Give me an excuse for voting for Bush in 2004

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 06:19pm

Superboy wrote:I have a coworker sitting next to me who voted for Bush in '04. She's now a democrat, but I just asked her if she had an intelligent reason for voting for Bush. She explained it to me thusly:

She was religious. If she were still religious, she'd still vote republican. She believed social issues were the most important issues and so it would have been stupid to vote for a democrat who disagreed with her about morality.

So her answer was basically "no."

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-05-07 06:22pm

Well, in 2004 to me it was a coin toss as to which guy was the bigger weasel. So I went with Bush (who was the shorter of the two weasels), mainly because after four years I knew what to expect out of him. With Kerry I had no idea of what sort of shenanigans he'd pull, but with Dubya I had a pretty good idea of what the Commander And Chimp would pull.

Basically I knew that either way I'd get fucked, and since I was already getting fucked I might as well stick with the cock I was used too.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-05-07 06:24pm

That was fucking stupid. You voted for a known cause of harm over an unknown factor who at least assured lessening one of the means of fucking you over by the prior (Iraq). Everyone is being real cute about their presidential votes, but basically you were fucking stupid.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 06:25pm

What was it about Kerry that convinced you that you'd have been fucked if he'd won?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2008-05-07 06:27pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:Well, in 2004 to me it was a coin toss as to which guy was the bigger weasel. So I went with Bush (who was the shorter of the two weasels), mainly because after four years I knew what to expect out of him. With Kerry I had no idea of what sort of shenanigans he'd pull, but with Dubya I had a pretty good idea of what the Commander And Chimp would pull.

Basically I knew that either way I'd get fucked, and since I was already getting fucked I might as well stick with the cock I was used too.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Coffee but from knowing where you're from, I'd say that excuse was poor enough for it to sound like a smokescreen for plain old peer pressure.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-05-07 06:28pm

Galvatron wrote:What was it about Kerry that convinced you that you'd have been fucked if he'd won?

Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-05-07 06:29pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Coffee but from knowing where you're from, I'd say that excuse was poor enough for it to sound like a smokescreen for plain old peer pressure.

That might be the case, except most of my "peers" all voted democrat. Like I said, I just didn't like kerry for some reason.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-05-07 06:39pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.
...
That might be the case, except most of my "peers" all voted democrat. Like I said, I just didn't like kerry for some reason.

Ah, so it was primitive early-animal instinctual thinking. You base your vote on your pre-human mental faculties. You see, this is why "intelligent" was specified.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2008-05-07 06:39pm

I personally can't recall the exact reasons I went with Bush in '04. I just remember watching all the debates and stances and finding myself agreeing with Kerry's less.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 06:40pm

He's an asshole? That's your reason? You didn't have to be his fucking roommate or anything.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-05-07 06:41pm

I'm sorry, but as an American this is fucking embaressing. Everyone is just confirming they too belong to all the bad stereotypes of the public sheep in general and American voters in particular.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 06:43pm

IP really should the flaming the shit out of people by now. What's the holdup?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-07 07:07pm

Mr. Coffee wrote: Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.

At least he can admit that he didn't have a good reason. I guess that's zero good reasons so far?

I think it's funny that all the abuses of Bush were not enough to tip voters against someone they 'just didn't like' or who they 'found themselves agreeing with less'. Supporting a known bad quantity because the alternative isn't obviously better is sad. Tacit support for a bad administration, etc. Hey, AU had to put up with it for years too.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-05-07 07:11pm

I can't give a pro-Bush story myself, so I'll just point out that there is that hard core 28% of people who still insist that Bush is doing a good job. While some of them may, indeed, be idiots, we must not forget that there is a portion of the population that is benefiting from him being in office-- upper-income types getting an easy slide on taxes, for example, or have some other way to profit off of all this misery.

If I were in that class of people, I'd probably vote for Bush and feel I had good (albeit extremely selfish) reasons for doing so...

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-05-07 07:14pm

Stark wrote:
Mr. Coffee wrote: Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.
At least he can admit that he didn't have a good reason. I guess that's zero good reasons so far?

I think it's funny that all the abuses of Bush were not enough to tip voters against someone they 'just didn't like' or who they 'found themselves agreeing with less'. Supporting a known bad quantity because the alternative isn't obviously better is sad. Tacit support for a bad administration, etc. Hey, AU had to put up with it for years too.

