Presidential Election

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply

Who do you intend to vote for in the 2004 Presidential Election?

Poll ended at Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:13 am

George W. Bush (Republican)
15
47%
John F. Kerry (Democrat)
14
44%
Ralph Nader (Independant)
2
6%
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
1
3%
 
Total votes: 32

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Presidential Election

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:13 am

Who are you going to vote for? Lets see if we can predict the actual winner.

Dacicus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Post by Dacicus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:34 am

I'm voting for Bush.

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:46 am

Can we get some better choices?
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:05 am

benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
:lol:

p.s. Why is Alfred E. Newman running under the alias George W. Bush?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:16 am

benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
Lets see....

John Wayne - Dead
Ronald Reagan - Dead
Charleton Heston - Possibility
Rhuiden - Unelectable (too opinionated and too practical)
Rush - Doesn't want to take a pay cut
Neal Boortz - Good on economic and defense issues, weak on social issues
Zell Miller - Possibility
PeterD - can't run (Canadian)
Jesse Jackson - lets get serious
Alan Keys - Possibility
Arnold - not eligible (not born in US)
Ted Kennedy - too drunk
Hilary - hahahahahahahaha.....


How about these? Would any of these be better?

Rhuiden

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:21 am

Rhuiden wrote:
benissimus wrote:Can we get some better choices?
Lets see....

PeterD - can't run (Canadian)
:( :arrow: :cry:
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:17 am

AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!!!! :twisted:

Lupus minimus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Post by Lupus minimus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:22 am

Are people who are not allowed to vote allowed to vote in this forum? I vote blank.

jc
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:18 pm

I doubt the outcome of this poll will actually reflect the outcome of the election :P .

If you can't vote for PeterD, then why not vote for Michael Moor? :wink:
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:46 pm

Steven you're old enough to vote right? Or is it 21...anyway if you can vote for Kerry for me. Thanks for the favour.
phpbb

User avatar
Geoff
Textkit Fan
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:30 pm

Post by Geoff » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:47 pm

Where's Lex?

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:49 pm

Who the hell keeps voting for Bush? He blew up your twin towers! The insanity! :?
phpbb

Lupus minimus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Post by Lupus minimus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:58 pm

World elections prior to November 2nd:

France Parliamentary(Senate) Sept 28,2004
Slovenia Parliamentary Oct 3,2004
Afghanistan Presidential Oct 9,2004
Australia Parliamentary Oct 9,2004
Lithuania Parliamentary Oct 10,2004
Cameroon Presidential Oct 11,2004
Belarus Parliamentary Oct 17,2004
Belarus Referendum Oct 17,2004
Ireland Presidential Oct 22,2004
Kosovo Parliamentary Oct 23,2004
Tunisia Presidential Oct 24,2004
Tunisia Parliamentary Oct 24,2004
Botswana Parliametary Oct 30,2004
Ukraine Presidential Oct 31, 2004
Uruguay Presidential(First Round) Oct 31,2004
Uruguay Legislative Oct 31,2004
Palau Presidential Nov 2,2004
Palau Legislative Nov 2,2004

Why don't we talk about one of these? :mrgreen:

jc
phpbb

cicerosum
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: CA, USA

Post by cicerosum » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:13 pm

Lupus minimus wrote:World elections prior to November 2nd:

France Parliamentary(Senate) Sept 28,2004
Slovenia Parliamentary Oct 3,2004
Afghanistan Presidential Oct 9,2004
Australia Parliamentary Oct 9,2004
Lithuania Parliamentary Oct 10,2004
Cameroon Presidential Oct 11,2004
Belarus Parliamentary Oct 17,2004
Belarus Referendum Oct 17,2004
Ireland Presidential Oct 22,2004
Kosovo Parliamentary Oct 23,2004
Tunisia Presidential Oct 24,2004
Tunisia Parliamentary Oct 24,2004
Botswana Parliametary Oct 30,2004
Ukraine Presidential Oct 31, 2004
Uruguay Presidential(First Round) Oct 31,2004
Uruguay Legislative Oct 31,2004
Palau Presidential Nov 2,2004
Palau Legislative Nov 2,2004

Why don't we talk about one of these? :mrgreen:

jc
Oh, I would love to discuss something else, it's getting quite boring hearing the same rhetoric day after day: "You flip-flopper!" "You Coward!" Those wacky Americans sure know how to throw some insults...

Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:14 pm

yeah, or we could talk about the outcome of the Sachsen election:

conservatives down 15.8% to 41.1%
communists (former dictatorship party) up 1.4% to 23.6%
labour party down 0.9% to 9.8%
green party up 2.5% to 5.1%
Neo Nazis up 7.8% to 9.2%
liberals up 4.8% to 5.9%

the sharp rise in votes for the Neo-Nazis would be worth discussing.
phpbb

Lupus minimus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Post by Lupus minimus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:22 pm

cicerosum wrote:
Lupus minimus wrote:World elections prior to November 2nd:

...
Afghanistan...
Australia...
...


Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
I do think the Afghani elections, if not so much the result, but rather the process is of significant import. First case of U.S. "nation-building/democratisation" since the onset of the GWOT (global war on terror).

And how can you be so insulting to our Australian friends? Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?

Anyway, my opininion on Nov 2. U.S. is that whoever wins, Iraq is F&/ç*D. Since this will be the hottest international topic for the next few years, what's the difference who wins?

jc
phpbb

cicerosum
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: CA, USA

Post by cicerosum » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:29 pm

Lupus minimus wrote:
I do think the Afghani elections, if not so much the result, but rather the process is of significant import. First case of U.S. "nation-building/democratisation" since the onset of the GWOT (global war on terror).
It's good that you are so optimistic.
Lupus minimus wrote: Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?
One can only hope.
Lupus minimus wrote:Since this will be the hottest international topic for the next few years, what's the difference who wins?
Precisely! Democrats, Republicans, why--even wonderboy Nader and his acceptance of contributions from certain right-wing anti-gay groups!--they're all feeding from the same filthy trough.
phpbb

Dacicus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Post by Dacicus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:35 pm

Steven you're old enough to vote right? Or is it 21...anyway if you can vote for Kerry for me. Thanks for the favour.
It's 18.
Who the hell keeps voting for Bush? He blew up your twin towers!
Why do you say that? Last time I checked, everybody said it was terrorists.
Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
You don't think it's possible for it to be both A and B?

One final thing: Even if Kerry wins, he won't take the troops out of Iraq the next day. It will be months, at least.

cicerosum
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: CA, USA

Post by cicerosum » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:40 pm

Dacicus wrote:
Anyway, none of those elections matter, don't you know. On November 2, the fate of the world, once again, will be decided. Will it be
A. American Empire Conquers
B. American Empire Flourishes
You don't think it's possible for it to be both A and B?
My point exactly. A and B are essentially the same thing.
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:30 pm

conquering is the same as flourishing?

there's a topic for the academy. :P

cicerosum
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: CA, USA

Post by cicerosum » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:08 pm

Hmm. To make things simpler for those who take all things literally...

American Empire. It stays the same. It continues to oppress regardless of who wins the election. Either Bush wins, things trudge on as they are or Kerry wins and things trudge on as they are (although we re-enter the Kyoto Protocol). Either way, the empire will conquer (Iraq) and continue to flourish. And those of us here will remain under the chains of the tyranny of the majority. The rest of you just get the chains and some scraps shoved under the table. Bon Appetit!
phpbb

cicerosum
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: CA, USA

Post by cicerosum » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:30 pm

Allright, I will admit to an innate tendency to direct ill-will my way (usually when I'm being misunderstood), so I will kindly revert to proper newbie etiquette and make more posts that are OT with the board. ;) Politics is not usually something I like to discuss among friends.
phpbb

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:58 pm

[qoute]conquering is the same as flourishing? [/qoute]
sometimes, not always. This time the latter.
Why do you say that? Last time I checked, everybody said it was terrorists.
Not according to Michael Moore it ain't. ;P


Either way, the empire will conquer (Iraq) and continue to flourish. And those of us here will remain under the chains of the tyranny of the majority. The rest of you just get the chains and some scraps shoved under the table. Bon Appetit!
Quite a dark statement, isn't it? But I think we oughta enjoy what we can.

