I'm sorry, I just don't understand how someone could re-elect Bush

[RaynorWolfcastle]

In all honesty, I can't understand how someone could re-elect Bush after the mess he made with Iraq and the deficit in his last term. How do you vote for Bush and give "moral values" as the reason you did it? Is it just the lack of viable conservative alternative or is it really that you think that he is taking the US in the right direction?

I hardly think Kerry was an ideal candidate for the Dems, but I really couldn't see myself re-electing Bush for a second mandate. Worse for the US, IMHO, is that the Republicans now control the floor, the Senate, and have a President that doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. If I were an American, I'd be very worried about what the laws that will get drafted and the appointments that will be made in this context.

Finally, this leaves me scratching my head as to what this means for the Dems if they couldn't capitalize on what was a pretty bad first mandate for a Repub. President. If they couldn't get a President elected now, what are the conditions needed for them to get someone else in? In essence, people decided that despite what he did in his first mandate, Dubya would be a better leader than Kerry.

Now a little about me to give these thoughts a little context: I am Canadian, and I think I would be considered conservative in Canada, and maybe a centrist or a slight leftist in the 'States.

Reading the exit poll info is what got me thinking about all this. What does everyone think about this whole thing?

P.S.: Can someone explain to me in what way Dubya's "moral values" are preferable to Kerry's? Their stance on gay marriage is a non-issue since they both said they were against it. The only difference is that Kerry said he would consider allowing them to have some sort of civil union.

 

[Kalvin00]

*yawn*

 

[jpeyton]

Any apologists want to ring in and answer the question?

 

[jtusa]

Yay, we need more of these threads!

ETA: Just read that you're a Canadian, so your opinion of my country means dick to me.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Kalvin00
*yawn*

Thank you for your insight, it's very much appreciated. Did you even bother reading past the (admittedly incendiary) title of the thread?

Originally posted by: jtusa4
Yay, we need more of these threads!

ETA: Just read that you're a Canadian, so your opinion of my country means dick to me.

I'm asking for your opinion sir. I know very well that my opinion "means dick to you". I'm just curious to know what exactly was it that made you pick one side over the other

 

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: Kalvin00
*yawn*

ad infinitum

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Well for starters there is always going to be a base for either party, that will vote for their party NO MATTER WHAT. Apart and in addition to that, Bush is considered a "war time" president, and I was listening the other day to some fellow on the radio who said in general a war-time president is likely to be re-elected, and the fact that it was such a close race for Bush v. Kerry that that reflected poorly on GWB, since they (war time presidents) usually win by a wide margin.

OK hope that helps a bit, good luck coping.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would guess that some people feel more comfortable with Bush's perceived stance on domestic issues like abortion, gay marriages, etc. It could be a variety of things. These same people might think that the reason to invade Iraq was 'good'.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[isasir]

This is my VERY broad generalization, but I think Republicans care about just themselves, and democrats moreso care about others. Those that voted for Bush had jobs while he was president so they don't care if others didn't. They don't care that the rest of the world hates the US, since they probably aren't travelling much beyond their hometown. Just don't take away their guns and make queers able to marry, and they'll be just fine.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: isasir
This is my VERY broad generalization, but I think Republicans care about just themselves, and democrats moreso care about others. Those that voted for Bush had jobs while he was president so they don't care if others didn't. They don't care that the rest of the world hates the US, since they probably aren't travelling much beyond their hometown. Just don't take away their guns and make queers able to marry, and they'll be just fine.

Or Republicans don't blame every single thing that went wrong on Bush. It's not Bush's fault jobs were lost, it's not my fault, its called an economic cycle, and it happens. Do i care people lost jobs? Of course, and I'm hoping to god more jobs are made (good news in the Friday jobs report w/ 337,000 new jobs). I care that the world hates us, but I'm not going to pander to what they want. I don't own a gun, and I'm against gay marriage and for civil unions.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: isasir
This is my VERY broad generalization, but I think Republicans care about just themselves, and democrats moreso care about others. Those that voted for Bush had jobs while he was president so they don't care if others didn't. They don't care that the rest of the world hates the US, since they probably aren't travelling much beyond their hometown. Just don't take away their guns and make queers able to marry, and they'll be just fine.

