TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Vote Bush/Chenny 04!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Vote Bush/Chenny 04!

Time to place your bets, put your name and vote down, who here believes Bush will win 04?

When the winner comes out we can see how horribly wrong some of us were and others were not.



Let the voting begin.. and the flames start a fire!

It's wayyyyyyyyyy too early to call especially since we don't even know who the democratic opponent to Bush is yet. I'm actually a bit jaded with both of the two main parties, and am starting to lean more towards libertarian thinking. I think that would probably be throwing a vote away though. Sadly in US politics, it's all about money and how much media influence you can buy with that money. I'd say the Republicans have the clear advantage in this area since their constituents are mostly wealthy and pro-business (at the cost of everything else), but the point is, most of the money is tied up in these two main parties which are often only marginally representative of their constituency.

This is one of the main reasons why I wouldn't vote GOP as much as the democrats displease me:

quote:

the segregationist nostalgia by incoming Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party

Too bad I'm not "Aryan."

Well on second thought, I'll go out on a limb here and say Al Sharpton wins by 10 electoral college votes after Rush Limbaugh throws him his support after being released from prison (where he meets some great new "friends") on drug charges. Remember millions of people get their fair & balanced news from Rush, so they'd all be sure to go out and support Al; the next Jesus!

I think the democrats are gonna win, since the Iraqi situation is getting worse every day, and people are sooner or later gonna realize that a huge amount of money has been pumped into that war. Besides, Bush's support is steadily dropping. Maybe it's time to start another war to get the popularity rating back up again?

Oh, on a side note, who do you think will win croatian elections? Ha, now I got you thinking!

i can't wait to see Bush announcing he found WMD in Iraq one month before the votes start

It scares me to think what will happen if George W. Bush et al get re-elected at the next election.

Every day that Bush is in power, USA's image is being tarnished in the eyes of people all around the world. Believe me, its true.

quote:

Originally posted by Vigilante It scares me to think what will happen if George W. Bush et al get re-elected at the next election. Every day that Bush is in power, USA's image is being tarnished in the eyes of people all around the world. Believe me, its true.

It doesn't take brain surgery to figure that out

But the election s a year away and anything can happen.

I will do my best to see that he does not get re-elected but I am not Krescan.

MrS

I am hoping that America is too appalled by Bush's tactics and the way he "takes care" of the country to re-elect him.

America is already going downhill with Bush, someone needs to take over.

quote:

I'm actually a bit jaded with both of the two main parties, and am starting to lean more towards libertarian thinking.

You're not the only one...

I think bush will win for two reasons.

1. A year is a looooong time to resurrect his image. He has already said he wants to transfer power sooner rather than later in Iraq and the economy and unemployment have actually shown signs of improvement. I still think the single most important think to an American is the economy and employment. If they aren't happy with that, there's no way he will be elected. Conversely so, if an American is happily employed, it takes a lot (foreign policy, etc.) to make them not vote for an encumbent president.


2. As of thus far, none of the democratic presidents with a "real" shot (i.e. not Sharpton), have shown any real charisma. If there's anything the Regans, Clintons and Bushs (Jr. at least) have shown us, is that Americans like a president with a little spunk. The democratic candidates are all shades of vanilla, and riding a Harley onto the set of the Tonight Show isn't going to help that Gore-tonian image. Unless one of the candidates shows themself to be little more than a career politician, they're not going to win.

You may have differing opinions, but I think this is how the "masses" act during an election.

You guys also should remeber, the US is not a democracy - its a republic. The popular vote does not make the president, the electorial vote does.

I believe in 04, Bush will take it just like in 00, he'll get the electorate, not the popular vote, and it will be close.

