TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- explain to me
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

explain to me

I am sure that I will get flamed for this, but I really want to know:

Why would people vote for Bush? I am sure that a couple of you fellas here have and I would like to know why. Please help me understand.

Lack of education???

Man, this must really suck for you guys.

Not only did we re-elect Bush, but he got the largest popular vote total in history.

most common excuse I've heard is security ...

wtf security?

He cut funding for firemen police in the country; voted for pay cuts for the military etc etc

We are not safe


What an ignorant land we live in.

Loss of jobs, costs of living going up, education of children seriously in doubt with school closings etc

At an all time crisis but thank God we're "safe"


I honestly feel like moving back in with the parents in France

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Man, this must really suck for you guys. Not only did we re-elect Bush, but he got the largest popular vote total in history.

Bush was only elected because - yet again - he managed to win by a miniscule margin in a single swing state. Victory on the back of what constitutes 0.1% of the total vote hardly demonstrates a ringing endorsement for the mantra of fear and ignorance your candidate ran on.

Both major candidates were a joke.

People voted for Bush because of the same reasons they voted for Kerry (with the proper changes.):
-They are Republican and vote a straight ticket
-Their spouse/child/friend told them to vote for Bush
-They liked Bush's political ads the most
-They were swayed by any one of the biased news outlets of America (There is NO unbiased political news in our country).
-They researched the issues and found themselves more in agreement with Bush than any other candidate

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Bush was only elected because - yet again - he managed to win by a miniscule margin in a single swing state. Victory on the back of what constitutes 0.1% of the total vote hardly demonstrates a ringing endorsement for the mantra of fear and ignorance your candidate ran on.

I understand what your saying, put in Order for him to win y a small portion he still had to get those initial 252 seat. that means alot of states. I don't understand why any state other the texas, missouri, alabama and a few other hick state that have no democratic hope in hell would vote for him. I mean common. What is wrong with ppl

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Bush was only elected because - yet again - he managed to win by a miniscule margin in a single swing state. Victory on the back of what constitutes 0.1% of the total vote hardly demonstrates a ringing endorsement for the mantra of fear and ignorance your candidate ran on.

What are you talking about???

Bush won Ohio by nearly 2%:

OH - President
100% Precincts Reporting
George W. Bush (i) Republican 2,794,346 (51%) 20
John F. Kerry Democrat 2,658,125 (49%) 0
Michael Badnarik Independent 14,125 (0%) 0
Michael Peroutka Independent 11,606 (0%) 0

source: http://www.foxnews.com/youdecide2004/races.html?OH

quote:

Originally posted by jdat most common excuse I've heard is security ... wtf security?

The irony is that those most in danger of being attacked by terrorists (i.e. in the major cities like New York, Chicago, LA etc.) voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. I mean, how the fuck can people living in rural, GOP-voting Wyoming consider the threat of terrorism to be an issue in their voting decision at all? I mean, what do they actually have over that way that al Qaeda are going to put any effort into blowing up?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What are you talking about??? Bush won Ohio by nearly 2%

There were 115 million votes cast. Bush is currently winning Ohio by 130,000 votes. Therefore, he has won the election:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade on the back of what constitutes 0.1% of the total vote

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade There were 115 million votes cast. Bush is currently winning Ohio by 130,000 votes. Therefore, he has won the election:

That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. If you're talking about total votes cast, Bush won by some 4 million popular votes--and he won the majority of the popular vote--something that even Bill Clinton could never do.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. If you're talking about total votes cast, Bush won by some 4 million popular votes--and he won the majority of the popular vote--something that even Bill Clinton could never do.

Yea I'm glad he did.

If anything this will stop those radicals who want to change the voting system to a popular system just so foreigners and idiots can follow because it will be "simple".

The electorial system in America is genius, it produces almost always good results. Keep it that way.

Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote

They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Yea I'm glad he did. If anything this will stop those radicals who want to change the voting system to a popular system just so foreigners and idiots can follow because it will be "simple". The electorial system in America is genius, it produces almost always good results. Keep it that way.

that's a load pf crap. The electoral system in the states sucks. it produces tons of errors, and doesn't represent the country as a hole.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates.