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:04 pm

I think that you are as wrong as you are with your latin Dacicus. The evidence is overwhelming, not from Michael Moore as he has turned into an unreliable source somewhat due to his now infamous bias and hatred of Bush, but from a neutral documentary programme on good old UK tv showing bush and his reaction. How he planned it. But 1 month before the attack they took out insurance on the towers. That is odd. And the way in which he was informed so quickly then continued to read to the little kids, perhaps he was exerting himself entirely I do not know, but it was obviously planned and known beforehand. One can tell. Oooh surprise. I think not.
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:15 pm

regardless of whether bush had a hand in it... or even knew about it prior... he sure did milk it for all it was worth.

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:18 pm

er that was the plan, so it's not really 'regardless' I suppose, for it was the intention to milk it as it was caused. Did you see the terrorists going shopping video. That was funny and disturbing. How odd.
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:34 pm

Episcopus wrote:I think that you are as wrong as you are with your latin Dacicus. The evidence is overwhelming, not from Michael Moore as he has turned into an unreliable source somewhat due to his now infamous bias and hatred of Bush, but from a neutral documentary programme on good old UK tv showing bush and his reaction. How he planned it. But 1 month before the attack they took out insurance on the towers. That is odd. And the way in which he was informed so quickly then continued to read to the little kids, perhaps he was exerting himself entirely I do not know, but it was obviously planned and known beforehand. One can tell. Oooh surprise. I think not.
When I first read your comment I smiled and thought:"There is our bishop again, shooting from the lip", but I find it disturbing that you meant it.
Maybe the mayor of NY at that time blew up the towers. After all he gained great popularity after 9/11. Or here's a thought; It was the Canadians, they wanted Bush to look Bad.
Or we could just take Bin Laden's words at face-value.

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:49 am

Lupus minimus wrote:And how can you be so insulting to our Australian friends? Anyway, would a defeat of Howard imply a withdrawal of Ossie troups from Iraq?
If Latham wins, about half of the Australian troops will be removed, with remainder being officially there to protect Australian civilians.

The election's either all over or to close to call, depending on who you listen to.
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:40 am

Nader has picked up a vote.

Who is this smart fellow who has the testicular fortitude to think with his big head and cast the sole Nader vote :?:

Hmmm...I wonder. :?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Dacicus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Post by Dacicus » Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:19 am

Here's a quote from another forum I visit:
Another thing that bothers me is that so many people used to bash Bush for being stupid and not smart enough to run the country. Now all of a sudden he is this scheming mastermind capable of manipulating an entire nation.
I think the author made a good point when he said that. So which one do you guys think it is: stupid or scheming mastermind.

9/11 Conspiracy article from Wikipedia

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:31 am

Bert wrote:It was the Canadians, they wanted Bush to look Bad.
nah bert, you and I both know that we didn't hate bush until AFTER 9/11.


;)

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:41 am

I don't believe Bush planned those attacks, to think that is not ridiculous, everything is possible, if it was planned it would have been his advisors and Bush just would have nodded. I don't believe though that they planned it or that Bush would have given his consent, but I have no proof of the opposite, I just don't think it likely. But it is very likely that they had some indications of a planned attack, it's proven that there were many hints, but nothing happened. Bin Laden was also offered to the US by Syrian (think it was Syria at least , hate my useless memory :? ) before the attacks, but apparently the CIA didn't want to cooperate with the Syrian intelligence agency. That just shows how useless the CIA is and how all of this combined just had to lead to terrorists being able to carry out such attacks.
There had been plans drawn up to attack Iraq before September the 11th I've heard. That doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean that they wanted to blow up the World Trade centre to declare war on Iraq, planning the war was a hobby and they were probably surprised but also very glad to have found the opportunity to attack Iraq, even though Iraq of course had nothing to do with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is that probably nothing much will change on a great scale is Kerry is elected, but what it will do is at least show the world that the US people do care, that they won't re-elect a president who lead an unjust war. If Bush wins that means that the American people agree with him, and America will totally loose the respect of any who still have some for the country.
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:23 pm

