Why people will vote for Bush

Originally posted by spacedoubt

dgtempe, I honestly believe GW is a good man, with a lot of troubles facing him at the moment, and the DEMS are HOPING he fails..I have a problem with that..Thats what bothers me the most, like vultures, waiting to pounce on a failure, or setback..

Space

yes, lots of problems, I wonder why?
Well, Is Bush rooting for Kerry? I dont understand. Yes, both parties are like vultures, its always been that way, but now the stakes are higher. Everything is suspect since 9/11. EVERYTHING.
Anyway, Bush is going to win. I have no doubt. Your wish will come true. Just dont come-a-cryin' later 'cause things are going south. OK?

Originally posted by marg6043
Why people vote for bush? Very simple they do it because of political affiliation and faithfulness to their political parties let's not forget tradition.

They will stand by their political parties candidates even if is moronic like bush.

Can anybody blame them for these?

Most people actually vote for their parties not the candidate.

And this is my opinion, thank you very much.

When I found out the difference between the two parties, I made a consceince decision NEVER to vote for a democrat. I have had a high school buddy that ran for judge in my area, he ran as a democrat, I asked him why, as he seemed like a conservative family man, he told me that his family had always been democrats. I politely told him I could not vote for him, but I would not vote for his opponent.

I am married man with a wife and 4 children, served in the US Army, make decent money, and believe I can take care of my business without the goverment watching out for me. So I have no choice but to vote Republican!

I can't tell you why people will vote for Bush, but I can tell you what will make them not vote for him. My father, a staunch Republican who still thinks Nixon was innocent, retired last year and had to get a colonscopy. When he was working, he was covered 100% for the test, including general anesthesia, because, let's face it, who really wants to be awake when undergoing such a thing.

Being retired, he now has Medicare. My mom argued with him vehemently about it but he didn't want to pay $600 a month for healthcare on top of Medicare premiums when his hero, George Bush, said on TV that Medicare had been reformed and covers preventative treatments.

Well, he got a rude awakening upon making his bi-annual colonoscopy appointment when the nurse told him that due to recent changes in Medicare, it would only cover $400 of the procedure with anesthesia (which is what Medicare calls 25% of reasonable & customary charges.) He would be responsible for the remaining $1200 or so. He could opt to receive the procedure without anesthesia and his out-of-pocket costs would be less--$300.

Without writing a tome about the failings of Medicare, the point here is seniors are getting substandard care because they can't afford the Medicare co-pays. Bush's solution is to have them purchase private insurance, and Medicare will subsidize the insurance/pharmaceutical companies directly to reduce the costs... huh? I dunno know about you, but all estimates that I've seen show that this will increase the senior citizen's out-of-pocket expense and subject them to the ambiguity and red tape involved in private insurance. This will also serve to put tons of money in the coffers of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms, while doing nothing to improve their healthcare.

And my poor father--he wasn't going to get the test, partially because he was annoyed with the limitations of his Medicare coverage and partially because he didn't want to be humiliated. My mom finally convinced him to go, and he stubbornly did so, sans anesthesia. Ouch. But George lost his vote in the process (and I think that it was LITERALLY in the process.) He felt lied to. Perhaps a rigid sigmoidoscope where the sun don't shine is what it takes to get people to realize that our dear president doesn't have their best interests at heart.

IMG, its all lies. My mother too is in bad shape because of Bush's so-called medicare reforms.
Makes you wonder if the "right" ever gets sick? I know some old church-going devoted people who dont have any insurance, but would never say anything against their heroe, Bush. So they take their grocery money and pay for meds and still hold Bush on a pedestal. sick.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
After observing and participating in numerous ugly flame wars on this subject over the past few days, I actually think the answer to this is somewhat simpler. In a nutshell, this country is filled with really good-hearted, well-meaning people who want little more than the ability to live their lives the way it's always been lived. That is true in all walks of life, whether you are a right-wing gun owning bible thumper living in Alabama or a bleeding heart dope-smoking pinko from Oregon. There are so many types of people that a list like this is kind of useless from a political standpoint.

���������������..

