<font color=plum>I'm expanding a bit on the poll that <font color=yellow>Ziroc</font> provided yesterday. But instead of creating another poll, I would like to hear personal opinions on this issue.

For the Americans:
1) Who did you vote for?
2) Why did you vote for that particular candidate? (Please provide comments on the issues you felt were most important rather than just rehashing the same old political spins we've heard for the last several weeks).
3) How long did you have to wait in line to vote?

For the non-Americans:
1) Which candidate would you have voted for if you could?
2) Why? (again, focus on issues rather than political spin)</font>

<font color=plum>Since I started the the questioning, I'll go first.

1) Who did I vote for? Bush/Cheney
2) Why? I disagree with Kerry's vision for National Health Care. I don't think it will work nearly as smoothly as he claims. I disagree with his stance on abortion. I also have serious doubts about how Kerry could actually fund the numerous programs he has endorsed. In the 3rd debate, he mentioned several programs he wanted to work on...Social Security, National Health Care, Education, More Jobs, and a few others. However, when asked where he would get the funds for these programs, his first response for every single issue was "repeal the tax cut Bush gave to the upper 1% of the rich population". I agree it is unfair to us poor common working folks - but that tax repeal will NOT provide adequate funds to sponser any SINGLE issue Kerry endorsed - much less provide funds for ALL of them. The ONLY area where the tax repeal could provide adequate funds (for the short term) is in the Social Security program.
3) My wife and I got to the polling station at 7:30am and stood in line for about 20 minutes before getting to vote.</font>

In the poll i voted for Bush. Why ? Because most other Europeans voted Kerry. :D

Go Johnny! [img]graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

I "voted" for Kerry.

I disagreed with the way in which Bush handled the "War on Terror" in Iraq...a cliche I know. :D

I voted for Badnarik because he aligns the closest with my view of the issues... and coming from NY my vote is basically irrelevant anyway.

1. Voted for Badnarik.
2. Kerry is annoying and hard to pin down, Bush is worse, a complete shill for big business and neocon interests that will really drag us down (and he hates both environment and the lawyers, a double-whammy for me), and most of all because I like Badnarik's stance. See my sig link for more info.
3. Less than 10 minutes in downtown Chicago.

I'm not sure he even had plans for this. Even so, if National Health Care is so bad then why are the people in Canada, Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Beligum living longer lives?

1)Kerry/Edwards

2) I have disagreed with Bush long before I knew anything about Kerry, and the prospect of a second term, wherein he's not thinking about reelection, is disturbing. You may not agree, but lets leave this forum free of that. After all, if you don't agree - your man likely won. It doesn't change my opinions (note that word) or mean that they're wrong.

a) I considered the Iraq war unjust, and now feel we're trapped there. Say what you will about fighting 'them' there, but that doesn't preclude attacks on the mainland, nor does it assuage my fear that terror recruitment will be easier with such a visible enemy and our most embarrassing atrocities.

b) When Bush picks Supreme Court justices, he'll pick ultraconservative justices like Scalia and Thomas. We'll be fighting to keep rights for a long time rather than striving for more freedoms. We just may lose some.

c) This administration has financially suffocated secular social services (non-profits) with long histories in favor of "Faith-Based" organizations, whom he lavishes millions on. This has already lead to corruption and incompetence. It's not that they couldn't succeed, but preaching only abstinance where we used to teach about birth control sets us up for failure.

d) Escalation of military advisorship and civilian contractors in Columbia. More of a link to Congress on that one, but how many people even know about that?

e) An anti-gay agenda. I believe people are born gay, and that there cannot be anything morally wrong with the way a person is born. I realize that lots of Americans don't agree with me, particularly those who support Bush (saw some data on the bit about gay marriage on the ballots). I think the technical meaning or values associated with marriage (which are vastly different among many cultures) should take a back seat to the quality of life of living Americans.

f) Too much favoring of corporations over workers, especially given the widening gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom and the overall slipping wages for the bottom 40% when you factor inflation in for the past 30 years. Yes I know it's not all Bush, but he pulled his weight here.

