| Author |
Message |
    
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 218
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:50 pm: |     |
What issues and factors are most important to you as you determine who will get your vote?
Here are mine:
1. Leadership ability
2. Experience governing
3. The Economy
4. National Defense
5. Homeland Security
6. Foreign policy
7. Education
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
ABB |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 422
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
1. Anyone but Bush |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 529
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
If the Democrats nominate a can of SPAM, I'd vote for it. |
court07040
Citizen
Username: Court07040
Post Number: 38
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
Even though he's been thoroughly trounced in the primaries so far, I really think the dems best chance would be with edwards. In my opinion, there's no way Kerry gets elected. The way I see it, Northern Liberals will vote straight line democrat, no matter who the candidate is - so it isn't necessary that the democratic nominee be from the north. The problem is that the southerners won't vote for a rich yankee. |
Crazyguggenheim
Citizen
Username: Crazyguggenheim
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Call me crazy, but I'll vote for whoever likes the same tv shows as me - Arrested Development and The Simpsons
Call me crazy |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2862
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 11:24 pm: | |
GWB wouldn't have fared well in Sylad's categories, even the first time he ran for President. |
jeffl
Citizen
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 347
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
KERRY/EDWARDS in 2004. That ticket gives me hope. I think this may be thread drift. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 924
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Sylad, what is the difference between national defense and homeland security? I would probably lump them together.
My foremost consideration is where the candidate stands on issues that matter to me: defense, energy, environment, education, separation of church & state, and economy -- roughly in that order.
Beyond the candidate's stance on issues, I look for a track record of being effective, having integrity, keeping promises, and being accountable, transparent, well-spoken, and extremely well-informed. If a score for each of these qualities was given, I think George W. Bush would have one of the lowest total scores of any president.
I am disgusted by those who discount a candidate because of trivialities like height, hairstyle, or the appearance of their spouse.
I want a candidate who understands that quality of life doesn't have (or at least shouldn't have) much to do with wealth, and works competently and diligently to improve the quality of life for all Americans. While our economy is capitalist, our government should be utterly humanist. Every child in this country should be able to grow up in a clean, safe environment, and be well-nourished physically, mentally, and emotionally before choosing a path into the world as an adult. We've got a long way to go.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 221
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Notehead---I segment how the departments are segmented, DOD and Homeland Security. Perhaps I should have just up Defense. Regardless...glad to see your opinion. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Homeland Security is different in that it concerns itself with aliens who are on our territory for legal and illegal reasons. This function has bipartisan support.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 969
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
Notehead says: "I am disgusted by those who discount a candidate because of trivialities like height, hairstyle, or the appearance of their spouse."
I agree, but the reality is that those who follow and think at all about politics have already made up their minds as to how they are going to vote. I doubt if there are all but a handfull who are really "undecided" or might change their mind between now and election day. And these folks are about evenly split pro and anti Bush. The election will be decided by the people who today would find it difficult to tell you Kerry's first name or where he comes from, and might not even remember that Bush is from Texas. They won't even focus on the election until a week or so before election day, and when they make up their minds are likely to do so on the basis of some fleeting image of the candidates or some trivial issue or concern.
Joe Scarborough, a conservative pundit on Hardball, got it about right. He said the election will be decided by those who are more focused on Janet Jackson than on Bush, Kerry, Dean, etc. and that they are the same people who voted for Reagan twice and also for Clinton twice, which drives those of us who think about politcs nuts.
It's not the war or the economy, stupid:
IT'S THE STUPIDITY STUPID! |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:25 pm: | |
I agree about Edwards. But in my eyes Kerry's odds to beat bush are growing -- look how stupidly the administration and the rightwing are handling issues. They are pouncing on Kerry for being in a photograph with a celebrity who opposed a war that most people now oppose. A war, nevermind, that he fought in. When the anti-Kerry people do that, they make themselves look ridiculous. They'd do better to play up the rich, New England liberal thing.
On a related note, is anyone else feeling utterly incensed about this gay marriage debate? I am so sick of hateful arguments about the sacredness of marriage. Our country wants to codify discrimination into the constitution. Ugh.
|
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1963
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:37 am: | |
Kerry, who is even more liberal and leftist than Ted Kennedy, will never beat Bush. Kerry was in bed with Jane. I am kind of fonda Jane, but not her sorry politics or her rich husband. She aided and abetted the enemy. Kerry's support for the Vietnam War and later reversal, set the precident for his later flip flops. And yes, Kerry is a rich New England liberal thing. And he married an heiress who has sent money to terrorists. The Democrat Party is so sick that Extreme leftist wacko Dean temporarily made Kerry look normal. Now that Kerry is the front runner in the Democrat Demolition Derby, he will be revealed for what he is.
On an unrelated note, is anyone else feeling utterly incensed about this gay "marriage" debate? I am so sick of liberal arguments about the sacredness of "gay marriage". The democrats in San Francisco are marrying people in violation of their state constitution. Ugh.
Ed May |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
What sorts of policies has Kerry pushed to make him a severe liberal?
As for Fonda and the rich wife, sounds like you get your news from sound bites. And why doesn't Bush's money matter as much as Kerry's?
No, I'm not incensed about the gay marriage debate. I think we will look back at this time and see how people resisted an idea whose time had come. Interracial marriages were clearly wrong, according to society's intuitions, yet the time had come, and we look back and shake our heads at the people who opposed it.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
quote:Kerry's support for the Vietnam War and later reversal, set the precident for his later flip flops.
Read that again Ed, and rethink the veracity of your comment. The man fought in the war, dutybound and proud, and GASP came to believe that the war was unjust. That is the kind of FLIP FLOP I would desperately love to see our current POTUS acknowledge...about any issue. You see it as waffling.. many see it as growth and strength to admit that the war was a failure and killing thousands unnecessarily. You may take Kerry to task for other decisions, but you should not take issue with his stance on the war in Vietnam. As for the Fonda "connection".. that is such HORSESH*T as to be laughable. They both attended an event. Period. If you look at the whole crowd there that day my guess is there are plenty of people whose politics you approve of now in that crowd then, only the camera angles weren't as favorable.
Alls Well That Ends Well. Playing through March 7. info at http://www.hometown.aol.com/theatr1010/ |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
A lot of people initially supported the war, and later reversed themselves. The list of these people includes Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Walter Cronkite and Robert McNamara. "Flip-flopping" on an issue is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, that is, unless you feel that you knew everything you ever needed to know by the time you were 21.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page