I think most people who vote for Bush are simply unable and unwilling to allow themselves to believe that their leaders are wrong or evil or would ever lie to them on purpose. Without getting into specifics I'll say that no intelligent human being can possibly ignore the mountain of evidence that the contrary is true. Nevertheless, Americans are like children that need to be patted on the head and told "Everything will be fine, just let us take care of it" and that is why Bush is winning. He's much better at convincing the people that nothing is wrong, that we will be safe and nothing will change if you just leave him alone.

The price for this kind of ignorant trust will visit us on our very doorsteps if it is allowed to continue, but I wish I knew how to change it.

Opp,

I read the first part of this and thought; wow maybe I was wrong�.then I got to the bottom part and all I could think of was a joke my father used to say when he saw someone do something not so bright. Something about; if his brains were gasoline he couldn�t power an ant�s go-cart around the inside of a cheerio�..man, did I have a good laugh; thanks I thought I was having a bad day until then.

This is the great thing about America; we can all agree to disagree. Look, all politicians are self-serving and they are only concerned with the issues that affect public opinion of themselves even more so in an election year. Every year we are feed the same garbage about tax breaks, education reform and spending, and health care. I sit and listen to Bush and Kerry and I can almost guess what they are going to say. And the funny part about Democrats and Republicans is basically they are the same. Republicans and Democrats even more so (since Democrats do not hold the Presidential seat) are interested only in having their party in control. And not to my surprise as in every election year, it turns into a mud slinging contest. I don't care about what Kerry did 30 years ago and I don't care what Bush did 30 years ago. Anyone can dig and find dirt on anyone else if they wanted to so whats the point. People change, especially over 30 years, and the focus should be on both canidates' track records in thier political careers. The fact of the matter is you could vote for Kerry or Bush and your still going to get one in the same. If you listen to both of them they say pretty much the same thing and want to take America into the same direction. We know pretty much which direction Bush is going if he is elected and Kerry already hinted that he would go into the same direction as Bush as far as the War on Terrorism. All the politicians agreed after 9/11 to hunt after the terrorists as they should. Correct me if I am mistaken but didn't Bush go to Congress before authorizing a strike against Iraq??

(Part of the Defense Appropriations Bill.)
4/3/2003:
Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 93 - 0. Record Vote Number: 125.

4/12/2003 12:38pm:
Motions to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4/12/2003:
Senate agreed to conference report by Unanimous Consent Vote.
4/12/2003:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
4/12/2003:
Cleared for White House.
4/15/2003:
Presented to President.
4/16/2003:
Signed by President.
4/16/2003:
Became Public Law No: 108-11.

It is funny that in this election year the Democrats are in an uproar about this war in Iraq when it was with their help that this law was passed and enacted pretty much unanimously giving the President conscent to act against Iraq and funding it. The fact of the matter is this all comes down to personal preference to who you want to vote for. For me it is Bush because I know where he stands on most of the issues, where Kerry has changed his stance on various issues like the War on Iraq along with domestic issues like Welfare Reform. To me, important criteria, to be the President of the United States is to be consistent, stand your ground even in the hard times when your discissions are not popular among a majority of your citizens, and to be clear enough to the American citizens so they know where you stand on the issues. Kerry seems doubtful and mistrusting to me, though I don't know, but I will go with my gut this election year... But I want to reitterate that I think that we will be heading down the same path as we are now no matter who wins this Presidential Election.

XxaudioholicxX


Yes you are right, funny that everybody including the democrats fall for bush lies about Iraq.

Well I want to say also that I think if Kerry was the President in this term and was faced with 9/11, I have a feeling we would be doing what we are currently doing now or something similar. I mean what would you guys do faced with 9/11?? I always think of this scenario.... How many punches in the face are you going to take before you defend yourself?? (For most it would be one or two I am sure.) Through many years even before 9/11 the United States went through bombings on different embassies, the USS Cole, first world trade center bombing, Oklahoma Fed. Building etc.... 9/11 was the last punch we could take because it was a direct hit right between our eyes. We can't keep sitting here taking punch after punch, 9/11 was the punch that had made us swing back. And I don't know if the President is lying or not when he invading Iraq. New information keeps coming out and I would like to wait and see what happens. But in general I think Bush has done the right thing, by swinging back. And some people go down in 1st round others the 2nd or 3rd, but we are dealing with a group that is going to take us to the 12th. And if we don't do something about it they are just going to keep the stick and move routine and get the TKO. OK enough of the boxing terminology....

