The SDNet Bush Opinion Poll (Has your support changed?)

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-16 07:26am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Zanzibar hasn't been a nation since 1964, when it was merged with Julius Nyerere's Republic of Tanganyika (now Tanzania) after a bloody socialist revolution.

That's interesting in a "huh, who new?" kind of way. In truth, I was simply pulling the names of obscure shithole countries that no one's ever been to of out of a hat.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-16 08:35am

Mr Bean wrote:I support the President, but then, I'm military, I'll support him if they find him naked atop the white house pretending he's a chicken

But this is an elction. You should vote who you want. Is it tradition in the military to always vote for a second term of the current president?

I find it interesting that most people that said that they'd vote for Bush don't give reasons besides "I won't give my vote to a democrat" od "I've always voted republican". Is party affiliation really that much more important that who you actually vote? Or do Americans really look favorable upon what Bush did?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-16 10:24am

I find it funny that people here are more voting for Bush, not because they actually think he's a good president or agree with him, but because they'll be in the cold soil before they bring themselves to vote for a democrat. God guys, just vote libertarian. I know you all want to. Who knows, if enough people vote libertarian this election, they might get enough percentage of the votes to get some funding next year and grow up to be a viable party.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-16 11:18am

I would be glad to vote for a Libertarian if they could put someone on the ticket who believes the U.S. should have 1) entered WWII and 2) fought the Cold War.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-16 11:20am

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:I support the President, but then, I'm military, I'll support him if they find him naked atop the white house pretending he's a chicken
But this is an elction. You should vote who you want. Is it tradition in the military to always vote for a second term of the current president?

I find it interesting that most people that said that they'd vote for Bush don't give reasons besides "I won't give my vote to a democrat" od "I've always voted republican". Is party affiliation really that much more important that who you actually vote? Or do Americans really look favorable upon what Bush did?

it's lazy thinking, imo. some people don't want to have to bother listening to the debates or the issues on where each candidate stands, and instead opt out for the simple choice of voting based on party affiliation, hoping that they happen to have some of the views of that they're wanting.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-16 12:20pm

Joe wrote:I would be glad to vote for a Libertarian if they could put someone on the ticket who believes the U.S. should have 1) entered WWII and 2) fought the Cold War.

Problem is that any libertarian with any ambition and/or sanity runs on Republican tickets because no one votes Libertarian. Gotta start somewhere and that somewhere is now. Even if the libertarian party loses, a large show of support will convince more sensible candidates to run libertarian. You'll never get a serious libertarian candidate otherwise.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-02-16 08:29pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I find it funny that people here are more voting for Bush, not because they actually think he's a good president or agree with him, but because they'll be in the cold soil before they bring themselves to vote for a democrat.

It's not unique. Under similar circumstances with a Dem president, a lot of Dems would be voting for the Prez simply because they didn't want a Republican. For a lot of peope, any member of "their" party is closer to their views than any member of the other party.

GySgt. Hartman wrote:I find it interesting that most people that said that they'd vote for Bush don't give reasons besides "I won't give my vote to a democrat" od "I've always voted republican". Is party affiliation really that much more important that who you actually vote? Or do Americans really look favorable upon what Bush did?

As strange a concept as it seems to some, a lot of Americans support the President, esp. on foriegn and national security issues.

Party affiliation does play a major part. Parties affiliation is important, because even if you don't support many of a candidate's positions, you might vote for him because you want to strength the party. As a counter example, if someone likes a certain Republican Senator, but hates the Republican party's platform, you might vote for am Dem because if the Rep wins he will cacusus with the Reps. And his vote might be the swing vote to give the Reps the majority, hence paving the way for the Republican party's platform issues to be passed.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-16 10:08pm

I'll be in the cold ground before I vote for a Democrat or a Liberterian...

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-16 10:11pm

I don't like Kerry's flipflopping but he's the best chance the democrats have right now~ At the very least he won't be the irresponsible little retard that Bush is when it comes to foreign policy.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-02-17 12:53am

I generally don't have a party affiliation; I tend to vote for the most reasonable president, although I naturally tend to lean left. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

Now, I [might've/i] supported Bush if he were not so gung ho about ammending marriage as a union between a man and a women. I might've supported Bush if he weren't so inebriated on give out so many tax cuts. And I might've supported Bush if he didn't pander so much to the religious right. I cannot stand it anymore because he is so willing to support this agenda of uniting government and church (at least it seems like it). I've never seen a president pushing that line so much.