Yes, very broad, and very dumb generalization, but it seems to be working for you so keep it up! :thumbsup:

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Their stance on gay marriage is a non-issue since they both said...

You are very trusting of what politicians say!

 

[GoingUp]

I used to be very conservative but after attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison I am much more liberal. On the political compass test, I scored a -1 and 0 so I'm pretty middle of the road.

There are a lot of things that I don't like about Bush. His enviornmental record is atrocious. He cozys up to the religous right too much. The deficit is terrible. The whole Cheney-Halberton thing is dodgy at best. I am prochoice and pro gay marraige.

Yet I still voted for him in both elections.

I don't like the campaign that liberals ran of "anyone but Bush" They didn't actually put up anyone worth voting for. Kerry never could ever take a solid stand on any issue. The war in Iraq is one. Yes, the situation in Iraq is a mess, and we could have planned things a lot better, but all I ever heard from Kerry is that "I will do things better." Kerry never really mentioned how he would do things better. On television Kerry paniced and told Diana Sawyer "not to try and back him into a corner" when she asked him that if he were president, would Saddam still be in power.

Although I don't agree with everything that Bush says or does, at least I know where he stands on every issue. Kerry is incapable of ever taking a firm stand on anything. I would rather have someone who is firm and I disagree with then someone who changes his mind based on what he thinks the public wants to hear.

In regards to Iraq, Kerry said that even if he knew at the beginning of the war what he knows now, his vote wouldn't have changed for the authorization to use force. I believe that GW had faulty intelligence which he believed to be true about WMDs. The final report concluded that there were no WMDs, but Saddam was seeking to end UN sanctions and resume his WMD programs. This was enough in my mind to justify the war. If you goto the doctor because you have a cyst, do you wait for it to become cancerous and spread through your body before you treat it, or would you cut it out before any major problems can occur?

I also feel that Kerry is weak on security. I trust Bush more to handle my security then Kerry. The whole notion of "passing a global test" before any action is nonsense. If someone breaks into my house to do me harm, I'm going to kill the person without worrying what my neighbor thinks. It's wonderful to talk about social security, the deficit, the enviornment, what other countries think of us, but the real truth is, none of that matters if the United States gets attacked again. None of it matters if a nuke is set off on our own soil.

This is why I voted for Bush. There are a lot of things that I hope he does better in his second term, but I still trust him more than Kerry.

I'm sure that I am going to get flamed for my above response, so if you have hatemail and want to tell me how I'm ruining the world, please direct your ire to ccmeyer@wisc.edu Don't bother asking for cliffs notes because I won't post them.

I also refuse to make any apologies for my vote. The wonderful thing about America is that all citizens have a voice in elections no matter who they choose to vote for. I really wish more people would exercise that right.

That's enough for this evening. I look forward to your feedback.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

See, your problem is that you made your decision based off who had the better campaign. Bush had the better campaign, the republicans' propoganda were aimed at 3 ideas - that Kerry was indecisive, that Bush would protect America better, and that Bush has "morals" written on his forhead. Kerry's campaign was pretty disorganized and they failed to get a clear message out. It was a whole lot of criticism and not much answers.

Now if you actually watched the debates, kept up with the news (oh the LIBERAL news, yeah I forgot this was another target of the Bush campaign).... If you looked at the facts and did some thinking of your own, you would have realized that Kerry wasn't able to publicly say everything he wanted to say. He was walking a very fine line of being critical. And Bush was soo eager to try and label him as not patriotic and anti-America. I mean c'mon - Kerry had the balls to serve his country in Vietnam and THEN come back and say that it was a mistake. Now how do you think he REALLY feels about Iraq. He knows that situation like the back of his hand. It's a quagmire.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
See, your problem is that you made your decision based off who had the better campaign. Bush had the better campaign, the republicans' propoganda were aimed at 3 ideas - that Kerry was indecisive, that Bush would protect America better, and that Bush has "morals" written on his forhead. Kerry's campaign was pretty disorganized and they failed to get a clear message out. It was a whole lot of criticism and not much answers.