As the system is setup some states can chose to do this is they want.

It is just telling that some states are not. Colorado had a proposition for just such a system, it was voted down with a very good sized majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_B that's a load pf crap. The electoral system in the states sucks. it produces tons of errors, and doesn't represent the country as a hole.

It does repersent the country as a whole thats the point.
It repersent the whole land - including the hick infested territories you like to call the "Red states".

The fact that some states are incompetent in counting votes is of no merit - a national election system would similarly be as incompetent. At least local errors are localized and are easy to take care of.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates.

now that makes more sence.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus As the system is setup some states can chose to do this is they want. It is just telling that some states are not. Colorado had a proposition for just such a system, it was voted down with a very good sized majority.

Thats because opponents portrayed it as "eliminating the electoral system." Proportional representation is not elimination of the electoral college. It is simply tweaking it to allow for more fair representation in the ultimate vote count.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_B now that makes more sence.

Maybe you shouldve voted for Nader

but Nader nor the Green party or the republican or the Democrat party make any sense for that matter :P look at Kerr.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. If you're talking about total votes cast, Bush won by some 4 million popular votes--and he won the majority of the popular vote--something that even Bill Clinton could never do.

I have to agree with you that the victory of the Bush campaign is pretty big. Furthermore, the reports on seats in congress seem to indicate a further tilt in the direction of the republicans by the US voters. Add to that the fact that the Bush administration has pulled the republican party far to the right, and I think that it is fair to talk about a shift in attitude of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Man, this must really suck for you guys.

It's a sad day indeed. However, as a European I see it as a wake-up call for Europe: In the last four years we have drifted away from the US, having seen values such as unconditional loyalty and patriotism on the rise in the US, while other values such as reason and cooperation have dwindled away. I see it not only in the actions of the Bush administration but also in the posts of right wingers in this forum, US citizens I speak to in relation to work, and in debates I watch on tv. The election last night has shown that this development appears to continue, and that the disaster election in 2000 was not a singleton.
When I hear or read the opinions of right wingers on this board, or see them argue on tv, I feel that I am facing a different kind of species. One which is far removed from my experiences, and which I cannot communicate very well with. I see something I would call madness. Such people cannot be reasoned with, and I think that it is futile to try to do so. I think as Europeans we should be consequent and lessen our dealings with the US and focus on developing more tires with saner parts of the world. A nice first step on that road, would be to let Turkey into the EU. And then let the US sail its own course.

^^^ I would say that you are exactly right in that assessment trancaholic. I tried to explore the mentality of Bush supporters in this thread that I posted a while ago (fortunately it received a much more enthusiastic response on a different board that I frequent ):

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=218210

I know it's bad to generalise, but there is genuinely something peculiar about that portion of Americans who voted red in 2004. Perhaps the rest of the world should grant them their wish and leave them the hell alone?

i don't understand either...

only "reasons" i've heard are:

*he prays one hour every morning, and his decisions are inspired by that
*he's religious, that makes him a lot more honnest
*he talks with simple words




we share your pain "non-ignorant-americans"...

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Thats because opponents portrayed it as "eliminating the electoral system." Proportional representation is not elimination of the electoral college. It is simply tweaking it to allow for more fair representation in the ultimate vote count. Maybe you shouldve voted for Nader

im canadian. i can't vote . But in our election i did vote for a 3rd party and although in my conscription(riding county what ever) that party didn't win. Canada does have a very different system then the state and we have 4 major Party's in parliment(congress) So its give us alot more choise, and represent the regions alot better then that US system does

It strikes me that as long as you refer to the majority of Americans as ignorant, you risk alienating that majority, which certainly won't help you out in future elections. Way to reach out.

quote:

Originally posted by Romain i don't understand either... only "reasons" i've heard are: *he prays one hour every morning, and his decisions are inspired by that *he's religious, that makes him a lot more honnest *he talks with simple words we share your pain "non-ignorant-americans"...

i agree, he appeals to lazy and simple minds.

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