it works no matter how many election years it has been floated around, and our senior citizens are the recipients of cruel political buffoonery/exploitation. The agenda to implement programs in which the rich would sacrifice a percentage or all of their Social Security has been debated and kicked around for decades as I remember listening to round table discussions about ten or fifteen years ago on PBC. And, while some may balk about the sacrifice, there are many of our wealthy and almost sinful wealthy officials/representatives complaining about tax cuts for the wealthy that could participate in "I Don't Need My SS" and/or "I Don't Need My Tax Cut" pilot programs for starters. Can't recall hearing a news flash about the wealthy senators who scream outrage about "tax cuts for the wealthy" turning back their tax credit checks to the SENDER.
So, cheer up Democrats...if the vote were held to day, J. F. Kerry would probably win the keys to the White House.
QUOTE
Whether the funds were never contributed for "anyone's personal use," witness the problems it will cause and the resultant uproar when it becomes unavailable to those who have contributed to the fund all of their working lives.
Don't know members' ages, but I can tell you that almost every Presidential election year, the old fear maneuver about Social Security and Medicare going bust has been threatened almost as many times as the sages have predicted the world was coming to an end! I grew up listening to this tripe and I am 62 years old and used to believe it. Somehow or other, our elected officials on both sides of the aisle always manage to get the crucial problems fixed for another decade or two. These are worn out fear tactics by the Democrats aimed at seniors in hopes of getting their votes to save their social security from being ripped out of their hands by the Republicans. The sad part about it is that it works no matter how many election years it has been floated around, and our senior citizens are the recipients of cruel political buffoonery/exploitation. The agenda to implement programs in which the rich would sacrifice a percentage or all of their Social Security has been debated and kicked around for decades as I remember listening to round table discussions about ten or fifteen years ago on PBC. And, while some may balk about the sacrifice, there are many of our wealthy and almost sinful wealthy officials/representatives complaining about tax cuts for the wealthy that could participate in "I Don't Need My SS" and/or "I Don't Need My Tax Cut" pilot programs for starters. Can't recall hearing a news flash about the wealthy senators who scream outrage about "tax cuts for the wealthy" turning back their tax credit checks to the SENDER.
So, cheer up Democrats...if the vote were held to day, J. F. Kerry would probably win the keys to the White House.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 10 2004, 03:44 PM)
So, cheer up Democrats...if the vote were held to day, J. F. Kerry would probably win the keys to the White House.
I have issues with this statement.
George W. Bush only recently started running ads. Up until a few weeks ago, the media was exclusively focused on the Democratic field. I think we all realize how powerful media coverage can be.
Kerry is a relative unknown at this point in the race, to his benefit. Once the Bush campaign begins to focus on Kerry's voting record, the results of any straw poll will change.
Also, the vote isn't going to be held tomorrow, and I doubt most people have solidified their decision at this point. They will swing over to Bush, back to Kerry, back and forth until the election.
Also, major events are brewing in the world. The outcome of those events will most likely determine the election results. The capture of Osama, a huge outbreak of terrorist attacks, or even the employment rate are all big unknowns. Any one of these issues could be a huge swing in the election results.
Polls at this point in the race at less than worthless.
Yes, Kerry would win if the vote were today. But how much does that mean? At this point in the race, the elder Bush was 17 points behind Dukakis. I think I agree with Safire: the election won't be at all close. Either Bush or Kerry will win by 7-10 points, depending on world events and campaign strategies. If Bush is successful in defining Kerry as vacillating and too liberal, which he has a short window of opportunity to do, he'll win big. If he can't, then Kerry will win big. Close is the only result that would surprise me.
And me? I'll vote Libertarian Party unless my state, Washington, is in play on election day. If it is, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush. And if it is, since Gore won WA by a large margin in 2000, it probably means Bush wins anyway.
And me? I'll vote Libertarian Party unless my state, Washington, is in play on election day. If it is, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush. And if it is, since Gore won WA by a large margin in 2000, it probably means Bush wins anyway.
Since we know that John Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, I am closing this poll. Feel free to open another with more specific candidates.
Thank you all for participating...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.