Originally posted by jupiter869
Group 5: The uneducated
Unfortunately, this is a group that is growing in this country. They get their information from television and make their judgments based on an MTV rooted pop-culture. Their skills at listening are limited, so when a candidate can sum up his campaign in quick slogans like �You�re either with us of against us.�, or �You know where I stand�, their ability to identify with the candidate is reinforced. Even though no information is gleaned by these one-liners, the mental engram is planted. Speeches of more than five minutes are lost. People in this group easily become bored and when they hold the television remote in their hand, this means death to those that bore them. Information beyond the first line is bounced off this group, or the channel is changed. The candidate with a line he can put in their head is the one who will get their vote. To really listen to a candidate speaking with an adult vocabulary is simply overwhelming and is seen as pretentious, uppity and above all, boring. Is it exciting? Is it catchy? Is it boring? These questions will determine who this group will support.

Not everyone falls strongly into one of these groups. However, those that do will support a candidate who appears to support their niche(s).

Are you kidding? This is the Democrat trump card in every election. Something really bad happened in Florida in 2000 and too many of them couldn't figure out how to punch out the chads.

I really am not sure who to vote for. Bush supporters think he is Patton incarnate but his "security" is short. I do agree with Bush invading Afganistan. That was the country who attacked us.

Bush's first mistake was changing his priorities and going after Saddam. First off, I do know and believe that there were WMD's in Iraq. Common sense and history shows this to be true. I do not believe Saddam had any connections to BinLaden, he just would not allow anyone to usurp his authority. His second mistake was not listening to the one person in his cabinet who had any experience with decision making in combat (Powell.)
His third mistake was not securing the borders of our own country. With 3000 people coming across the Mexican border per day he has still not awknowledged this problem.

I also do not believe that one American soldier or Marine is worth the whole country of Iraq. They will never become a Democracy no-matter how hard we try. When their own religion stresses loyalty to their family over their country how are they going to understand the concept of Democracy.

When it comes to Kerry I really do not know what to believe. Should I take a chance on someone who cannot keep a consistant message or the person who is incapable of listening to experience and wisdom. I guess I'll make up my mind in the booth.

I actually didn't like bush that much in 2000, the only reason I voted for him was because Gore believes in censorship which, for me, is a very big hot button issue. But over the last four years I have come to like bush more and more. There are a lot of things I disagree with him on. (makng marijuana a priority in the war on drugs is IMHO completly bass ackwards) But there are many things I agree with him on as well. As for kerry, I hate to say it but I just don't like him. I don't know why, and its not something I can put my finger on but he just rubs me the wrong way. Bush on the other hand has done things I agree with completly. I really don't care what france germany or any other country thinks of the U.S. or its foreign policies. It doesn't bother me that anywhere I go in western europe, people look at me like I'm mad when I say I like bush. It doesn't bother me that Kofi anan thinks the Iraq war was illegal. Persoanally I think we should have taken out saddam the first time we kicked his ass. As for the economy I never agreed with clintons policies and I think the bulk of the economic problems we have today are as a result of his policies. (interestingly enough while I didn't like Clinton as a president I absolutly admired him as a person, showman ,and politician. I mean anyone who can argue the meaning of the word "is" with a straight face has got skills) I have already voted for bush (via absentee ballot) and I don't regret it at all. I just hope to god I don't have to put up with four years of seeing kerry's mug on T.V.

Uh, because those people have been brainwashed?

Originally posted by jupiter869
With all the information out about George W Bush, I couldn't really understand why people are supporting him. But now I have a theory that the country is divided into a number of groups. In general, REGARDLESS OF WHAT A CANDIDATE SAYS OR WHAT HIS POLICIES ARE, people will vote one way or another strictly based upon what group they fall into.

Group 1: Very wealthy: If this were the case, wouldn't the likes of John Kerry and his wife be voting for Bush?

Group 2: The Nostalgic: The people who live in the past tend to lean towards the liberal way of thinking. e.g.: The retired

Group 3: Religious extremists: Now, do you really think that the Muslims are going to vote for Bush?

Group 4: Stopping abortions and homosexuals: What's wrong with that?