On an off note, I don't understand why people side step for Bush and make excuses for him and his Bushism talk. Since when has not being a good public speaker a quality that is not important of leaders? If you look at history, great leaders have always been great speakers. On a general overview, I supported the Iraq campaign but disagreed on the reasons why we should've went in. When Bush and Co. argued for it, I just wanted to puke but when Blair argued for it, I don't know why but I was more like, "Hmm...yeah, that does make sense."

Anyways, not to get too off tangent...

I will most likely be voting for Kerry when it comes to the general election. The worst that he could do with foreign policies is to actually cooperate with other nations to get things done. We can't repeat history again and just ignore/leave the UN (i.e. League of Nations).

Since we're talking about Liberterians, I don't understand why (during the gobernatorial election in WI) that the Republicans were "robbed" of the Governor's election by the Liberterians? Aren't Liberterians more liberal, in a sense, than Republicans are? So why did some traditional Republicans vote Liberterian? In the last gobernatorial election, they recieved 12% of the votes and I guess this was what allowed Doyle (Dem) to win. So anyone have a good conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon?

That's my two cents worth. But that's just me.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-02-17 01:38am

If i could vote it wouldn't be for a skull and bones member, aka Bush and Kerry. They gonna be laughing all the way to the bank this year regardless.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-02-17 03:00am

Hamel wrote:I don't like Kerry's flipflopping but he's the best chance the democrats have right now~ At the very least he won't be the irresponsible little retard that Bush is when it comes to foreign policy.

I find Kerry's flipflopping extremely irritating, not that it matters since I can't vote.

FettKyle · Post by **FettKyle** » 2004-02-17 05:54am

Violation of N&P policy post deleted- Vympel

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-17 10:31am

Meest wrote:If i could vote it wouldn't be for a skull and bones member, aka Bush and Kerry. They gonna be laughing all the way to the bank this year regardless.

Here's some tinfoil. It makes a lovely hat, and it blocks out the government's mind control rays.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-17 04:39pm

I know this is kind of off-topic, but some girls down the hall from me have a Republican sign posted on their door with maybe the best political slogan ever on it:

"Girls Dig Republicans. Vote Bush, you'll get more of it."

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2004-02-17 11:52pm

I was too young to vote in 2000, but in the mock youth elections I abstained from the presidential election. This year, I'll be able to vote and I'll probably end up voting for Kerry, although that may change.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-02-18 12:29am

Joe wrote:"Girls Dig Republicans. Vote Bush, you'll get more of it."

That's pretty clever, but I don't know a single girl under the age of 40 who is a Republican. In all seriousness.

As for me, I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000, and I don't think I will vote for president this time around. The electoral college pretty much throws my vote away no matter what, so I don't see the point.
But if I were to vote, I guess it'd be Kerry. I like his domestic and foreign policy better than that of Bush, and even if there was a third-party candidate who fit my ideals better, it's simply not worth the effort to even vote for them to make a point. But maybe that's just because I'm really lazy.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-02-18 08:17pm

I voted Libertarian in 2000 out of protest, since I really couldn't stand either Gore or Bush (would that someone else on either party had won the primaries). Right now I have mixed feeling about Bush. I pretty much support his major decisions in foreign policy, even if they were sometimes executed with a distinct lack of grace. I think he has been less of a foe of free trade than Gore would have been, and my sense is that a lot of what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been doing in the Pentagon has been good.

On the other hand, a few phrases like Patriot Act, Stem Cells, and such should make it clear why I long for a better ocupant for the White House.

This year I'm leaning towards voting democrat, but only because I'm pretty confident that Republicans will continue to have control in congress and could probably keep democratic brands of silliness in check.

Alex Moon wrote:I voted for Bush in 2000, and I will vote for him again. I don't agree with much of what Bush says/proposes, but Kerry is IMHO far worse.

Ah, but Republican control of Congress will keep Kerry from doing anything too looney, but all of Bush's worst proposals will be lapped up.

HemlockGrey wrote:Could I vote (next election) I'd go for Kerry. Practical reality will keep him in Iraq and I don't see how he could really fuck it up, unless he ordered mass executions or carpet bombings or something.

Here, here. IMHO, the all the cans of whup ass that needed opening have been opened, too.

Joe wrote:I would be glad to vote for a Libertarian if they could put someone on the ticket who believes the U.S. should have 1) entered WWII and 2) fought the Cold War.

Heh, too true. I've heard that there is a bunch of people who've recently joined the LP and are trying to take it away from the tinfoil hat crowd and make it into a serious alternative, but I think I'll wait to see who gets on the ballot first.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-18 08:24pm

I probably would have voted Bush in 2000...and this year, I might vote for him again. If Edwards wins the nomination (big if...), I wouldn't hesitate to vote Democratic. Can't see my self voting for Kerry, despite Symmetry's good points.