Politics 2004 Presidential Election

ALIAS_RULES said:
Have you read all the things I've mentioned in my post? Did it open your eyes to all the horrible things your current president is doing?
[post="967001"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Mind you thats your opinion law well sorta...your umm perspective and info is based on making bush look bad not kerry there is loads of bad kerry info out there which thus is not what you are posting.....
 
Whats wrong with cutting tax for the rich? They are the people that supply jobs to the average man and if they dont get tax cuts then they can't afford there buisness which thus means they lay off employes... but i dont think its fair that celebritys get tax cuts....
 
To be fair, I'm not an American. I did live there for a considerable length of time, however, and did study both American politics and constitutional law extensively, so...humor me, I guess? ;)

On the topic of Bush versus Kerry, they really are so different from one another that it's difficult to make direct comparisons. But, because I'm bored, let's give it a whirl, shall we? ^_^ Also, this is my opinion ONLY. I've tried to be as fair and non-partisan as I could. If some vitriol leaks over...well, I can hardly be held responsible for my over-whelming bitterness and disappointment at both these candidates, can I?

On the Bush hand, you have: a Republican and all that implies. Pro: Big Business, the conservative/moderate religious contigent, and the Moral Majority. Anti: Environmental, Abortion, and Homosexual marriage. And ethnically, he's the embodiment of the American presidential "ideal": the WASP. Which, for those of you who don't know, is a clever acronym for the White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Also directly related to Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the United States.

The Low Points: His public image? Well, he doesn't come across as the strong, decisive president he's obviously striving for, but as one who is easily led by the people around him--i.e. yes, Dick Cheney and assorted cabinet members, I am looking at *you*.

Easily befuddled and obviously not a champion of proper English grammar (someone get him a Bedford grammar book. Stat!), his image in Europe is also positively dismal (as in the word 'Bush' equals poison'). Plus, the economy is downright groan-worthy; even trying to pass the buck to others hasn't saved him from getting scathed by opinion writers and the Academic community at large. Also, he alienated the NAACP late last month by refusing to speak at a convention. That's a huge block of voters he can't afford to make angry.

Also, Arkansas National Guard anyone? The only thing that I can say is that it's a slap in the face to the all men and women who really do risk LIVES to serve America.

He also denied suspected detainees of their right to a fair and speedy trial. In other words, he ignored and disregarded the Constitution. Is anyone upset about this? Anyone? Because you darn well should be, if you're not--those are your rights he's violating, people.

The High Points: His popularity from 9/11, while somewhat faded, seems to have held on in what can only be described as a very conservative atmosphere in the US. He still has many supporters from various walks of life. Yes, well. I'm honestly trying to think of one good thing Bush has done for America. And...I'm drawing a blank. But at least his sheer incompetence has gotten people to pay attention to politics, right?

Vote for: If you're a Republican and/or support his moderate conservative policies. Really, nothing else to say. Go foth and vote if Bush appeals to you. ;)

More info on Bush: George Bush's official website

And now we've come to Kerry. He's a Democrat, fairly liberal in his ideals. Pro: That depends. What part of the country is he touring today? Anti: Abortion, Big Business. He's also Catholic, if that happens to mean something to any of the voting public (and I'm too bitter and cynical to think that it doesn't).

The Low Points: He waffles on important topics. In New England, it's one stance and in the more prim and morally proper midwest it's something else entirely. More than once have I stood staring at the television thinking to myself 'MAKE A DECISION ALREADY!' He comes across as someone who's pandering to the American public, thinking 'hmmmm, what is the magical combination of issues that will make the public vote for me?' Well, gee, Kerry, maybe you should actually stick to your guns for once. That might help. Just sayin', is all. It's easy: get a coin and flip. Repeat, if necessary.

He's also very liberal. I don't think that's a bad thing, but others probably do, so I'll post it here.

The High Points: He comes across as the champion for middle/lower class Americans to Bush's elite stance. He's also a highly decorated war veteran who served on some of the most dangerous battle terrain Vietnam had to offer: the Swift boats and if any of you saw Apocalypse Now you know those babies are death magnets. Another point: war veterans always/to almost always have the veteran's vote and the general respect of the American public at large.

