Vanity: [FR Poll] If it's Kerry vs Bush how will you vote?

2/7/2003 | FR

[yonif]

I thought because there is a poll on FR that says "If it's Kerry vs Bush how will you vote?" it would be good to start a thread on the matter for people to explain how they voted in the poll, if they choose to do so.

[Final Authority]

I will vote my conscience and give my vote to the candidate best able to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domenstic. If you have a problem with that answer maybe you must reconsider your man.

[Dec31,1999]

I'm shocked! What is that thing about Jewish people voting for Democrats (Marxists)? I just don't get it. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

With all due respect, you would have been the LAST person on this earth, I would have thought, to be undecided between Bush and Kerry. What am I missing?

[nopardons]

Barbra Streisand!

It's a wasted vote. The idea is to cast a vote, for the candidate you want to win. To win, the candidate MUST be viable.No fringe candidate is viable. Ergo, your vote is wasted.

[carpio]

the rich merely sent their sons to College to get them deferments, or they sent them overseas to Europe and such to make them ineligible.

Hell of a defense.

carpio

[yonif]

We're talking about the upcoming PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ! A Libertarian dog catcher, or a Constitution Party school board member doesn't cut it. No fringer is going to be elected president, or even a Senator, in your lifetime! The people of Minn. are still ashamed and sorry that Jesse Ventura was ever elected governor.You think that'll ever happen again,any time soon ? LOL

I don't agree on the Senator part. Independents have been able to get elected to the House of Representatives. Maybe it will reach Senate later on in the near future. In the presidential elections part, I agree, a third-party candidate will never be able to get elected.

[nopardons]

And since YOU aren't an American citizen,don't even live here,you can't vote in an American election. And who YOU would vote for, if you could vote,is irrelevant!

[AM2000]

reductions in spending. Bush is currently making an effort at part 2.

Bush is trying to reduce spending? Oh I'm sorry that must have been what that gigantic Medicare boondoggle was about. Oh, and Mars.

[billbears]

You can make a case that a vote for a third party in the federal elections is like you are not there and is a waste, however, in the other levels of governance it is incorrect to say so.

I have to disagree with you on the first part. I think that it has to affect the candidates somewhat when they see growing numbers of people either not voting or voting for a third party. Even Rove has stated the importance of getting certain parties on the side of Republicans in the 2000 election. Say a large group of the electorate, evangelicals (Christians) for example, were to hypothetically sit out more than one election, what would happen? How would a candidate try to regain that vote?

Eventually, and I'm not saying necessarily in 2004, this is going to happen. A protest vote from the right will eventually occur to the point that it will make the Republican party realize they can't continually keep moving to gain votes.

[MJY1288]

Cmon bud, should the immigration problem be blamed on this President? ........Hell no, it's been a problem for decades, but just like the homeless problem, it only gets attention when a Republican is in office.

Shortly after GWB was sworn in, the NYT's started writing 3 to 5 articles a day about Illegal immigration and how the problem must be addressed, a subject completely off the table when Slick Willy was in office, why so many people fall for this tactic by the left is beyond me. This POTUS is not responsible for the problem, CONGRESS is. Don't allow yourself to be a tool for the left

[Dec31,1999]

I'm shocked! What is that thing about Jewish people voting for Democrats (Marxists)? I just don't get it. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

With all due respect, you would have been the LAST person on this earth, I would have thought, to be undecided between Bush and Kerry. What am I missing?

[AM2000]

W is of course perhaps the worst president when it comes to spending in modern times.

Exactly. He's spending more on things that are important (like the WOT) but also on things that can wait.

[Happygal]

How very narrow minded of you.

I shall remember that, when you comment on any other country outside of the US.

Your arrogance is astounding.

[Mo1]

I swear to God I am going to vote for Kerry just because he had the gonads to NOT buy his way out of service. Like he easily could have. The GOP has had every chance to run a Vietnam Vet.

I'm not going to dump on Kerry about his service .. IMO his records while in elected office speaking volumes

Yes, I am one of those who were to young to remember Vietnam .. and yes it was a terribly run war by the likes of LBJ and his gang

But where is is written that only people that served in Vietnam are only qualified to run for President

[AM2000]

If you don't like GW's spending just wait until hanoi john gets in

Well, if the polls show NJ as being close (anything less than a 20 pt gap) I'll vote Bush. I absolutely do not want to see Kerry president. But if he's not even close (and I have a feeling he might not be) then I may sit it out.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

While you're on the subject, what unit did you serve in?

Can you name your duty assignment and station for me? I'm interested now.

[gatorbait]

I'll just have to drive one of my other 4 cars till I can get the EPA to release it.

Oh you hit the after Christmas sale at toy r us? Drive 4 cars? Hmm Next ,you'll tell me what they all are,, none under $50 k,right? Damn,I wish I had boots on.

[nopardons]

Please read the post this one is in reply to.Its going to interest you greatly. Thanks,Jim.

carpio, you are NO Conservative at all.Deep down, you're nothing but a sniveling class warfare Marxist.

[AlbionGirl]

I do understand your thinking on this, I really do. And I can see myself, if I were a Vet seeing it the same way.

I won't be voting for Kerry because I don't think he understands the terror threat that well, that's my opinion. Maybe he just has to play to the nuts in his party in order to get elected, and maybe once there he'll rise to the occasion. He has the 'nads (as you put it) for sure.

And barring an American City or two being leveled, I think we'll survive a Kerry presidency too. And the truth is no man or administration can fully protect us from attack, that's a fact.

The enemy only has to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100 out of 100 times, and I'm sure you know much better than I that that is impossible.

Back to your point about Republicans not nominating a Vietnam Vet; who in the party as it is structured right now served? I mean I just can't think of anyone.

Charles Krauthammer had a piece on Kerry and the Presidency yesterday. I found it at National Review online. I bet you'd find it interesting.

Take care, and God Bless!

[Happygal]

A person should vote for who they believe in...now who they are told to believe in by the 'whip'.

[labolarueda]

"But it won't come any where close to being fixed if the Dems take control back .. in fact there will be a complete opposite .. the Dems have a history in that department"

The only one to, not only be unwilling to fix this problem, but acting contrary to the wishes of most people with this issue is Bush.

To be honest with you I would have supported him were not for this immigration proposal. This issue is of outmost importance to me and critical to the future of our nation and our children. It is the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

He has made his decision and I will make mine. Which one is better only God knows.