Group 5: The uneducated: The uneducated feed on what can be given to them. It's the Democrats job to give it to them. Therefore...

As a former Republican I can tell you why I will never vote for a Republican again.....
1) the Millions spent in 8 years by the Republican party to to prove that
Clinton got a B***JOB.
2) the Starr investigation started out looking at Hillary and ended up impeaching Clinton for lieing about sex.
3) only mean, evil, vindictive types would have done this and they will never get my vote


oh go ahead and flame me about the "swift boat veterans", CBS documents or anything else
I don't care......when you set out to ruin a man any way you can because he is with the "other party" then there is something wrong

Originally posted by RRROBB
As a former Republican I can tell you why I will never vote for a Republican again.....
1) the Millions spent in 8 years by the Republican party to to prove that
Clinton got a B***JOB.

For crying out loud! He was a public figure committing adultery in the White House. Elected officials have to be held to a higher standard. And it didn't take 8 years to to prove his infedelity.

2) the Starr investigation started out looking at Hillary and ended up impeaching Clinton for lieing about sex.

I'm at a loss as to why this has anything to do with the price of eggs in China.

3) only mean, evil, vindictive types would have done this and they will never get my vote

Eh, Why do you want to talk about yourself in such a manner?

when you set out to ruin a man any way you can because he is with the "other party" then there is something wrong

I must have missed all the praise that George Bush has recieved from the Democrats.

Opp,

I read the first part of this and thought; wow maybe I was wrong�.then I got to the bottom part and all I could think of was a joke my father used to say when he saw someone do something not so bright. Something about; if his brains were gasoline he couldn�t power an ant�s go-cart around the inside of a cheerio�..man, did I have a good laugh; thanks I thought I was having a bad day until then.

Could you translate this? My hick is a little rusty...

That's cool. This guy in my office who went to school in a trailer park tells me you just said I was "dumber n' the Monday paper on a Friday," whatever that means.

I'm disappointed that you're spending the time simply to insult me with stuff that isn't even funny. Try harder or don't try at all.

If convincing yourself that I'm stupid or "a moron" as you so eloquently stated in other posts makes your day better, then your true colors are a cacophony of voices singing brilliantly of your own insecurities and moral shortcomings. At the very least, I can see that you fear that you're wrong.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I think most people who vote for Bush are simply unable and unwilling to allow themselves to believe that their leaders are wrong or evil or would ever lie to them on purpose. Without getting into specifics I'll say that no intelligent human being can possibly ignore the mountain of evidence that the contrary is true.

Can Bush be wrong in some issues? sure he can, just like anyone else, is he evil? no. This coming from a republican.

You are trying to tie together "you are intelligent... with..if you don't vote for Bush for the supposed reasons you are giving".... *shakes head*

It is really sad that you think like this and it shows how naive you are... BTW those people that follow Hollywood's propaganda are mostly democrats or liberals if you didn't know...

That's what many Americans are listening to, the "Hollywood crowd," which aren't exactly poor.....and you can put in Moore with that crowd. If anyone is telling lies and "following the crow nomatter what the candidate says" you can point at that crowd.

Most people who will vote for Kerry either don't remember what he has said in the past, or they don't care that he keeps changing his mind in pretty much every issue... Most of these people hate Bush based on misconceptions and lies that have been spoon fed by people like Moore and by Kerry's flip-flops.

Kerry keeps changing his mind every 10 minutes trying to appeal whatever crowd he is in, he has never shown what he stands for and with his attitude I wouldn't care what he stands for. A man has to stand what he believes for and what Kerry has shown is that he won't, he just goes for the votes and hopes noone notices.

You don't want to listen to me then do a search yourself and find out what the whole world was saying about Saddam/Iraq and itsw wmd, and what democrats were agreeing with before this administration took office and did what had to be done and was on everyone's mind.

Now the world is looking for a scapegoat and is immaturely pointing the finger at the present US administration, and at it's president, forgetting they themselves were the ones who brought this information to the public (the wmd in Iraq and Saddam's help to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups) and that the whole world was saying something had to be done with Saddam even if it meant going to war....


