Why did I vote for Bush?

barry206

New member
You can fool me once but it wont work the next time around.I'll vote for Sharpton before I vote for him again.Compassionate Conservatism =nothing more than Socialism.This immigritation proposal is total BS.As was 15-Billion to Africa,campaign finance reform,prescription drugs,education bill and the list goes on.Clinton didnt do this much damage Im sad to say.
I cant vote Republican anymore,they are not representing what I believe in.Could someone please find a 3rd party of real conservatives so I dont have to vote for Al.
Other than tax cuts[which havent really been implimented yet]he SUCKS.
 
I haven't voted for a Republican for pres. since Ronald Reagan.There are some that I would vote for but they never get the nomination. ( I don't believe they ever will )The last ellection I voted for Howard Philips of The Constitution Party as I will this time around.The Bush's are a family of well connected insiders as is the Kennedy clan.The Bush's are no more conservative than the Clinton's the Kennedy's etc. is.Back when Clinton talked of giving citezenship to the illegals, most republicans cried foul, where are those republicans today .( counting there votes I shouldn't wonder)
 
I know what you mean. This was the first election I didn't vote in since I turned 18. What kind of choice is it between an idiot who thinks trees and rocks can get their feelings hurt and a coke freak who thinks all votes are for sale to the highest bidder.

Nugent for Pres.
 
Campaigne finance reform was a heralded by the Democrats with the help of McCain, and was not the brain child of Bush or the Republican Party.

NAFTA was inacted under the Clinton Administartion and we are just now starting feel the pinch this is causing.

No President is going to please everyone in a country as diverse as the U. S. has become. Just look around. Half the people are willing to work and are working. The other half has no desire to as long as they can still get a check every month.

If you would truely vote for Al Sharpton over anybody ,Republican or Democrat, ( I mean just say that out loud and see how ludicrous it sounds) this whole topic has no credibility at all.

If Sharpton was Pres. what do you think his main objective would be? I can't even take you serious when you say such a thing.

coke freak who thinks all votes are for sale to the highest bidder.
Phylo- you're going to have to explain that one to me.

The Bush's are no more conservative than the Clinton's the Kennedy's etc.
Mo- If you believe that, you don't have a very good grasp on reality, or at least a good definition of conservative.
 
YH,the toung in cheek comment about Sharpton was meant to say I may as well vote for him.He supports my view almost as much as Bush.Of coarse I wont vote for him,he wont be nominated.Thats why I stated we need a 3rd party.
Bush had the opputunity to VETO the campaign finance reform and didnt,leaving it to the Supreme court.1st amendment violation after taking oath to uphold constitution obviously.McCain is registered as a Republican also but I dont know why.
I believe Mo is right about being no more conservative than the Kennedys,or not very much more at least.The Tax cuts arnt permanent and have barely started and wont be around long.Could someone point out to me what he has done for life long Americans other than the tax cut and the war on terrorism.By the way,the border is still wide open and he's inviting more.Can anyone prove to me he's not a Socialist?The list is a mile long on the things he's done to say otherwise.
Little by little we're letting it slip away.1st amendment this year,maybe the 2nd next year.Pretty soon the Blue Helments will be coming and the credits will roll.
 
I didn't think about how I put it but here goes. I think the coke freak reference is self-explanatory. Votes for sale to the highest bidder refers to this sudden 2nd Amendment change to a position of hoping the Congress will handle the whole thing without Mr Bush having to make a stand. I worry that if the 94 Ban comes up to the White House, we will get betrayed.

Don't assume I'm a Democrat though. There was no way I was going to vote for Mr. Gore either. My point should have been stated -- Neither party ran a candidate that represents the basic values of mainstream America in general and my values in specific.

The result of my rant is my belief that as long as politics are controlled by the rich, the middle class is screwed. As long as laws are written by lawyers, everyone who can't afford their own on staff is screwed. If you show me a candidate from any party who has read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and promises to vote on everything based on those 2 documents, he/she has my vote.
 
Reguarding the repubulicans and democrates, a co-worker called there relationship as one monster with two heads.
We need a third party but it needs to start at a local level.Any third party presidential canidate won't even get invited to a debate.They don't even mention them on the news,you have to search to find them.
And speaking of the media,shouldn't they have the caption at the end of the show that says,'this has been paid for by the xxxx campaign fund'.

Take care,
Mike
 
If your looking for a third political party, you might take a look at the Libertarian Party. Their website, www.lp.org, has the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz. If you take the quiz it will give you an idea where you stand as far as liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc. Some people are turned off by the stand on legalizing drugs, but they are strongly behind the Second Amendment. Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is libertarian. Apparently the Washington Post calls him Congressman No from his voting record. Which is, if the Constitution doesn't allow it, it's not legal and I'm voting no. Just an idea, check out for yourselves.
 
jawbone, I have read alot of their stuff, and they stand for alot of what I believe, only trouble is that they are too small to be a viable candidate for anything. They surely believe in freedom much more that any other party, esp. the socialist democrat communist party. But to be truthful, to me a vote for them is a wasted vote, as someone like slick willie can thus sneak in.
Barry
 
You guys can vote all you want for those 3rd party candidates but all your doing is throwing away your vote in protest; does anyone remember H. Ross Piero? I refer to that little egomaniac as the man who gave us Clinton (& her husband).

