Bush/Kerry: Who Won?

[Bun-kun]

Originally Posted by DekaMaster

sure vote for the green party and waste your vote. When you vote for him you might as well smile and say YES I VOTED FOR BUSH as that is where your vote is going. Nader is a piece of shit. He doesn't give a rats ass about being president he just wants attention and the money he would get if he got a certain percentage of the vote. he didn't even campaign until the very end. So you go ahead and vote for Bush erm Nader. or better yet stay home and don't vote at all.

lol you've totally misread Umbrae's post. He's calling for a more democratic race than a 2 party election. We understand that if we would vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, why did you think Bill Mahr and Michael Moore begged Nader not to run. Umbraes makes a valid point of choosing lesser of two evil, and Kerry IMO is the lesser of 2 evil. It's kinda unfair to us American to be force feed the 2 candidates, that or we're just stuborn or just plain ignorant of what other party are out there. <shrug>

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by Bun-kun

lol you've totally misread Umbrae's post. He's calling for a more democratic race than a 2 party election. We understand that if we would vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, why did you think Bill Mahr and Michael Moore begged Nader not to run.

Got down on their knees and begged him not to run even!

Originally Posted by Bun-kun

Umbraes makes a valid point of choosing lesser of two evil, and Kerry IMO is the lesser of 2 evil. It's kinda unfair to us American to be force feed the 2 candidates, that or we're just stuborn or just plain ignorant of what other party are out there. <shrug>

Exactly, runoff voting would be a lot more fair and give smaller political parties a voice in government where today they are shut out unless they can manage a large enough voice that one of the two main candidates takes notice and starts campaigning for their causes. One of the biggest fears in the drafting of the Constitution was the injustice that often came about because of democracies. A majority tends to do what they want, rather than do what is truely fair and just. Just take a look at some of the injusticies that used to be popular in the United States (slavery, treatment of Native Americans, women's rights). Today gay marriage is being pretty much ignored by both candidates because it's such a political suicide issue. To come out for or against it (though how Bush could be anymore against it I have no idea) would alienate them from that seductive moderate target voter. A third candidate could give these kinds of groups a voice in their government.

[Sugetsu]

Did anyone post this already? I hope not. It is a very funny parody about these two candidates

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...-up-madtv.html

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Did anyone post this already? I hope not. It is a very funny parody about these two candidates

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...-up-madtv.html

Liked it, particularly that bit where he goes back on a statement after listening to a "device" in his ear. Gotta say I prefer SNL over MadTV though. MadTV relies on the kinda annoying characters that I tend to hate on SNL (the catholic school girl, the one they're doing now that always says depressing things, the stupid monkey guy...etc etc)

[MidoriShinobi]

I think the last was a tie. Both came off as respectable, and I didn't find myself loathing Bush.
He came off as a good person, but not a good president, and that's what we need.

[JOJOS'STAR]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Did anyone post this already? I hope not. It is a very funny parody about these two candidates

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...-up-madtv.html

That was sooo funny Irakistan!!!!

Originally Posted by midorishinobi

He came off as a good person, but not a good president, and that's what we need

What do you mean? we need a person or a good president?

I think we need both ^^

[Sanjuronord]

Once again, Kerry supporter so read with skepticism:

Think Kerry did a better job of staying on topic. Affirmative action, Bush goes off on economy and education all cultimating in: something about more african american owned small businesses...did he mean more self-owned and started businesses? Did they not discriminate against themselves? Also as Kerrry showed in the second debate, the Republicans have a very strange definition of "small business owners". Do these African Americans know they own small businesses?

I think Kerry said more on outsourcing in that he at least had one instance where he planned to do something about it. Bush just didn't seem to see it as a problem and butchered his answer to that question (particularly the way it was phrased) if you ask me.

SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. Two minutes. And let's continue on jobs.

You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college

Telling an individual that the economy is growing doesn't do much to console him that he just lost his job to outsourcing. Telling him to go get an education does little to help either I don't think; certainly no indication that his new job won't go the same way as his old one. Also he assumes the person didn't already have an education, not everybody can get the job they trained for immediately.

Abortion was just a repeat of last debate, Bush still won't say yes or no to the question. Just the "lithmus test" response.

Religion influences on political decisions was another question. Think Kerry made a better distinction (though depending on where you stand that may not be a good thing). Made it clear that no matter how strong his religious belief that doesn't mean he's gonna push for legislation promoting his beliefs opposed to others(if my wording makes any sense). Now Bush didn't come off as the complete religious nutbag he's made out to be but there were bits where I think his answers were intentionally kept vague enough to cover both bases (smart move but less honest).