I think it will be an extremely close call between Bush and the Democratic candidate. But ultimately, depending on whether the economy continues to grow and if--a BIG IF--the U.S. military is able to tone down the on-going terrorism in Iraq, then I would imagine Bush will win. While there are many Americans who are increasingly angered and frustrated by what they perceive as the Bush Administration's failings, the fact does remain that Americans do feel threatened by terrorism and it cannot be said enough that 9-11 changed the way the average American views the need for a strong defense and an equally strong offense. If you speak to people in the U.S. you will find the vast majority harbor a great deal of fear--some relevant, some not so relevant--and because of this fear, the tendency is to take a somewhat reactionary stance in the face of adversity. Unfortunately, Democrats are perceived as being lax on defense. The average citizen's worry is that if America is hit by another terror attack, the Democrats will roll over and play dead rather than deal with the threat and neutralize the opportunity that it happens again. This is a major issue the Democratic Party will have to address to quell these concerns people have of them in order to give the Democrats a chance to win the Presidency. But due to the dynamic nature of terrorism and the American peoples' constant concern of being hit with another attack, I think Bush will win unless the economy tanks and/or the Sunni Triangle of Baghdad becomes more unstable and more soldiers are killed. Then, the White House is definitely in play and we could very well see a Democrat in power.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You guys also should remeber, the US is not a democracy - its a republic. The popular vote does not make the president, the electorial vote does. I believe in 04, Bush will take it just like in 00, he'll get the electorate, not the popular vote, and it will be close.

i think you may be right...
but another sign of Bush's victory is that fact that in the recent mid term elections a lot of republican senators, representitves and governers have been elected into office. this does show a trend of some kind.

Howard Dean, he's our man, if he can't do it...... we're screwed.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 [/b Oh, on a side note, who do you think will win croatian elections? Ha, now I got you thinking!

I think the Serbs are still real pissed about the US attacks on Croatia so I'm betting on the right wing nazi guy.

- I assume that the american people have gotten smarter, so I assume that Bush wont win!

I'll say team democrat. Once the rhetoric really starts flying from both sides, I'll say that there's no way Bush will be able to defend his record or his integrity. He simply cannot maintain his image as a straight speaking, simple, honest guy ... and therefore, what's his appeal?

Oh, and this of course is dependant upon who's going to lead team democrat ... and whether the dems can actually get their constitutents to muster the effort to vote.

IF the media stops kissing Bush Co.'s arse and actually has a more balanced coverage of both sides this time around, and IF the Dems. rally behind 1 person real soon, and IF that Dem. candidate equals out his attacks on Bush's failed policies with realistic solutions, then Bush will get his arse handed to him on a plate.

To be sure, other factors will be involved, but these are some I can think of off the top of my head.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Howard Dean, he's our man, if he can't do it...... we're screwed.

The fact that his home state is a small Northeastern one doesn't bode well for his chances. There hasn't been a democratic president from any state outside the South since Kennedy (Massachusetts) in 1960, and that was a very close election. Dean's recent remarks about the Confederate flag were well-meaning, but I'm sure they really missed the mark with Southerners.

To be honest, Wes Clark would have the best chance against Bush as he's a former general from a Southern state. He would give the South a good candidate to support and also those Americans paranoid about terrorism, but his lead has dropped quite a bit. He's also said that he will elect to only use public campaign financing. This will put him at a significant disadvantage since much of the public seems to be swayed by stupid TV ads. Well at the very least it gets your name out there, and Bush will have so much more money to barrage the airwaves with ads of him playing "dress up" on the aircraft carrier than Clark will.

I think a Dean/Clark ticket might be a winning one, and ultimately it's what I'm hoping for out of the current situation.

Just my thoughts.

:/

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i think you may be right... but another sign of Bush's victory is that fact that in the recent mid term elections a lot of republican senators, representitves and governers have been elected into office. this does show a trend of some kind.

Yes the democrats have been getting their assed kicked in the South lately. I attribute it to the rise of the right-wing media propaganda machine (listen to virtually any AM radio talk station in the country or Fox News & MSNBC), and also perhaps the recent supreme court rulings in support of affirmative action and the abolishment of sodomy laws. Two of the biggest tenets of the Christian Conservative movement are to abolish affirmative action, and to ban gays from achieving equal rights. The conservative movement uses these media sources to mobilize it's voting base, and thus you have the result of (for example) a war hero incumbent Senator whose legs and arm were blown of fighting for his country removed from office because he supported the removal of the confederate flag from the Georgia state flag. If anyone thinks that race doesn't play a factor in politics, or that it no longer makes a difference, they are being naive.


Personally I support affirmative action, but like Howard Dean and Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, I'd like to see more of an emphasis on those factors that lead minorities to have low college enrollment such as:

Poverty
Lack of educated parents
The status of the school (e.g. inner-city vs suburban)
Cultural trends that don't emphasise schooling
(As you can see this would circumvent race/ethnicity and apply to poor whites as well as Latinos, Blacks, and Native Americans).