Now if you actually watched the debates, kept up with the news (oh the LIBERAL news, yeah I forgot this was another target of the Bush campaign).... If you looked at the facts and did some thinking of your own, you would have realized that Kerry wasn't able to publicly say everything he wanted to say. He was walking a very fine line of being critical. And Bush was soo eager to try and label him as not patriotic and anti-America. I mean c'mon - Kerry had the balls to serve his country in Vietnam and THEN come back and say that it was a mistake. Now how do you think he REALLY feels about Iraq. He knows that situation like the back of his hand. It's a quagmire.

Actually I watched him vote for the authorization of force, then get killed by Dean in the primaries so he switched his position, then he didnt support the war or the troops by "voting for the 87 billion before voting against it" then he supported the troops, then called them incompitent for losing the explosives......

oh and his notion of talking to France and Germany and magically having them come help us out in Iraq is utter nonsense. Its our mess and were not going to get any extra help, no matter who the president is.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
I used to be very conservative but after attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison I am much more liberal. On the political compass test, I scored a -1 and 0 so I'm pretty middle of the road.

There are a lot of things that I don't like about Bush. His enviornmental record is atrocious. He cozys up to the religous right too much. The deficit is terrible. The whole Cheney-Halberton thing is dodgy at best. I am prochoice and pro gay marraige.

Yet I still voted for him in both elections.

I don't like the campaign that liberals ran of "anyone but Bush" They didn't actually put up anyone worth voting for. Kerry never could ever take a solid stand on any issue. The war in Iraq is one. Yes, the situation in Iraq is a mess, and we could have planned things a lot better, but all I ever heard from Kerry is that "I will do things better." Kerry never really mentioned how he would do things better. On television Kerry paniced and told Diana Sawyer "not to try and back him into a corner" when she asked him that if he were president, would Saddam still be in power.

Although I don't agree with everything that Bush says or does, at least I know where he stands on every issue. Kerry is incapable of ever taking a firm stand on anything. I would rather have someone who is firm and I disagree with then someone who changes his mind based on what he thinks the public wants to hear.

In regards to Iraq, Kerry said that even if he knew at the beginning of the war what he knows now, his vote wouldn't have changed for the authorization to use force. I believe that GW had faulty intelligence which he believed to be true about WMDs. The final report concluded that there were no WMDs, but Saddam was seeking to end UN sanctions and resume his WMD programs. This was enough in my mind to justify the war. If you goto the doctor because you have a cyst, do you wait for it to become cancerous and spread through your body before you treat it, or would you cut it out before any major problems can occur?

I also feel that Kerry is weak on security. I trust Bush more to handle my security then Kerry. The whole notion of "passing a global test" before any action is nonsense. If someone breaks into my house to do me harm, I'm going to kill the person without worrying what my neighbor thinks. It's wonderful to talk about social security, the deficit, the enviornment, what other countries think of us, but the real truth is, none of that matters if the United States gets attacked again. None of it matters if a nuke is set off on our own soil.

This is why I voted for Bush. There are a lot of things that I hope he does better in his second term, but I still trust him more than Kerry.

I'm sure that I am going to get flamed for my above response, so if you have hatemail and want to tell me how I'm ruining the world, please direct your ire to ccmeyer@wisc.edu Don't bother asking for cliffs notes because I won't post them.

I also refuse to make any apologies for my vote. The wonderful thing about America is that all citizens have a voice in elections no matter who they choose to vote for. I really wish more people would exercise that right.