Also, he's got John Edwards as a running mate. While Cheney is about as sexy and well-liked as curdled milk, Edwards is both attractive, young, and popular. Kerry's well-spoken, well-behaved, and beautiful daughters are also a huge plus in the Kerry column. Good for the political image, if you know what I mean.

Vote for: If you're a democrat and/or support his ideals. If you consider the enviornment important and are pro-choice (and aren't really affected by indesicion. More or less, really. One way or the other), then Kerry's probably the guy you're looking for.

More info on Kerry: John Kerry's official website

Feel free to pick any of this apart at your leisure. I tried to be fair; it really didn't work, but I gave it my all. Hopefully, it helped someone somewhere in this vast, indesicive and political landscape. Just don't expect me to debate you--I've said my piece and am happy with it. Simply thought I'd breath some life into the topic and since I had to write a paper on Busy vs. Kerry anyway, it'd be great practice for my essay.

That said, have a wonderful day. ✌️
 
You didn't need to convince me at all. You've more than solidified my stance against Bush. :D

And it does seem Bush's negatives far outweight Kerry's negatives. Hmm, interesting. ;)
 
Aren't celebrities rich, too?

If rich people should have the privilege to pay less while the poor are forced to pay more, then who's at the lopsided end of the deal? Rich people can afford to pay more because well...they have more.
 
Ok here is something from the TIMES website just showing you the chances of kerry winning...or bush whatever floats your boat
alt_162a.gif
 
Ok I personally think that is wrong because
1. Rich people arnt really rich they have to pay other people there checks
2. They supply jobs to millions of americans
3. In the end they have to pay for the morgage on the building, peoples checks, health care..etc
so in the end they may have a million baggilion dollers and by the end of the day its gone....
 
VaughnsAHottie said:
Ok I personally think that is wrong because
1. Rich people arnt really rich they have to pay other people there checks
2. They supply jobs to millions of americans
3. In the end they have to pay for the morgage on the building, peoples checks, health care..etc
so in the end they may have a million baggilion dollers and by the end of the day its gone....
[post="968084"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Well, rich people are rich. Hence, the 'rich' before the people. See? ;) And ummm...some provide jobs to people, but that's really such an incredible generalization. Some are trust fund babies who sit on their asses and collect royalties. And some are hard-working, comendable individuals who strive hard for their money and are shining examples to all of humanity. Just because, though, some supply jobs to the masses, does that mean they are exempt from paying taxes? Sadly, no.

And as for 3, not really. Rich people can afford to pay all their bills and still have millions and/or billions left. That's why they are 'rich'. They are more ably equipped to shoulder the burden of more taxes because they have a continuous income and can support themselves with plenty of room to spare. The lower income brackets can't afford to foot the greater tax burden because they are most likely working minimum wage to slightly above minimum wage jobs.
 
I know what you mean thats how my dad is... but number three is right in some cases i mean suppling health care for over thousands maybe a million people is not cheap... but it sucks my dad pays just as much as rich celebritys and such... rich just means well rich they have money and are successful to some degree I think buisnesses should get tax cuts and celebritys should pay millions considering they spend millions....
 
Yes we do :lol: people that spend money on 1,000 doller shoes can afford to pay a couple extra million on taxes? But it's hard to divide the working people, the born rich people, and the celebrities.....
 
VaughnsAHottie said:
Mind you thats your opinion law well sorta...your umm perspective and info is based on making bush look bad not kerry there is loads of bad kerry info out there which thus is not what you are posting.....
[post="967836"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Which no conservatives have posted either. I am pointing out all the facts about things that are happening with the Bush administration...
 
I don't think Kerry's that much of a liberal, you ought to meet Canadian government officials.

Another thing about Bush, the amount of people in the middle class has significantly declined since he took office. This is partially because he's ruined the American economy.
 
Charlie said:
If democracy and human rights are what Bush is fighting for, then why doesn’t he try (harder?) to pressure the Saudis and others into changing their own policies and traditions against democracy and human rights?