Here is an example of what I'm talking about when I say "right-wing propaganda machine"

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

Michael Savage used to have a show on the cable news network MSNBC, though he was recently fired for being too extremist. He continues to have an AM talk radio show with millions of listeners however. I've watched his show before, and it made me feel sick to my stomach and also wonder how someone could be filled with so much hatred. I must admit he is at times amusing when he's not bashing minorities however.

Vote Dennis Kucinich!!!

Seriously though, I don't think the Clintons will let Dean win--it would make it too hard for Hillary to run in '08, which is why they've thrown so much support behind the puppet that is Wesley Clark.

Sharpton? HAHHAHAHAHA!!! I will rise above the urge to use a racial term to describe that worthless POS.

Lieberman? to much of a pussy, and unfortunately for him, he's Jewish, which turns a lot of people off (also unfortunate, but true). In all honesty, I'm not sure whether it's more difficult to be a Jewish nominee or a black nominee. Both are disadvantaged by race/ethnicity.

Kerry? I don't know much about him other than I have to look the other way when he's on camera. He's like a medusa--I'm afraid I'll turn to stone if I look directly at him.

Edwards? Seems like he's not vocal enough, and therefore just doesn't have the popularity to pull in enough support. I don't know much else about him other than he's from N.C.

What other jokers are running?

The way this could feasibly pan out is that a dark horse Democrat will win the nomination simply because the pack is too vast right now, and therefore the votes could be so fragmented that someone could win the nomination with 30% of the nominational vote. The dark horse candidate then may turn into a joke and Bush could win in a landslide, or he could lose. It is indeed to early to definitively know, though it's obvious that most people on this board don't like Bush for various reasons. He definitely has the upper hand, however. Democrats keep misstepping and losing little factions b/c they're too busy fighting with eachother.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You guys also should remeber, the US is not a democracy - its a republic. The popular vote does not make the president, the electorial vote does. I believe in 04, Bush will take it just like in 00, he'll get the electorate, not the popular vote, and it will be close.

I'm too pedantic to pass on this one


democracy vs. autocracy = state form (how is the "will" of the state formed? Based on the population or based on a single man or a little group - oligarchy)
republic vs. monarchy = government form (is it a presidential government, or is there a monarchg as the head of the country, unvotable and without time limit)
popular vote vs. electorical vote = both democratic measures of the deomnstratign the population's will.

Direct democracy = Athens where the people DIRECTLY made decision for the state.
INdirect /represantive democracy = the people only make one choice: Voting a representativ parliament that makes choices for them

the US is a democratic republic based on indirect democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sharpton? HAHHAHAHAHA!!! I will rise above the urge to use a racial term to describe that worthless POS. Lieberman? to much of a pussy, and unfortunately for him, he's Jewish, which turns a lot of people off (also unfortunate, but true). In all honesty, I'm not sure whether it's more difficult to be a Jewish nominee or a black nominee. Both are disadvantaged by race/ethnicity.

Thank you for proving my previous points. They may be to some extent generalizations, but they do have basis in reality.

quote:

Kerry? I don't know much about him other than I have to look the other way when he's on camera. He's like a medusa--I'm afraid I'll turn to stone if I look directly at him.

He might not be the best looking dude, but at least he was serving his country in Vietnam (whether you agree with that war or not) while Bush was busy getting drunk and skipping out on his duties in the Nat. Guard.

quote:

Bush definitely has the upper hand, however.

The incumbent almost always has the upper-hand.

quote:

Democrats keep misstepping and losing little factions b/c they're too busy fighting with eachother.

This is maybe the one thing that we can agree on hehe. The GOP seems to have much greater cohesion compared to the Democrats, and the candidacy and support for Arnold in California is evidence of this phenomenon. The GOP will tend to throw support behind a candidate who can win even if he/she doesn't share many of the GOP's core values. In fact, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the willingness to take it up the ass for mega-corporations are about the only views of Arnold that are aligned with the core of the GOP. The democrats, by contrast, seem to squabble amongst each other more, and their debates are often reminiscent of a circular firing squad.

Bring back the likes of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt I say (and then I'll vote Republican).

Rough Riders, baby! Before it was a condom brand!