I said “throw away your vote” tongue and cheek; naturally no vote is ever wasted if you take the time to vote. Lets face it though; the next president is going to be one of two things, a Republican or a Democrat.

Pick the lesser of the two evils guys. I personally would much rather have Bush over Dean, Ghephart, Carry, or Sharpton. The only Democrat that I even have the slightest respect for is Lieberman and that is even pushing it.

Don’t you just love this country!
 
Pick the lesser of the two evils guys
Thats just it.I cant shoot myself in the stomach and die a slow painfull death anymore by voting for Bush again.The other option is to shoot myself in the head and get it over with by voting Democratic.Would you suffer a long hard death? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif I guess Ive got a while to ponder.
 
The LP has been around for well over 30 years. Their political successes amount to precious little. Given the current political & social realities in America, voting for them may feel good, but it amounts to tilting at windmills.

Don't misunderstand: On matters of principal & policy, I agree with them to a huge degree.

However, as a political party they have some serious problems.

For one, it has been badly mismanaged, and in my experience most people who vote LP have a very unrealistic and undoable view of how they can fix things.

The party itself, and so far as I can tell, most of it's members are focused on winning the presidency. This is foolish at best.

Stipulating that they could actually win -and operating as they have been, they can not- they are not going to get the results they expect. I've read what they claim for 20 years. They think that by winning the presidency, their candidate can simply undo all the cabinets, end the income tax, end the federal drug laws, etc.

Yet, by their very principals, the president is limited in power, as set fort in the COTUS. He ca NOT do these things on his own. He requires congress to pass legislation and send it to him to sign.

However, congress is composed of 2 parties, and neither one of them is the LP. There is not a single person elected to federal office as a Libertarian. Even Ron Paul, a self-proclaimed Libertarian, won his office by running as a Republican. His ballot had an R by his name, not an L.

Assuming a LP president, both parties will be scheming & plotting on how to regain the White House in the very next presidential election. They will not be concerned with carrying his water, they will want him despised & discredited, easily voted out.

Most people likely to vote LP now are republican voters. So LP votes will not draw from both parties, they will draw from republican votes. A large vote for the LP candidate will not elect him, but may well hand the election to the democrat.

The LP, for whatever reason, has demonstrated repeatedly that they simply will NOT run a serious campaign. If they want to effect change, they must first win office. To do that, they must campaign effectively. They must find & run serious candidates, people who the typical voter can take seriously. They must spend some serious money on the campaign, do some actual real work to get their name & positions out there.

They do none of these things.

If they want to achieve their goals of change, of returning us to the core laws of the constitution & bill of rights, they have to quit wasting their time, moeny & energies on the now unobtainable presidency, and instead draft & implement workable strategies to win -WIN, not run for & have a good time doing it- seats in the US House & Senate. They must identify vulnerable seats that may be won, due to redistricting, death, retirement, etc, and go after them. They need to get not one, but over time, many people elected, on the LP ticket, and establish an actual public record in office, for their votes & legislation.

Assuming people like their performance, they will then be enabled to win more, eventuall the presidency. Under such curcumstances, that president would then have a power block in congress to push the agenda and things could be done.

I am a Libertarian. But due to their track record, of pragmatic necessity, I generally vote republican. Until they get their **** together & get serious, it's gonna stay that way.

Sometimes you don't vote FOR the lesser of 2 evils; you vote AGAINST the worst of 2.

If you vote for someone who has zero chance of winning, it may feel good. But in reality all you have accomplished is to opt out of choosing between the 2 real choices and allowed everyone else to choose for you.

That sucks, but that's politics in America in 2004.
 
Yes Clinton approved of NAFTA and GATT, so does just about every Republican,I guess that makes Clinton Conservative on that issue? Bush wants to exspand the so called free trade.Bush has agreed to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas ( FTAA) patterned after the European Union.Bush has outspent every other president on non-military exp.(a deficit of 480 billion in 2004 ) Bush has pushed ahead on socialized Medicine.Bush has signed the Patriot Act II the day after finding Saddam, in which you and me ,nor any American, is secure from Federal searches of our papers.( its not limited to just bank records anymore )Bush has pandered to the gay vote( a first for republicans presidental canadates)Amnesty to illegals. Is Bush a conservative? No but he is a republican.Does that R beside his name earn my vote? Not hardly.His actions do.People believe that Ross Perot stole the ellection from Bush I.I voted for Ross, had he not ran I would have not voted at all.Putting an R besides ones name does not make you conservative.Ron Paul is now more closely aligned with the Libertarians only because the Republicans have moved away from Conservative principles .Until we make pollititions acoutable for there actions, we can exspect, and deserve there double speak.Just a question for the Blue dog Republicans:Is there anything wrong Bush could do that would turn your stomach and your vote ( outside of just changing that R to a D )
 
MO, lemme ask you:

Do you think America would be in better hands if Dean or Clark wins (or any of the rest of the 9 Dwarfs), compared to Bush? Because the reality, the fact is, that this november either Bush will win reelection, or one of those 9 will replace him.