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/9.html
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/saudiallies1218.htm
[post="967827"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Because Charlie, he owns their oil already. Unlike Iraq, they gave into his father's pressure. :rolleyes:

You have been warned many times not to double post. You can do a multiple quote, click on the quote button on each post you want to quote and when you have them all, reply. Any further multiple posting will effect your rating.
 
Charlie said:
If democracy and human rights are what Bush is fighting for, then why doesn’t he try (harder?) to pressure the Saudis and others into changing their own policies and traditions against democracy and human rights?

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/9.html
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/saudiallies1218.htm
[post="967827"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

You're right, Charlie. I agree. He should be doing more in that area. But there's only so much one man/country can do at a time...

I, for one, would like to see more attention paid to human rights violations in Cuba and China. But again, with the focus being what it is right now, unfortunately that isn't possible. :confused:

Side note: Lawrence, you've been reminded several times about triple and double posting. If you do it again you're gonna have another point taken off.
 
VaughnsAHottie said:
Ok here is something from the TIMES website just showing you the chances of kerry winning...or bush whatever floats your boat
alt_162a.gif

[post="968078"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
New York and California combined are a LOT of electoral votes. Those are the big states.
 
VaughnsAHottie said:
Ok I personally think that is wrong because
1. Rich people arnt really rich they have to pay other people there checks
2. They supply jobs to millions of americans
3. In the end they have to pay for the morgage on the building, peoples checks, health care..etc
so in the end they may have a million baggilion dollers and by the end of the day its gone....
[post="968084"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
You forget that they own companies which reel in money from consumers. In the end, they don't lose all their money, otherwise there would hardly be any rich people left. No. They regain their money plus added profits.
 
VaughnsAHottie said:
Whats wrong with cutting tax for the rich? They are the people that supply jobs to the average man and if they dont get tax cuts then they can't afford there buisness which thus means they lay off employes... but i dont think its fair that celebritys get tax cuts....
[post="967839"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Rich people do not, in my experience, generally supply jobs to the average man (rather they spend it on luxury items).

Business owners ARE NOT equal to rich people. Some business owners may be rich and some rich people may be business owners, but being one does not automatically make you the other. And taxing businesses versus taxing individuals is different: individuals don't generally employ that many people.

Basically, people who have more money can afford to give more of it away then those that don't have it.

Take $5,000 more from Bill Gates and he might not even notice. Take $500 more from an impoverished family and it could leave them starving.

VaughnsAHottie said:
Ok I personally think that is wrong because
1. Rich people arnt really rich they have to pay other people there checks
2. They supply jobs to millions of americans
3. In the end they have to pay for the morgage on the building, peoples checks, health care..etc
so in the end they may have a million baggilion dollers and by the end of the day its gone....
[post="968084"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
1. Rich people are rich. Thus the name.
2. Rich people do NOT supply the jobs. Healthy businesses, companies, corporations and institutions do.
3. Everyone has to pay a mortgage (actually, the rich don't have to -- they can buy it outright, which ends up saving them tens of thousands of dollars in interest they would have paid in a mortgage -- the rich get richer, the poor get poorer) and pay for health care. Individuals do not employ that many people, companies do.
 
Leslie said:
You're right, Charlie. I agree. He should be doing more in that area. But there's only so much one man/country can do at a time...

I, for one, would like to see more attention paid to human rights violations in Cuba and China. But again, with the focus being what it is right now, unfortunately that isn't possible. :confused:

[post="968461"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

You don't see Bush bombing any of those countries though. No Bush supporter has defended:
*44 million people without health care, Bush is doing nothing.
*Immigrants will be deported without hearings.
*People being arrested and never given trials under the Patriot Act..

There's never too much, if he had time to lie and make up thigns to go to Iraq, he could definately talk to the Saudis.
 
Leslie said:
You're right, Charlie. I agree. He should be doing more in that area. But there's only so much one man/country can do at a time...

I, for one, would like to see more attention paid to human rights violations in Cuba and China. But again, with the focus being what it is right now, unfortunately that isn't possible. :confused:
[post="968461"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Unfortunately China and Cuba don't have any oil :rolleyes: Whoop, there goes the incentive.
 
Back
Top