If you look back in history, this sort of logic was also prevalent in the 30s when Americans were actually wondering if the Nazis were the lesser evil to the Soviet Union. Why? Because plenty of people "just didn't like the Communists" so the fascists are ok? Yeah, that's not a dangerous attitude. But hey, antisemitism and racial profiling were all the rage in the early century.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2008-05-07 07:23pm

Stark wrote:
Mr. Coffee wrote: Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.
At least he can admit that he didn't have a good reason. I guess that's zero good reasons so far?

I think it's funny that all the abuses of Bush were not enough to tip voters against someone they 'just didn't like' or who they 'found themselves agreeing with less'. Supporting a known bad quantity because the alternative isn't obviously better is sad. Tacit support for a bad administration, etc. Hey, AU had to put up with it for years too.

I don't get what you're expecting though. I'm not trying to be snide or anything of the nature, but if you have two candidates that you're weighing, and you find you support the other candidate's position less, why would you vote for that person?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-07 07:28pm

Listen to yourself.

First, they're not saying 'support less'. They're saying 'like personally less'.

Second, when you have a person like Bush with all the shit he pulled in his first term and vote for him again, you're saying 'I like this and hope for more'. The idea that you can only replace a bad politician with one that you know FOR SURE is good (not just better, good) is ridiculous. Supporting bad politicians makes it your responsibility what happens; if Kerry had won and been shit (it's hard to imagine him being worse than Bush) you could at least say 'I wanted Bush out after what he did to my country'.

But like I said, this kind of thinking kept John Howard in power in AU, so it's not America-specific. Put up enough bad opponents and it doesn't matter how bad the current leader is; he'll win anyway.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2008-05-07 07:33pm

Latham as PM would have been an interesting ride, Stark

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-05-07 07:33pm

Fuck, who the hell are we kidding? I doubt anyone would be able to give Mike or IP an answer that would satisfy them. This whole goddamned thread is just an exercise in flame baiting.

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2008-05-07 07:33pm

apocolypse wrote:
Stark wrote:
Mr. Coffee wrote: Honestly, I just didn't like the guy. First second I saw him something went off in my head that screamed out "that guy's an asshole". Didn't have anything to do with his military service or his senate record, I just instantly didn't like him.
At least he can admit that he didn't have a good reason. I guess that's zero good reasons so far?

I think it's funny that all the abuses of Bush were not enough to tip voters against someone they 'just didn't like' or who they 'found themselves agreeing with less'. Supporting a known bad quantity because the alternative isn't obviously better is sad. Tacit support for a bad administration, etc. Hey, AU had to put up with it for years too.
I don't get what you're expecting though. I'm not trying to be snide or anything of the nature, but if you have two candidates that you're weighing, and you find you support the other candidate's position less, why would you vote for that person?

Well it's not like Bush sprang anything on people after 2004. His miserable record has only lengthened with time, not really changed for the worse. Out of curiosity, is there a specific thing that GWB did before 2004 that you were satisfied with when you voted?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-07 07:37pm

tim31 wrote:Latham as PM would have been an interesting ride, Stark

It would have been pretty terrible, but at least the country wouldn't have handed Howard a blank check regardless of his bullshit for so long. I'm a man of principle, dammit!

I mean, obviously now that we kicked the cockhead out and lost his +5 economic bonus, that's why the world economy is having problems!

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 07:38pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:Fuck, who the hell are we kidding? I doubt anyone would be able to give Mike or IP an answer that would satisfy them. This whole goddamned thread is just an exercise in flame baiting.

An intelligent answer doesn't necessarily have to be something that isn't evil.

A Haliburton executive could say they intelligently calculated that Bush would line his pockets with war plunder. Is it evil? Sure. Is it intelligent? Definitely. Would it satisfy Mike? Probably, but that doesn't mean he won't flame you for it. This is Mike we're talking about, after all.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2008-05-07 07:38pm

Stark wrote:Listen to yourself.

First, they're not saying 'support less'. They're saying 'like personally less'.

I am listening to myself and (unless I'm misreading it, which is possible) one of the quotes in your post is from me. And what I'm saying is that or me, it was less a popularity contest and more of one that became centered around policies and whatnot. Now, tbh for me the last election was forever ago, and I can't clearly recall what I was looking at specifically at the time, but it was enough for me to decide the way that I did.

Interesting correlation with Howard though. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about him though, I pretty much remember him in name only. I'll have to look into him more later.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2008-05-07 07:38pm

Okay, let's try to inject logic into this again.

Were there any planks on Kerry's platform that was actually worse than Bush's? In Homeland Security? The Economy? Space? Anything?

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-05-07 07:40pm

Galvatron wrote:Would it satisfy Mike? Probably, but that doesn't mean he won't flame you for it. This is Mike we're talking about, after all.

I see what you did there...