Get Your Vote On, 2004 Style!
 

A thread most of the way down the page (as I write this) asked people why they plan to vote for whoever they plan to vote for. However, the thread didn't include a poll tallying who people were voting for! So, please select whichever candidate you're most likely to vote for in 2004.

Discussion of the candidates and why you love, hate, or don't know anything about them is allowed. Arguing probably is too (so long as you don't piss off the mods).

Ahh the good old American vanity.

Somebody's gotta deserve all that praise and admiration.

Only, wait.... aren't we the country that elected Bush in 2000?

Shit. How do you change the poll options?

That's still questionable.

I'm voting Kerry, cause even though he sucks on the issues, and even though his whole campaign platform is "I ain't Bush", he ain't Bush.

And Nader has no chance. Vote for Nader's a vote for Bush.

You sure about that?

Lets see:

Lying about stuff... check
Generally high level of bullshit.... check
Acquired tons of money by means other than actually working for it..... check
Is clueless.... check
Calls the Kettle Black..... check
Wanted to go to war in Iraq..... check
Supported the much maligned Patriot Act.... check

Pfff... Old enough to drive, but not enough to vote? Who wrote these laws?!

Oh yeah, people shouldn't be voting for who should win but should be voting against who shouldn't. That's the American way, isn't it?

I'm voting for Kerry, for reasons somewhat outlined in that other thread you spoke of. As for FunnyLooking: If you want to vote for a third party candidate, go ahead and vote for me. I'm sure I have about as much of a chance at the presidency as they do. Seriously. Write me in; my platform is about ten feet tall, and made of chocolate planks with gum drop toppings. Ask Bush what *his* platform is. You can't eat his.

Although, I contemplated working for the Bush Campaign when I thought of this *awesome* slogan:

"Terrorists want George Bush out of office. You're not a terrorist, are you? Bush Cheney 2004."

I think it captures his attitude perfectly.

Khanfusion, your post in no way refuted mine. It just put in some stuff that bashed Kerry. He can't win on his own issues though, as you clearly stated, so what's he got? The fact that he isn't Bush. He's the democratic nominee. At least, that's about all he's got. And do you really think Bush would be a single bit better as a senator? Given the chance to vote on national issues, I project Bush probably would have:

Lied about stuff...
Had a generally high level of bullshit....
Acquired tons of money by means other than actually working for it.....
Been clueless....
Called the Kettle Black.....
Wanted to go to war in Iraq.....
Supported the much maligned Patriot Act.....

Wait, he did all that as president. Oops. If the national opinion swayed far enough, he would flip-flop too. kerry has to make himself into an opponent of Bush despite his own past record. It's deceitful. It's immoral. It's "just how a president should be" - given our track record.

Funnylooking, I wish I could have been kind and said oh boy everyone vote for anyone, but frankly it's a two-partisan country with a couple people butting in. A perversion of democracy but the way it is right now. I'm not gonna pussyfoot around it and play pretty happy nice-boy so that every party and every person in this thread is satisfied that the 'american way' is done by. I'm not going to blind myself with some forlorn hope. The 'american way' might have been how the country was founded but the multibillion dollar corporations seem to have other things in mind. We don't seem to be a democracy anymore really, more like a capitalist republic. The golden rule and all that.

Granted we won't make any change unless the people themselves decide to start voting in a third party, but the stark realism is it ain't gonna happen now or soon. I'd prefer to vote for someone who hasn't already destroyed our financial situation or our goodwill around the world. At least I can trust him a little bit more to not run rampant starting wars and such.

And lastly, when did it become a-ok in the discussion forum to be all sarcastic and condescending? As I understand it we're equals here, and I may not have expounded on my basis for what I said earlier but that by no means should result in the wondrous treatment I received. Shame.

Fine fine, I apologize. That was out of line. I mostly thought that saying voting for Nader is a vote for Bush is going a bit too far. Besides, you can still show support for a particular candidate. I greatly dislike this whole 'strategic voting' thing.