Who Do You Want To Be The Next President Of The US?

[usernamed]

I was surprised that there wasn't a poll about this in the opinions Forum, so I decided to create one. I'm really curious in what you believe should lead the United States.

So Please, VOTE!

P.S. This poll closes on Nov. 2

 

[Jordan]

George W. Bush!

 

[standard235]

John Kerry because my dad works in a union. He is a Heat + Frost Insulator for Sprinkmann's in Illinois. Kerry may not be the best canidate but he's a hell of a lot better thatn Bush!

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Only one vote so far

I might run against him myself, I'm sure I could get two votes

Its a named poll as well, so that might be scaring people off. I'm going to have to go with Bush, as at least you know what you are getting with him. Also the UK have a strong alliance at the moment with the US, something I'd like to see continue.
Analysts say that Europe will get better trade deals under Kerry, but how much of that will actually be passed on to the consumer. I doubt if we'd even notice.

 

[Anderton Prime]

JOHN KERRY, or I think there's gonna be some major problemos from Bin Laden and others...

 

[ledhed]

Bush or I think the world will end and the moon mice will run out of cheese .

 

[ExigeEvan]

Neither, either way they are both military men (one starts wars, 1 was 'supposedly in one) that will probably be intent on starting more wars and pulling us Brits along aswell.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Neither, either way they are both military men (one starts wars, 1 was 'supposedly in one) that will probably be intent on starting more wars and pulling us Brits along aswell.

So who was "supposedly" in a war, and who starts them?

And I want Kerry to be President, because we need change.

 

[king jame II]

Voted Bush, just as i will be on Nov. 2nd.
James-

 

[Sage]

And I want Kerry to be President, because we need change.

Do you realize how incredibly vague that is? "Change" is a utility word that can be inserted almost anytime it's convenient, and doesn't mean bull crud. And I'm not attacking you for liking Kerry, but vague, meaningless statements really annoy me.

Anyway, I'd like Michael Badnarik to win, but seeing that that's just about impossible for this election, I'm leaning very slightly towards Bush. Since I don't know what to think of the war anymore (at all), I'm just looking at their stances on social and fiscal issues. Basically, it's down to Bush wants fiscal freedom (lower taxes, privatize social security), but social oppression (fewer gay rights, against abortion), while Kerry wants fiscal oppression and social freedom. With those two main points in mind, I see it this way – Eventually, gays and lesbians will have the same rights as married people, and women will be able to have "the choice" within resistance… I have no doubt that both resolutions are inevitable, which means that Bush's stance against them are more of a bump than an all-out roadblock. However, when it comes to fiscal freedom, I fear that social security will never be privatized unless Bush does it now – I consider social security one of the worst "reforms" America has ever had, and I want it gone ASAP.

So, I basically disagree with half of what each candidate has to say, and it comes down to which has the "disagreeance" that will make the biggest impact, and I believe it's Kerry. Still, it's unfortunate that this election has come down to choosing "bad" or "worse".

 

[Arwin]

I voted here because well, I can't vote in the real thing not being American. Although most of Europe wants Kerry to win, at least in the Netherlands almost everyone thinks Bush will win.

As for fiscal oppression I wonder if running a deficit like Bush has isn't the real fiscal oppression. It will have to be payed for eventually, and guess how and by who ...

 

[ExigeEvan]

So who was "supposedly" in a war, and who starts them?

Wasn't Kerry in Vietnam. But a number of men serving with him said he did little or nothing? I remember something like that happening, it was that or he didn't do everything he said he did.
And isn't it kind of obvious that Bush starts the wars? You may argue that the terrorists did, but they signed no documents, they didn't invade countries. But, yes, they did do a number of horific attacks on civilians.

 

[Sage]

As for fiscal oppression I wonder if running a deficit like Bush has isn't the real fiscal oppression. It will have to be payed for eventually, and guess how and by who ...

I would've considered it, but I don't know enough about economics to do so. I don't know what exactly caused the deficit, each candidate's plan to get out of it, etc.

 

[the Interceptor]

I want (and voted for) Kerry, nevertheless I think Bush will win the race.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Wasn't Kerry in Vietnam. But a number of men serving with him said he did little or nothing? I remember something like that happening, it was that or he didn't do everything he said he did.
And isn't it kind of obvious that Bush starts the wars? You may argue that the terrorists did, but they signed no documents, they didn't invade countries. But, yes, they did do a number of horific attacks on civilians.

