The only reason I'm posting yet another of these polls is that I'm actually curious about this specific breakdown. The poll will be private, but I ask that people answer truthfully.

My own reasons are largely because of Kerry's stance on domestic policy issues. He's for gay rights, and by his own statements is something of a secularist, IE doesn't believe it's the government's place to legislate on articles of faith. As a homosexual atheist I can't ask for much more. I also think that our standing in the world would take a major hit if Bush was Re-elected. What happens if the rest of the world sees us legitimately electing Bush? Heated global anti-Bushism becomes genuine anti-Americanism, that's what. A new face show's the world that these last four years aren't exactly how we planned things to go either.

Of course, there's the fact that Bush is simply unelectable, but that's the subject of so many other threads around here that I don't suppose that there's much point going into it unless of course anyone particularly wants to hear it from me specifically.

The one thing that actually gets me about Kerry and homosexuality is that he's still retreating from it. Chris Matthews asked former President Carter about it, and the Peanut Farmer gave the best political answer ever. I mean, this was on par with a Clintonism:

Well, I never have been in favor of marriages between people of the same sex. I don‘t favor that now, don‘t think John Kerry does, and I know that George Bush doesn‘t.

But I do believe that people who have tendencies to be gay...

MATTHEWS: Right.

CARTER: ... if they form an alliance or partnership under secular law, which is our law of this country, ought to be treated fairly and equitably.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281085/)

What's so hard about saying that? Carter can say it. Why can't Kerry or Edwards--both lawyers with an understanding of the Constitution--come out and say it?

Oh, right. That's right. I forgot about the voters, who just don't want to think that much.

For myself, Kerry's my "third-choice" candidate. Lacking an ideal candidate (first choice), Kerry is my second choice among the Democrats.

Like Michael Moore, however, I do long for the days when Democrats were Democrats and progressive society had a voice. Kerry has made some grandiose promises that are impossible to keep, but as a Democrat, he will answer to the people. It's kind of hard not to.

The greatest single threat to world stability is, in my opinion, George W. Bush. Everything else needs to be dealt with in due order, but clearing what I see as myopia and irrationality and jingoism from the Oval Office will actually allow that everything else a chance to be dealt with.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment I've found in this election cycle, though, is the absolute inability of GOP supporters to put forth any real argument. It's discouraging to see success (represented in a sitting president) so dependent on the lowest aspects of fear and ignorance in our society.

For me, this isn't about Bush or Kerry, Democrat or Republican or anything else.

This is about the United States of America, its people, and all of our neighbors in the world. The very least I owe my neighbors is to not endorse the forfeiture of the principles upon which America's greatness is built.

Well, I'm not an American, so Kerry's domestic agenda wouldn't affect me -- but the very notion of pre-emptive war is a scary one... and has already opened up a Pandora's box.

As far as I'm concerned the far right should be disassembled completely, just as communism was in Eastern Europe. There are so many new flavours of center right/left politics to explore now -- politics that are truly aimed at transmigrating modern man away from this armpit of good versus evil, and greed versus need.

I vote for Kerry, less of two evils, Kerry is not Bush, and considering how well bush fucked up chances are Kerry can’t do any worse. Bush well be elected though, at least I can say "well don't blame me I voted for the other guy!"

I picked "Other" cuz I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I would vote for him since I'm a Green (as of yesterday).

Yesterday, I was doing some searching on the Internet, and I happened across a page describing the Green party and their stance on the major issues. As far as I have read, I totally agree with them. Well, Nader is their presidential candidate.

Sadly, Nader is not on Oregon's ballot. In that case, Kerry would be my second choice.

(46 posts to go!)

Please don't vote for a thrid, vote Kerry, it all about getting Bush out.

Please don't vote for a thrid, vote Kerry, it all about getting Bush out.

Normally I'd say "It's my vote, biotch!", but since I hate Bush as much as ya, I'll do what ya request of me and support Kerry. He has a better chance to win than Nader anyway.

44 posts to go!

oh -- here's an international poll.