DEAN

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You guys also should remeber, the US is not a democracy - its a republic. The popular vote does not make the president, the electorial vote does. I believe in 04, Bush will take it just like in 00, he'll get the electorate, not the popular vote, and it will be close.

- ?!?! I think Republic stands for democracy as well. As far as I know, the US is the only Republic that uses this flawless Electoral Vote. Its an old system used in the beginning, and in times like this, as the example of democratic country that this country is!.. it should use its popular vote. Its rediculous how every other country uses popular vote, and the US sends representatives to watch and make sure that everything goes right, while in our own home, this electoral vote bull crap is so flawless and yet corrupt.. no one is watching the US votings.. and in others countries, when there is a win ( was it by 500 votes that Bush won florida ? ).. such a close call like that, theres a re-vote.. thats what happens in every other democratic country, why not here?!?!.. psshh.. I dont buy that republic excuse for using electoral vote.. that has to be changed.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - ?!?! I think Republic stands for democracy as well. As far as I know, the US is the only Republic that uses this flawless Electoral Vote. Its an old system used in the beginning, and in times like this, as the example of democratic country that this country is!.. it should use its popular vote. Its rediculous how every other country uses popular vote, and the US sends representatives to watch and make sure that everything goes right, while in our own home, this electoral vote bull crap is so flawless and yet corrupt.. no one is watching the US votings.. and in others countries, when there is a win ( was it by 500 votes that Bush won florida ? ).. such a close call like that, theres a re-vote.. thats what happens in every other democratic country, why not here?!?!.. psshh.. I dont buy that republic excuse for using electoral vote.. that has to be changed.

Unfortunately a popular vote would not be in the best interests of the country with the way it is set up. Remember we are a federalist union of states rather than one large single body of power. At the federal level, we are NOT a democracy, in order to avoid a tyranny of the majority, a republic was adopted. At the state level, we have 50 democracies with individual powers. As such, there are clear lines of distinction as to what powers are given to the state and what powers are given to the federal government. In certain areas, federal powers cannot overrun state laws ... the reason why you see marijuana being decriminalized in several states despite the federal government being opposed it. The way our government is set up, is that a big centralized government is bad, whereas smaller local governments within each state would be more apt to fulfill the needs of its citizens. Which would you rather have, washington dictating your lifestyle according to the needs of what people in the 49 others states want, or what you and the people in your state alone want? The idea is to limit the authority the federal government has over you and over the states ... checks and balances.

That being said, each state is given electoral votes whose determination is determined by a popular votes of the states. Some smaller states are given a set number of electoral votes to give them a fair share in the determination of the leader of the union of states ... otherwise those states wouldn't have even opted to joint the union to begin with. If the nation were to cater to a popular vote, than that immediately disrupts the representation of all smaller states. All the power would immediately shift to the large population states ... namely California. In such a consolidation of power, what obligation would a presidential candidate have to fulfill the needs of ALL states (what the founding fathers intended) as opposed to the most populous states? Why not simply cater to the needs of California, Texas, the Northeast, and simply forget everyone else? In order to appease those states, attention will be given to the majority and since their needs are being met, they would continually draw from the populations of surrounding states whose needs are not being met.

I'm actually for the electoral college since I'm a proponent of state rights, and smaller federal government. The fact of the matter is, is that a study of the electoral processes was conducted by a team of about 40 political scientists who could not reach a concensus on a better alternative.

http://www.ur.ku.edu/News/02N/FebNews/Feb14/elect.html

However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that there could be changes made to the electoral college. For one, I would advocate proportional allocation of electoral votes. Rather than the popular vote of the state capturing ALL the state's electoral vote it should get a proportional majority of the electoral votes.

If you are a strong advocate of the popular vote, than you MUST be outraged at how in the 1960 election, Kennedy won through a clear majority of electoral votes (his 303 to Nixon's 219), while according to the popular vote Kennedy had received 49.7% as opposed to Nixon's 49.5%. Recount?

At any rate, I would have been all for a Florida recount IF a recount had been done in ALL states/counties where votes had been hotly contested, not just the 3 democrat counties in Florida ... sorry but that just doesn't cut the zionist mustard.

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 i can't wait to see Bush announcing he found WMD in Iraq one month before the votes start

I can see that happening. Its kind of hard for me to say who is going to win. Personally i don't give two shits who wins. by next year i'll be back in Canada and away from all this BS...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.