g) Trickle-down economics - At best, there is a wide class differential that shades the benefits from this. This is at least debatable, and the prospect of making the Bush tax cuts permanent would suggest that the debate is settled. It is not, and I know a couple of economics doctorates that would argue that it is in fact settled - and uniformly wrong.

h) Environment - Bush is no friend to the environment - I'll leave that at that.

i) WASPy Western Ethnocentrism - opposing viewpoints so readily get trampled by the arbitrary superiority of one view (among a plurality) of our society. If we're going to impose our views on others, at least recognize that that's what we're doing. In my view, the flaws of cultural hegemony do not even show up on the radar of political cognition.

j) My only personal qualms with him - he so rarely addresses the nation, he never admits a mistake, and while I don't think he's dumb, I don't think he's especially reflective in his decision-making.

In short, I fear we'll suffer an unchallenged hegemony of neoconservative values in all of our governing bodies. I thought Kerry was okay. I respect what he did after Vietnam (especially getting under Nixon's skin). In a number of issues, like health care, social security, and general foreign policy I thought he was better than Bush, but not nearly good enough. In issues that barely got notice - the environment, equal pay for women, and lagging minimum wage - he really had something to say that his opponent couldn't. Some of the earliest and lasting charges about his character weren't legitimate. Check out www.factcheck.org to see how they categorize the entire flip-flops charge, and some other distortions by Kerry and Bush - not that it matters now. Finally, in my own research, it looked like Kerry was going to spend exactly as much as he'd have (with the 4- year deficit) in the budget - 2.2T, plus the billions recalled. Once again though, none of that matters now.

3) There was no wait when I went at 4:00, though I heard some parts of Dallas had waits of an hour or so.

Badnarik.

I'm sick of both of the children of Lincoln (he was of the Democratic-Rpublican Party). Both want bigger spending, bigger government, and both cater to special intrests way too much. And frankly members of both major parties act like children a good portion of the time too. I find that I align very much with the Libertarian point of view (despite being generally against political parties in general) and wish to see the country cut back to a much simpler Constitutional manor of governing.

I'm deployed Military. I went to the County registration three weeks ago, waited a whole 5 min for authentication and took my ballot home. It was in the mail the same day.

[ 11-03-2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

I voted for Choc.

I think he can help the animal rights laws become stronger, and he himself has nudged my leg--which means he agrees to go find OBL and claw him to death.

Choc is also for no tax catnip, and will pass laws that make canned catfood more natural, and have less 'fillers' in it.

Choc will have all dogs neutered. SLOWLY. ;)

Choc will also force Japan to make 5 new seasons of Transformers Generation 1, using standard old cell drawing. CGI is for the dogs.

*stands up*

*starts the slow clap featured in every cheezy feel good movie*

[ 11-04-2004, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

<font color=plum>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Now THAT was funny. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Go <font color=tan>Choc</font>! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]


<font color=red>Lucern</font> - I really appreciated the points you made in your post. They were well thought out and listed without any political elaboration. THAT was the kind of commentary I was looking for. Good Job! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">

Lets see:

I voted for Bush because:
1. I felt he wouldprosecute the war on terror in a much more effective manner and less likely to let things slide.

2. I don't think he is likely to confiscate any more of my hard won dollars to support social spending than already is being taken.

3. I trusted him more than I trusted the opposition.

4. The republican platform more closely matches my version of Libertarianism than does the Democrat party (and since a Lib candidate cannot with the presidential election..I went with the next best thing).

5. As a veteran, I could not bring myself to vote for someone who once said we are all war criminals.


Hey Nightstalker....did you know that another definition for "Special Interest Groups" is actually "The American People"? All a special interest group is, is a bunch of people with common cause who band together to weild a more effective political instrument. Pretty much anyone who is politicly aware and active is part of a special interest group. SIG's are one of the ways politicians know what people want....yeah corporations have SIGs too..but guess what....corporations are made up of people...imagine that [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>