Gay marriage was easily Kerry's from the moment George opened his mouth. Saying that you're not sure if being gay is a choice or not should be enough to bury him on the issue but it unfortunately won't. Also I think his own stance/rhetoric makes no sense. He doesn't think marriage should be defined by "judges in the courts at a state level". He thinks it should be decided by a lone man in the oval office (him!).

I'd have liked to see Kerry bring up stem cell research and think the moderator was pretty foolish to leave out a question about that rather than that silly (oh god don't any women/girls attack me on this) strong women in their lives question. Sure Kerry got to tell us about how he married a billionare; but we go from strong political leaders, to sad sappy emotional men, and back to strong political leaders. Felt very odd...

I think Kerry "won" the debate in that he was more specific in his answers and laid out clearer beliefs but that may actually hurt him. Bunch of these topics are controversial and Bush is taking the smarter stance of trying to be all things to all people.

[Green²]

Spoiler for And in the end,..:

[GustaveElazul]

~truncated~

[Umbrae]

Sory for the delay. I of course working nights cannot watch the debates live. and have to make time when I am alone to do it (since people I live with hate politics).

I must say, both did come off quite well. Personaly I do belive kerry did better in this one. Due to staying on track more, and some of bushes answers scarred me.

"I belive god wants all people to be free. That does influance my foriegn policy."

Bad bad bad answer. Especialy in a country that was one of the first to truly setup religious freedom. I particulary dislike his choice of words "spread freedom". Which he used multiple times. Freedom should be somthing people can see, and pursue, or embrace. Not somthing akin to a disease that we infest or spread to other cultures.

Many will argue that bush did not mean what he said. He is not a teribly articulate person. Unfortunatly effective communication is IMEPRITIVE for the president to have. If he cannot effectivly communicate with the natives of his own country that speak his language effectivly. What is going to happen or has happend when translators get ahold of his message?


As for what I meant for 3rd party voting. Yes, you will waste your vote. For many years you will waste your vote. For many years Martin luther king was wasting his voice on deaf ears. As was were most all effective non violent leaders that challanged popular opinion.

As for Nader. Nader only started running this year after reciving mass ammounts of requests to do so. He was planning on staying out of the race. Personaly I think he should have. If that many people truly wanted him to run, they could do a write in for president. But given the current political situation, and that his political party has a nominee, he should not encurage voting for him. But yea your right, Nader is a self centerd pice of shit. He just wants more money to spend on selfesh ideals like, consumer reports. What a fucker. Jeeze he sounds like the kind of guy to use his brother to rig an election in some state, or fiddle while the twin towers burned. Oh and by the way, you realize Nader is running on the independan ticket this year, not the green party? David Cobb is the green party presidental nominee.

But honestly, We need more than one party, and we need all votes to be counted equaly. Currently based off the 2000 elections.

Wyoming Voter Elegible Population: 360,751 - Total votes 221,685 (61% of VEP)
California Voter Elegible Population: 19,685,241 - Total Votes 11,142,843 (57% of VEP)

Wyoming has 3 Electorial votes
California has 55 electorial votes
Thus if all of the people who could vote did

WY 120,250 per Electorial seat.
CA 357,913 per Electorial seat.

Basicly WY votes are worth 33% of CA votes, if every one elegiable votes.

Based off 2000 elections.

WY 73,895 Per Electorial seat
CA 202,597 Per Electorial seat

So in 2000 each person in WY was worth 36% of a CA person when figuring who the president would be.

That is not right. Sure, beeing a CA native, and living thier currently I do not mind having my voice valued. Yet it should carry no more value than any other person in the US. At least not when voting for president.

Vote for a change in the system. This election many hold the ideals to valuable. With a current war on, that is fully understandable. Soon, please this needs to change. We need the values we hold dear, freedom and equality to be true.

Yes I realize that the figures I listed are oposite what I listed before, some one pointed out I based my previous figures off state population. Not elagible voters per state, which almost reverses the figures. . . odd. Although, the electorial votes stay the same no matter what the voter turn out, so if by some odd fate of chance, only one person in CA voted, and the electorial colledge all voted based off that one, his vote is the most valued in the nation, as his single vote was worth 20% of the votes needed to elect a president (270 electorial votes needed).