Not the LP candidate, whoever that is (I haven't heard yet), not the communist Ralph Nader, not the constitutionalist Howard Phillips, nor independant Jesse Ventura.

Either Bush or a democrat.

Dean & Clark are currently to 2 most likely to win the primaries. Both of them have openly stated that they want massive tax increases and that they would turn authority for our national security over to the UN.

Both have engaged in doublespeak on guns. Dean has flip-flopped on so many issues we could start calling him Pancake Dean.

BTW, Bush has NOT proposed amnesty for illegals. Read what he asked for very carefully, there is no amnesty proposed, period. That isn't to say that I think he's right, but it isn't what you complained about.

Past presidents have actually granted amnesty. Clinton did, to millions, and accelerated a bunch to getting citizenship in time for a presidential election in which he was on the ballot. Even Reagan, in 1986, granted amnesty to a bunch of illegals.

Past presidents have already done worse regarding illegals than what Bush proposed. Bush can't even get this, unless congress passes something & sends it to him. Rather than bitch us out about it, have you taken the time to do so with those who actually matter, your elected representatives in DC?

I want to be able to vote for someone. I want to have a Ronald Reagan on my ballot that I can choose. But ya know what? There isn't one.

I'm sure Osama would prefer Dean win. I would rather not be on that side.
 
Stu: I don't think the future of America is in good hands with Bush!!Is Dean or any other Demo going to do better? No.Amnesty to Illegals is just what it says. Amnesty.Has he yet to address the problem of our southern borders? Will his new pollicy slow the illegals from coming?( oh thats right, it cost to much)As for the others presidents who did the same, it was wqrong when they did it too. As I work construction, I can tell you that Illegals have/ are taking over the construction trades. No, these are not those jobs Bush says "Americans won't do".( they just do them for a hell of alot less) You talk of the higher taxes that the Democrates want to impose, yet nothing on the overspending of the Republicans.So it's OK on one hand to spend more as long as this generation doesn't have to pay the bill.The exodus of manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas threatens to abolish our middle class' the bulwark of a free society. Instead of Bush trying to save our jobs here, his policy is to give them away.Our nations manufacturing sector has been the gateway to the middle class for untold millions of Americans,what will America look like when they continue to be outsouced to low wage nations? The American industrial base is being taken apart, piece by piece and relocated to other nations, yet Bush hasn't slowed it, he is speeding up that process.For years I made excuses for every bad deccission a Republican made. I have run out of excusses for them. They could have done no worse that if they had planed it.Another thing, I will get on no public forum as this, and tell the Republicans no matter how they vote,I will support them in the next ellection.I want them to know that I will hold them accountable.
 
Please do not put words in my mouth. I regard that as one of the lowest, most despicable forms of debate.

You did not read where I said the over spending, or any other thing, was OK, so you can damned well not make any assumptions. I agree that they are not OK.

I do not think the answer to those problems is to allow even worse people, who will do even worse, who proudly will tell you how much more they want to do, to be placed in charge.

I also never said that I would always vote for republicans. Right now, in this thread, we are specifically discussing the general election for the office of President this coming fall.

You can engrave this in stone: The winner of that election will either be Bush, or one of the 9 democrats running. Those are your actual choices of who is going to be in that office from 2005 through jan 2009.

If I could see where one of the democrats was a better choice than Bush, I would seriously examine voting for that person. However, I know all of these people. In my view -yours may differ- each and every one of them is worse than Bush by an order of magnitude. So while I disagree with Bush on many issues, as things stand right now I will most likely vote for Bush, as an act of voting against whichever one of these mental midgets wins the primary, rather than as an actual vote for Bush.

I think it would be great if the Libertarian Party were to attain to elected offices and exercise some power. Right now they are not going to do that, and it's their own damned fault because they refuse to run serious, competetive campaigns with electable candidates to win.

As much as I agree with the LP on principals, I'm really sick of hearing other Libertarians blame the voters for the LP's failures.

I'm not trying to tell you how to vote. That's your business. I have taken a considerable amount of time to explain my thinking on the issue simply so people like yourself, who seem to not have any understanding of why people vote the way they do, may have a crack at such understanding.
 
Last time I checked, the President cannot spend anything without Congressional approval. Congress still holds the majority in the Senate at least, so this is not all Republican spending. As long as a large portion of the population (minorities: particularly blacks, hispanics, and senior citizens) want social welfare, polititions are going to have to "give" them something since they can be a powerful voting block.

Much more of the blame should be put on people who want:

1. Free heathcare
2. Free housing or supplemented housing
3. Food stamps
4 . Any other give away program that you can think of.

If there were not so many people standing in line clamoring for handouts, spending would not be nearly the problem it is.

To many people in this country think the government OWES them something.
 
Stu, I put no words in your mouth ? Seems to me your accusation, being false, is the most dispicable . I realize that there are those,who keep votting for those Republicans that continue to take us down the road to socialism because there not taking us there as fast as the 9 dwarfs would.I'll vote for someone whom I believe will stop our continued decline, no matter how hopeless others tell me it is.
 
Back
Top