Sixty per cent of British voters say they don't like Bush, rising to a startling 77% among those under 25.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica/story/0,15221,1327568,00.html

I vote for Kerry, less of two evils, Kerry is not Bush, and considering how well bush fucked up chances are Kerry can’t do any worse. Bush well be elected though, at least I can say "well don't blame me I voted for the other guy!"

Well, I don't see Kerry as an evil but as the only viable exit door. Of course, the polls are already predicting an extremely tight race -- as in 2000, and I was fascinated to read how the Kerry team are already in position:

The Kerry campaign has office space in every battleground state, with plans so detailed they include the number of staplers and coffee machines needed to mount legal challenges. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102104L.shtml)

Kerry - because he ain't Bush.

There are oodles of threads pertaining to why Bush is evil - I won't get into the reasons here.

Some might see it as superficial to vote for a candidate only because the other is so wrong, and not because you the candidate can actually do a good job, but the blatant abuses of government along with the fear inspired campaign to control middle america are so far to the right that Bush must be prevented from having four more years in the witehouse. Kerry may not be the best candidate, but if we elect him, there is at least that chance for debate and dissent to be listened to unlike Bush's regime that rules from on high and tells us what is good for the country.

Wow, I just doubled the tally for Bush!

I will vote Bush because he has the balls, the courage, and the conviction to take the fight to the enemy and to keep at it until we've won. Bush will stay in Iraq until the war is well and truly won. Kerry is a wimp. He would pull out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity regardless of the chaos he would leave behind. He may, as a vietnamn veteran, have physical courage, but he lacks the courage of his convictions. He's for the war, says it would be irresponsible to not provide the funding necesary to supply our troops, then votes against the funding. He says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the war. Then he says it's the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time (a quote he stole from Dean). Kerry stands for nothing. This kind of nonsense is OK if your simply one of many Senators who rarely bothers to vote anyway, but a commander in chief needs to stand for something. His word has to mean something.

I support Bush.

Reasons:

Taxation: Raising taxes on a slowly growing economy is one sure method of killing that growth. Millionaires, my a$$. Every American I know makes less than 50 thou. Everyone I know got a 'Bush Raise' when the actual witholding dropped.

The Jihad: Bush understands we are fighting a long term war with no V-T day, or Armistice. The Jihad will continue until the Jihadis are utterly defeated, or the entire world has submitted to Wahabbi Islam. Bush will continue to fight 'over there'. Kerry would bring the Army and the War home to America, then treat it as a 'police matter'.

Strength: Bush is actively for a strong military. Kerry has voted against every major weapons system examined by the Senate. He would cancel the Anti-Ballistic Missile System, and we need that if we are going to face N Korea without folding to Atomic Blackmail.

National Self Determination: Bush participates in the UN, but is not ruled by it. Kerry has expressed a desire to place our military under UN command, our courts under World Courts, and supports a tax on 'Rich Nations' to fund worldwide socialist programs. (another layer of government, with MORE POWER can give you everything you want)

Industry: Bush opposes the Kyoto treaty. This treaty is nothing more than an economic deadweight being hung on the US, while the two bigger polluters (China, India) get off scot free. Kerry thinks this will re-vitalize the Rust Belt? Who's he trying to kid?

2nd Amendment: Bush allowed the AWB to expire. Kerry would put it back, and add more restrictions.

Energy: Kerry's energy plan involves limiting use of fuels by limiting supply. (rationing? taxes?) Bush would develop the oilfields currently tied up in court battles.

Yesterday, I was doing some searching on the Internet, and I happened across a page describing the Green party and their stance on the major issues. As far as I have read, I totally agree with them. Well, Nader is their presidential candidate.


Check again, Nader is running as an independent this time, the Green party won't support him in his run. Though you're correct, normaly he's with the Greens, but this time around even they will be voting Kerry.

I will vote Bush because he has the balls, the courage, and the conviction to take the fight to the enemy and to keep at it until we've won. Bush will stay in Iraq until the war is well and truly won.

Never mind the fact that we're fighting an enemy we invented when we went into the wrong nation looking for a fight. I should hope our next president will have a bit more tact, or at least be free of bizarre vendettas which exclude him from listening to the cautions of any of his military or intelligence advisors.

Kerry is a wimp. He would pull out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity regardless of the chaos he would leave behind.

