DescentBB

It's that time again. Poll runs for seven days.

Another closed minded poll. No option for me and will

Max options for polls is four. It's an oppressive four-option system!

I am with Birds and Will on this one. I vote for none of the above.

How about "They both suck but since anyone must be better than Bush I'll vote Kerry".

ya we really need to increase the amount of polling options in this DBB. i'd like to see 16

i'm a little scared that kerry could actually be WORSE than bush. i mean, i'm getting this "alterior motive, trojan horse" vibe from the media about him. maybe it's coz no-one's real sure WHY he should be in office cept to kick bush out.

*sigh* isn't there a better man again?

Of course not. Anyone with any real integrity got bumped out of politics when they tried to run for their local city council.

im voting for bush becuase i dont want to see kerry in office. i survived the bush administration so far, i dont give kerry that much credit...

I vote for Powell. If i could vote that is.....and erm... if he was running.

Since everything is on the upswing, why would anyone want to put a change of leadership now? Unemployment down, close to a million new jobs since aug. of last year, economic indicators continue to rise and contrary to the nay sayers, the war on terrorism is also going well.

Cause Bush is a moron, but I digress.

Bush may be a moron, but atleast we know where he stands. I'd rather see him in office for another term and hope that someone better comes along from either the Dems or Repubs in the next election then vote Kerry.

"Since everything is on the upswing, why would anyone want to put a change of leadership now? Unemployment down, close to a million new jobs since aug. of last year, economic indicators continue to rise and contrary to the nay sayers, the war on terrorism is also going well. "

Very little to do with George Bush. This is like giving Clinton credit for the 90s boom. I'll ignore the war on terror comment.

Tyranny wrote:Bush may be a moron, but atleast we know where he stands.

woodchip wrote:Since everything is on the upswing, why would anyone want to put a change of leadership now? Unemployment down, close to a million new jobs since aug. of last year, economic indicators continue to rise

Yet are still well below the "two million new jobs a year" that the administration has been promising since its inception. Which is really not to complain, because a million new jobs is better than fewer jobs.

Needless to say, though, we need to ask ourselves in what sectors these jobs are primarily in. From what I understand, many are service-sector, although the manufacturing sector is on the rise again. But, are these jobs that can reasonably support the lifestyle of a typical American? And do they have some degree of permanence?

To retire as comfortably as a well-off person retiring today, I would have to save up over $4 million over the course of the next 40-50 years. Are these jobs that are being created capable of producing such returns, when coupled with typical IRA and investment plans?

This is just part of the cyclical nature of the economy. It's funny how Reps will refuse to credit Clinton for that reason, but then go on to praise Bush as if his policies directly created it. I don't think it's quite that simple. Bush's policies probably had some effect on the recent rebound of the economy, but there were no doubt other "natural" factors at work too. The government can't just "create jobs" when the economy needs them. Our economic engine is a very complex and multi-tiered beast. And a lot of it is "natural." Granted, under some administrations, it thrashes around more than in others, but there is a cycle to the whole thing.

The President can't exert that much control over what the economy does. No, I'm afraid that's Alan Greenspan's job. When the old man farts, the stock market tumbles.

Lothar, could you sticky this until next Friday?

is that when the vote is?

That's when this poll expires.

how long until you guys vote for your prez?

November

I assume this is the same as last time -- worded positively ("for Bush" and "for Kerry") instead of "against Bush" or "against Kerry", and no "other" category because there's no room and it's not relevant for what you were asking.

And just like last time, we get the requisite "how dare you not have a third-party option? You're disenfranchising us" complaints. I feel like I'm going to be pecked to death by "vote third party" messages ;)

Interesting to see the shifting opinions...

I'm planning to do this two or three more times every few months to see how support shifts. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to find out come next November just how representative DBB folks are compared to the final result of the election.

BUSH

Like a Rock.

[spoiler]Only Dumber.[/spoiler]

Dispite the usual rear-end spew of the media, things are doing pritty well.

I'd sooner trust Bush for the presidency than the flip-flopping twit that Kerry is. Even his own party is having buyers remorse!

The real question: can we get one foreigner for Bush? Please?

They haven't seen the ads. Kerry blaims BUSH for exporting jobs to foreign countries.

Yeah I am sure that is why.

You know most S. Korans fear us more then N .Korea?

Gooberman wrote:Yeah I am sure that is why.

You know most S. Korans fear us more then N .Korea?

You and what storyteller?

Sixty minutes, last week on NPR.

Sorry, but fox news doesn't report everything

maybe so, but that fear keeps us safer than we'd be if we were a pushover.

Jeff250 wrote:They haven't seen the ads. Kerry blaims BUSH for exporting jobs to foreign countries.

And just who do you think signed NAFTA into law?

We know who signed it, but we also know who isn't calling to repeal it. *shrug* They're almost the same guy anyway

I can't stand either of them, but the thought of Kerry in office disgusts me more than the thought of another term of Bush. Heck, all the articles I've read lately even indicate that a lot of the democrats are still trying to find a better candidate. For me it's a vote between the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm cool with anyone. long as it isnt bush

*Javed* wrote:I'm cool with anyone. long as it isnt bush

What a sad, deluded viewpoint. There's nothing more I can't stand that the "anyone but Bush" line. It's like they would rather elect Timothy McVeigh than re-elect bush. C'mon; actually get an informed opinion, not just some random spewing of vindictiveness. I can tolerate someone who has different opinions than I do, but I can't tolerate ignorance.

Javed is 14, so I don't think he's had the experience yet to sift through all of the issues. I think it's a good example of why the voting age was set to 18.

I agree that Kerry is not a strong enough candidate...he's built his platform on sand with this "Anybody but Bush" campaign and that's just not strong enough. We don't really know where he stands on a lot of issues, and though we know where Bush stands on his issues...I disagree with almost all of them...it's pretty lose-lose if you ask me.

Umm... Tony Blair?

Poll is closed, Lothar, if you want to release the adhesive.

Interesting to see the shifting opinions...-Lothar

The other poll was

21
14
0
7

It seems that it is better explained by less kerry comming to this BB, then former Kerry that have now switched to Bush.

I think a more interesing poll option would be, "have you changed your vote from Kerry to bush?"

Perhaps we could get rid of the non-American for Bush option to make room