haha testicular fortitude you'd better copyright that one. And obviously Bush could not do it alone, he had all his friends helping him, many of whom probably studied classics and are in high positions for their scholastic achievements.
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:39 pm

Dacicus wrote:Here's a quote from another forum I visit:
Another thing that bothers me is that so many people used to bash Bush for being stupid and not smart enough to run the country. Now all of a sudden he is this scheming mastermind capable of manipulating an entire nation.
I think the author made a good point when he said that. So which one do you guys think it is: stupid or scheming mastermind.

9/11 Conspiracy article from Wikipedia
Hmmm...stupid or scheming mastermind?

Let's look at a few random Bush thoughts or quotes that have come our way before we decide:
  • "We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."

    "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself but for my predecessors as well."

    "We're in for a long struggle and I think Texans understand that. And so do Americans."

    "Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of 'Hop on Pop."

    "I understand small business growth. I was one."

    "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
Wow, it seems to me that when God was passing out brains, Bush wasn't even in line to pick one up. He's stupid all right -- as stupid as they come!

~PeterD

p.s. America, thanks for the laughs. :lol:
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:06 pm

You forgot the best one!
"our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. they never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we". :lol: A Freudian slip of the tongue? That would strengthen Episcopus' case.
phpbb

Dacicus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Post by Dacicus » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:14 pm

Emma_85 wrote:Bin Laden was also offered to the US by Syrian (think it was Syria at least , hate my useless memory :? ) before the attacks, but apparently the CIA didn't want to cooperate with the Syrian intelligence agency. That just shows how useless the CIA is and how all of this combined just had to lead to terrorists being able to carry out such attacks.
I've heard that we didn't have enough evidence against him to try him in an U.S. court.

User avatar
MyIlium
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: Somewhere far, far away
Contact:

Post by MyIlium » Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:45 pm

Eh, politics. Who understands?

Me, I agree with whoever said that Bush didn't coordinate the attacks but DID disgustingly take advantage of it. But then, everybody did...
I certainly don't LIKE Bush, but I don't trust Kerry either. He might noisy about Bush's mistakes and all that crap, but he's not going to take any steps to reverse what Bush has already done.
phpbb

Mongoose42
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Green Bay,WI

Post by Mongoose42 » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:34 pm

If memory serves, Clinton had the option of taking out several of the most wanted terrorist leaders (agencies were in place a waiting the go ahead) but not wanting to interrupt his golf game or the economy never ordered the strikes.
Also to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks just because he benifited from them is equatted to saying he caused the hurricanes in Florida so he could rescue the people and win votes. It is the job of the president to act in the face of a national emergency, andd it would only be a bad presidennt that doesn't benefit from a national crisis.
phpbb

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:30 pm

Mongoose42 wrote:If memory serves, Clinton had the option of taking out several of the most wanted terrorist leaders (agencies were in place a waiting the go ahead) but not wanting to interrupt his golf game or the economy never ordered the strikes.
Is this just rhetoric or do you believe you remember this happening?
phpbb

Mongoose42
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Green Bay,WI

Post by Mongoose42 » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:13 pm

It is more than just rhetoric, the information came from the book Dereliction of Duty by the soldier that was near Clinton at all times because his job was to carry the breifcase with all the nuke launch codes.
All presidents can be attacked for their policy decisions, but the truth is all presidents do their job and the basis of American and apparently global politics is that no president will ever satisfy all opponents or avoid all rumors.
phpbb

Post Reply