That's enough for this evening. I look forward to your feedback.

great post

 

[flawlssdistortn]

The whole thing about the 87 billion - he just wanted to make sure that it wasn't just provided in a way that allowed it to disappear in the pockets of individuals. He was all for financial support, but he wasnt about to hand it over and ask no questions. And yeah that whole thing about france and germany was kinda bs. But let me tell you that both countries watched the election and were pulling for Kerry. They would have been a lot more open to America had he been elected.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

I don't like Bush's attitude, he just goes about things by "shooting at the hip." He doesn't have a second thought, is guided by "religion" and "morals" (whatever that is). Look, being a simple down to earth man is something i can admire, but when you're president that aint gonna fly. You better be prepared to explain things, have answers, and take a lot of criticism. Not everyone's a christian in the world and you have to be able to deal with that. You better be able to accept responsibility and admit mistakes.

And Bush is not a team player. He says he makes efforts to be bipartisan, but if he doesnt like what someone has to say, he just ignores them. He gave Colin Powell and the General the cold shoulder when they had some objections to the invasion of Iraq. He gave the UN the cold shoulder when they also had objections.

This question of terrorism and the middle east is a very complex situation and i dont think Bush has the capacity to see that. I think Kerry had the ability to keep us safe without letting the terrorists goad us into waging war against the entire middle east. Bush thinks he's a cowboy. And Bin Laden thinks hes an indian. And their gonna make this into a much larger conflict than it has to be.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
I don't like Bush's attitude, he just goes about things by "shooting at the hip." He doesn't have a second thought, is guided by "religion" and "morals" (whatever that is). Look, being a simple down to earth man is something i can admire, but when you're president that aint gonna fly. You better be prepared to explain things, have answers, and take a lot of criticism. Not everyone's a christian in the world and you have to be able to deal with that. You better be able to accept responsibility and admit mistakes.

And Bush is not a team player. He says he makes efforts to be bipartisan, but if he doesnt like what someone has to say, he just ignores them. He gave Colin Powell and the General the cold shoulder when they had some objections to the invasion of Iraq. He gave the UN the cold shoulder when they also had objections.

This question of terrorism and the middle east is a very complex situation and i dont think Bush has the capacity to see that. I think Kerry had the ability to keep us safe without letting the terrorists goad us into waging war against the entire middle east. Bush thinks he's a cowboy. And Bin Laden thinks hes an indian. And their gonna make this into a much larger conflict than it has to be.

It's "shooting from the hip".

 

[flawlssdistortn]

yeah i know that, lol... just a typo

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
yeah i know that, lol... just a typo

It's all good.

 

[DrDrakeRomoray]

How many people actually changed their minds about the issues from reading these threads? I'm sure its pretty much zero because most people who come here have their minds pretty much set. Most of the people here simply want to spread their views and to have others see things their way, however, its only falling on def ears.

Liberals are very, well, liberal. They are vocal and very expressive of themself. Thats why you will see liberals protesting all the time.

Conservatives tend to convserve themselves. They will sit back and listen and only exsert energy if they REALLY HAVE to. I think thats why you'll see a lot of anti-Bush threads and very few responses to them because most Convservatives simply don't want to waiste their time.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: DrDrakeRomoray
Liberals are very, well, liberal. They are vocal and very expressive of themself. Thats why you will see liberals protesting all the time.

Conservatives tend to convserve themselves. They will sit back and listen and only exsert energy if they REALLY HAVE to. I think thats why you'll see a lot of anti-Bush threads and very few responses to them because most Convservatives simply don't want to waiste their time.

Well thats only a sign of the current situation: the liberals have more to protest because there is a majority of conservatives in power, and likewise the conservatives whose only have to defend whatever allegation is accosted them.

 

[phonemonkey]

Originally posted by: DrDrakeRomoray
Conservatives tend to convserve themselves. They will sit back and listen and only exsert energy if they REALLY HAVE to. I think thats why you'll see a lot of anti-Bush threads and very few responses to them because most Convservatives simply don't want to waiste their time.

That's a pretty odd statement. I'd say it could possibly be true for most conservatives, but the ultra-conservatives, IMHO, are louder than most liberals.

 

[NesuD]

You don't have to understand it. All you need to know is that the majority of Americans going to the polls voted to reelect him. End of story. Time to accept it and move on.