I figured it out a couple seconds after, but as I remember it, Bush's service was more questionable.

 

[ledhed]

Kerry has called the soldiers who served in Vietnam "war criminals" and has made many other comments and has done things to hurt the people he served with. Bush was in the National Guard and did not go to 'Nam but still served his country. You tell me who's service was more " honorable " Kerry (the back stabbing weasle) or Bush ?

 

[High-Test]

I say bush.

 

[Arwin]

Kerry has called the soldiers who served in Vietnam "war criminals" and has made many other comments and has done things to hurt the people he served with.

He was there ... we all know that a lot of bad things happened in Vietnam, cowards refuse to face up to them publicly and take responsibility. The 'nam war was bad, and I'd be surprised if any still wants to contest that now. The whole attack on Kerry's tour of duty is downright pathetic and tasteless if you ask me.

Bush was in the National Guard and did not go to 'Nam but still served his country. You tell me who's service was more " honorable " Kerry (the back stabbing weasle) or Bush ?

Back stabbing weasle ... that's sad, man.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Kerry has called the soldiers who served in Vietnam "war criminals" and has made many other comments and has done things to hurt the people he served with. Bush was in the National Guard and did not go to 'Nam but still served his country. You tell me who's service was more " honorable " Kerry (the back stabbing weasle) or Bush ?

Ok he his running for president now, and is open to any shot the public can throw at him...but...

You can't say "weasel" to a man who chose to serve his country in combat. I don't agree with his politics, but I do have respect for a man willing to sacrifice his life to protect his country.

 

[ledhed]

I called him a back stabbing weasle because he condemned his fellow soldiers as war criminals. He didn't say " a few of the men I served with are war criminals " he said that most of them are . He didn't say he saw particular incidents he slandered all the men he served with. Thats MY definition of a beady eyed sleasy weasle. His service wont make up for what he did while his fellow countrymen were still in harms way in Vietnam. At least Jane Fonda had the sense to appologise . This bastards running for president ! He's slime..it would not know honor if it fell on him.

 

[Silverzone]

why don't you rename this GTP Mock election? that would be cool.

 

[Solid Fro]

Kerry has called American troops criminals, it's a proven fact. POWs were tortured for refusing to admit that Kerry was right in calling them war criminals in Vietnam.

Watch Stolen Honor. It is an excellent and truthful documentary.

Oh yeah, Bush will win easily. 👍

 

[CDailey]

I vote for Bush.

 

[cardude2004]

Why bother to even put the independent's, green party, communist party, and other parties on. They just detract votes and nobody votes for communist or anything anyway.

 

[Solid Fro]

I saw a Badnarik ad on TV and I swear it sounded just like a Democratic National Committee ad.

What is the difference? They all want to stick their heads in the sand or what?

 

[Ev0]

If I were American and of legal voting age, I'd vote for Kerry. His stance on social issues appeals to me, and he just seems more logical than Bush. I doubt Kerry would start wars without any good evidence to back up his claims, unlike Bush.

That's not to say I like Kerry though, he is just the much lesser of two evils in my opinion.

 

[Solid Fro]

You know exactly why the US went into Iraq and it wasn't just because of WMD.

 

[Sage]

Why bother to even put the independent's, green party, communist party, and other parties on. They just detract votes and nobody votes for communist or anything anyway.

Because A) It's a free country, and B) Parties do change. If I recall correctly, the Federalist party became nonexistent after the Antifederalist party split into Democrats and Republicans (maybe I have that switched around), and for a while the Whigs made an impact on the political system. Also, you say "nobody votes for [third parties] anyway"… There are over 600 Libertarians serving in some public office, which would lead me to believe that someone voted them in.

 

[skip0110]

Because A) It's a free country, and B) Parties do change.

Exactly, and why aren't the "other" parties allowed into the debates? When I watch them, it seems that the canidates differ only slightly on very minor issues...I think that allowing Nader (or Badnarik) to participate would add an interesting and insigtful dynamic.

 

[Sage]

Badnarik wanted to participate in the debates, but was arrested along with David Cobb for crossing a police barricade in protest.

Oh, and as another tidbit for those who don't think third parties make a difference – In 2000, there were 16,000 votes for the Libertarian Candidate (Harry Browne) in Florida, while Bush won that state over Gore by a mere 500 votes.