I don't think it needs to be pointed out, but just for the sake of antagonism I'd like to let you know that we can all see how entirely baseless this is.

At this point both candidates essentially have the same plan for Iraq, hold elections, train Iraqi security forces, and then get the hell out of there and pretend we didn't accidentally invade the wrong nation. If we were looking for ties to Alqueda and WMD, then I’d say Bush did a pretty good in spite of his dyslexia, after all, the only thing separating Iran and Iraq is one letter.


His word has to mean something.

Well I don't exactly thing Bush's means a whole lot at this point, especially when it comes to his war on terror.

Well -- after watching Furious George's performance during the first debate, I. can. not. believe anyone will take him seriously now. And then talk about a quick flip-flop of character during the following debates! Talk about sus. pi. cious.

Wow, I just doubled the tally for Bush!

I will vote Bush because he has the balls, the courage, and the conviction to take the fight to the enemy and to keep at it until we've won. Bush will stay in Iraq until the war is well and truly won. Kerry is a wimp. He would pull out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity regardless of the chaos he would leave behind. He may, as a vietnamn veteran, have physical courage, but he lacks the courage of his convictions. He's for the war, says it would be irresponsible to not provide the funding necesary to supply our troops, then votes against the funding. He says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the war. Then he says it's the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time (a quote he stole from Dean). Kerry stands for nothing. This kind of nonsense is OK if your simply one of many Senators who rarely bothers to vote anyway, but a commander in chief needs to stand for something. His word has to mean something.

BUSH SUPPORTERS LOVE HIS BALLS.

KERRY IS A PUSSY FLIP-FLOPPER.

VOICES FROM THE DIVINE ARE REASONABLE REASONS TO GO TO WAR.

Look at that - I said exactly what you said in only 3 sentences. More outlining of the differences between the two sides. Bush is every red neck's wet dream of a president. He loves god, country and fightin'. Somehow, even though he was "educated" at an ivy league school and comes from a family of wealth, he has managed to put on this "man's man" facade. Sure, he can't speak and he messes up the really tough words, but doesn't every idiot out there do that?

Then there's the voices.

Bush has claimed it was God that inspired him to invade Iraq. Doesn't the right even see something wrong with this?

On the Kerry side, we hold no dillusions that he will fix everything and be our greatest president ever. We see his shortcomings and hope that he can overcome them. With Bush, people make him out to be the messiah. And when God tells you what to do, it's kind of hard to say you make mistakes. I don't think we've ever seen a president that is so cocky and egomaniacal.

With four more years of this lunatic, we will see nothing good come out of this country that is in any way progressive. He's already set us back several years with his lack of understanding of dissent among the masses, record setting debt, and erosion of the church and state boundries. The future of America - not the redneck everyman's amerika, but the America our forefathers and founders envisioned, relies on kicking this asshole out of power.

I'm not american, but I voted other(none of the above) bush is a puppet, and kerrys to liberal for me. not that it's a choice for me to make, I'm sure you could do better, hilary clinton for one, and maybe edwards as presidential candidate, rather then kerry. if this was the case they might just get in, but I cant see kerry, beating the puppet, unfortunately.
but stranger things have happened.
I dont know what you americans, think of our tony blair, if you like him. we can always ship him over. for the next election.

I'll go Kerry mostly because I do believe he will do better in terms of not feeding the fat cats and while he (Kerry) is to religious for my taste Bush (Right Wing Religious Fanatic) belongs in the Nut House not the White House.

Then there's the voices.
Bush has claimed it was God that inspired him to invade Iraq. Doesn't the right even see something wrong with this?

That is BS based entirely on a quote from Mahmoud Abbas. A man whose motives are suspect and who doesn't even speak english! This is the quote you are referring to:

"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

Now here's a quote from the same article as the above regarding the trustworthyness of the alleged Bush quote:

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

Bush has never said anything like this any other time. You are basing your attack on Bush on what amounts to a game of Chinese telephone.

PS Bush is tied in a sciforums poll!!! If that can happen here, I smell a blow out. He was even in the lead until Mac M weighed in (et tu, Mac?)

I'm still curious: did the White House ever say anything about the Abas quote? Because at the time, they simply refused to clarify.