Topic: Times are a changin' (Read 2456 times)

carab · « **on:** September 30, 2004, 09:07:51 AM »

Alright so heres the deal...

This being my first year of voting i want to make it count. I have been super uber confused with the election and who to vote for. Asking for advice certainly didnt help because people cannot talk about politics while staying impartial. ESPECIALLY NOT PARENTS! The only person that inteligently knew what he was talking about while still remaining impartial *which i think is partly because HE doesnt even know who hes gonna vote for) is sean. Definitly a smart cookie. So anyways, I just had a massive discussion with my sociology professor the other day about the election and voting and what not... and i have come to some conclusions:

1) As over-stated as it is the fact that 18-20'something year olds need to vote this year and make it count because this election effects them... us, is TRUE.
2) My sociology professor is awesome
3) Michael Moore isn't really all that crazy, he's just not afraid to tell what he thinks. I recommend reading "Dude, Where's My Country?"
4) I am still confused about who to vote for.

And really i know its a personal choice but i have a question: Do republicans and democrats only vote for their party? Are some so blind to their own party that they just see the title and not the issues. I refuse to vote for kerry just because i do not agree with Bush. I need better reasons than that. Does anyone know of a website where both bush and kerry's stances on issues are listed? Is there another running person (besides nader) that isnt being publicised? Where's Mr. Dunklau when you need him. lol Any help or information is gladly welcomed... no matter what party you belong to. =) Thanks a bunch, Cara :D

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2004, 09:13:06 AM »

Yes where is that Sean guy....

I'll get back to this later. I've got to get to work right now, though. Glad to see you again. :)

Heretic · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2004, 10:39:43 AM »

The Sasquatch for President!

carab · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2004, 10:49:49 AM »

I don't know if that would go over so well. lol The PETA's would probably like it...

nrthsll · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:15:02 PM »

Both candidates have a website that states their position(s). You can do a search and it will come right up. Thinking it's www.georgebush.com and www.johnkerry.com.

Le's see.

1. Yes you need to vote.
2. No, not all candidates always vote strictly for their party. Often you will see a democrat senator vote republican or vice versa. Even presidents will do things that are decidedly NOT their own party's politics. For instance, GW has signed laws that are peeving of plenty-o republican voters.

I've looked at both candidates website and something I've noticed is Kerry has all of these big ideas on what he wants to do with no explanation on how on earth he's going to accomplish it. Kinda like the kid who ran for class president who said he was gonna get a swimming pool and a soft drink machine outside of every classroom.

I wish we had a better pool of candidates. I don't really like either one.

jason · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:54:10 PM »

Quote from: nrthsll

I wish we had a better pool of candidates. I don't really like either one.

i second that emotion.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:54:10 PM »

Cool, Harry. Cool!

And for my first act as President of the United States of America I will decree that Paris Hilton will go stand next to the crater of Mt. St. Helens. Concordantly, all the paparazzi and news media that have overemphasized shlock entertainment will flock the site. Just then, I will have our entire nuclear arsenal dropped into Mt. St. Helens and we will no longer have to worry about nuclear war, stupid journalists, or Paris Hilton.

How you like me now!

/Sasquatch 2004...waste your vote on me this November (because nobody really likes Nader and the other two yahoos are just as worthless)

jason · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:55:14 PM »

Quote from: The Sasquatch

....and we will no longer have to worry about nuclear war, stupid journalists, or Paris Hilton.

or the entire pacific northwest, for that matter

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:55:35 PM »

The PETA's would probably like it

My second act as President would be to use the members of PETA as human shields for our next incursion to a Middle Eastern Country.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:56:37 PM »

or the entire pacific northwest, for that matter
Bah! It's always raining there anyway.

nrthsll · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2004, 03:11:02 PM »

Why not use them as a human shield at Mt. Van Halen? You know...to deter your own nuclear strike. Make it look like your trying to stop a tragedy that is...well...of your own making.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2004, 01:14:46 AM »

I want to pretend that I have a foreign policy!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2004, 08:30:25 AM »

Alright, here is my answer to this question.

I think that it really boils down to how deeply you believe we are in a war with terror. Along with that sentiment, how much you believe we are still at risk- and not just any risk, but serious risk.

People that I've talked to seem to fit on a spectrum, where if you believe that we face a serious catastrophic terroristic threat against a potent enemy, you will vote for Bush. The less you feel that way, on a sliding scale, the more you will vote for Kerry.

This is why a number of prominent Democrats/liberals have been supportive of President Bush against their party: Zell Miller, Joe Liebermann, Tony Blair. I'm not saying that they have all bailed on their party, only that they view the war on terror with all seriousness and agree with the President's response to it.

In my opinion, those in favor of other priorities on the domestic front may be sincere, but in my opinion are out of touch with reality. Its all fine and dandy to care about our economy or whatever, but these things won't matter if we are dead. And I do not think that is hyperbole (or not much, anyway). The situation is worse then I think even the Bush Admin is letting on.

nrthsll · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2004, 12:20:48 PM »

Which is why I'll vote for Bush. Even though he became a spineless pandering weiner on the domestic front, he started his 1st term attempting to get reelected immedialtly after taking office, and it seems he's become his father....no real campaign for re-election. Still...nothing could be more devestating to this country at this point in time than John Kerry in office. Bush better re-learn to debate. Quick-like. Last few interviews I saw with him...he couldn't answer a question. Missed the debates last night. Fell asleep.

*sigh*

TheDoctor · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2004, 02:33:24 PM »

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2004, 03:17:03 PM »

Hey, let's look at what issues that would be especially important to younger voters (which is seems is the case here). What I would like to touch on is Social Security. This is a very important issue because Social Security is set to run out of money between 2035 and 2045. This means those younger than 25 will be putting money into Social Security but will get $0.00 out of Social Security.

Bush has a plan, although I'm not sure how good of a plan. He wants to privitize social security. The problem with this is the transition costs from how Social Security is run today to individual ownership of what each person puts into social security. The cost is estimated at around $1 trillion (Dobbs, U.S. News, 09/13/2004). My best guess is that this would require benefit cuts (not neccesarily bad, just noting that Bush hasn't said anything about that yet).

However, that's better than Kerry, who only tells us what he won't do. He won't cut benefits, he won't raise taxes, he won't raise the retierment age, and he won't privitize Social Security. I don't think it is possible to rule out all those options and do much to save Social Security. Kerry has said he will save it, but hasn't presented a plan, and I don't think he can present a plan that saves Social Security and is in line with his promises about what he won't do.

The bigger problem here is that I don't think either candidate will really talk about Social Security during the rest of this campaign. Kerry can't come up with a plan that will keep all his promises and Bush won't make the political gamble of telling seniors he will cut their benefits. That means every working American under the age of 24 is getting screwed out of his money that's going to Social Security.

Of course, that's just my take.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2004, 05:59:45 PM »

Hey, I thought nuclear proliferation and potent missile defense were the top priorities in the next four years. That's what Bush said, anyway.

nothing could be more devestating to this country at this point in time than John Kerry in office

President Kennedy! That would be worse.

/I nominate Fuss to be the President of Funk

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2004, 06:57:48 PM »

"Hey, I thought nuclear proliferation and potent missile defense were the top priorities in the next four years. That's what Bush said, anyway."

Kerry used the 'nuclear proliferation' language. The President borrowed it in the context of WMD. But he made especially certain to clarify 'in the hands of a terrorist network.' That is what Bush said.

nrthsll · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2004, 11:22:55 AM »

Kennedy can be controlled...with a 5th of Johnny Walker, a realatively unknown woman a car and a bridge on a deserted road. He'd be so tied up burrying responsibility that he'd be a non-factor.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2004, 03:12:39 PM »

I need to decline the nomination as President of Funk, I'm just not funky enough. Although I guess I qualify as a white boy who can play funky music...anyway, that's off topic...but so is so much of the other stuff in this thread, so I've decided that I think we should get back on topic. What other issues are important to the younger generations?

Author Topic: Times are a changin' (Read 2456 times)