[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Here are more reasons to vote for Bush


Despite Rumsfeld saying the draft is not needed, this is the same neo-con administration that has repeatedly lied to and misled the American people. Draft-age youth and their families are left looking at a �long, hard slog� in Iraq (Rumsfeld secret memo), the neo-con plans to invade still more nations, and then having to take Rumsfeld and Cheney�s word not to worry about the draft, that they �are not considering it at this time.�

Although official word is that this secret list of options is not being implemented�the Issue Paper options have NOT been rejected and the 6-page proposal is rather sitting in the Pentagon, waiting. In addition, the SSS itself has said that it is �designing procedures� (Seattle PI, May 1, 2004) to implement the skills draft, meaning designing the compliance cards and the data fields needed to keep track of �virtually every young American� and their skills. Acting Director of the SSS Brodsky has also said the Skills Draft is the �top priority� of the Selective Service for 2004.

From the FOI document, we now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the Selective Service, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. They were there to discuss the urgent �issue paper� now revealed, which starts: �With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security Planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System�s registration program and primary mission.�

Although it would require changes in current draft law, the far-reaching proposal shows how far the Republicans are going to plan and prepare for a huge expansion of the draft.

vote bush! vote bush!

:

Originally posted by Muaddib

Can Bush be wrong in some issues? sure he can, just like anyone else, is he evil? no. This coming from a republican.

Thanks for proving my point.

You are trying to tie together "being intelligent if you don't vote for Bush for the supposed reasons you are giving"....

*shakes head*

No, I'm saying that if you don't hold Bush accountable for all of his mistakes then you are ignorant of the facts, evil, or simply unwilling to allow yourself to believe that you've been lied to. I'm not asking you to believe in conspiracy theories, just stop telling me he didn't lie to us. He did, on many, many occasions.

It is really sad that you think like this and it shows how naive you are... BTW those people that follow Hollywood's propaganda are mostly democrats or liberals if you didn't know...

Right, all those Republican senators who just came out and said this war was a mistake (see above) and the Army War College and the Retired Generals who were always against this war have been watching too many damn movies!

Most people who will vote for Kerry either don't remember what he has said in the past, or they don't care that he keeps changing his mind in pretty much every issue... Most of these people hate Bush based on misconceptions and lies that have been spoon fed by people like Moore and by Kerry's flip-flops.

Which lies did Michael Moore tell? Which of the sources that I cited have been spoon fed to me? USA Today, maybe. The AP? Army War College? The United States Congress? Are they all liars, too? *shudder*

You don't want to listen to me then do a search yourself and find out what the whole world was saying about Bush and what democrats were agreeing with before this administration took office and did what had to be done and was on everyone's mind.

I actually DO want to listen to you. You're obviously suggesting that the Iraq war would have happened no matter what, right? Well, I'm waiting to hear your justification for that absolutely ridiculous statement starting......now.

Now the world is looking for a scapegoat and is immaturely pointing the finger at the present US administration, and at it's president, forgetting they themselves were the ones who brought this information to the public (the wmd in Iraq and Saddam's help to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups) and that the whole world was saying something had to be done with Saddam even if it meant going to war....

Actually, none of the world said that about Saddam. They wanted inspectors and UN action and a MULTILATERAL force if needed. I noticed you decided to throw in the BIG LIE about Saddam helping Al Qaeda again, too. Is there no hope that you might listen to your own president on this issue:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to September the 11th" -George W Bush

But maybe you do. I'm waiting.

Tomcat,

#1. Afghanistan is not �WHO� attacked us. They did however harbor the terrorists, which to me makes them as guilty as the terrorist themselves. Any country knowingly doing this should be dealt with. And Al Queda is not just in that country but they have cells all over the world. Bush tried to go to the U.N. and get everyone aboard but the few veto powered countries did not want to step up to the plate and fight this thing together. Now look what happened in Russia� Putin is now considering the right to preemptively strike any country that he feels is a threat and has terrorists, just like we did going into Iraq. Talk about 180 degree turn they were one of the countries that would not support us when we were looking for support. It is funny how things change when these kinds of things happen to you in your own country. It is just sad that it took an attack on school children to realize that terrorism is a problem. Countries think by sitting on the sidelines that they are safe from threat, but as we can see this is not the case. So that brings me to number #2.

#2. I don�t think Bush was wrong for going after Saddam. I do agree though that only basing his attack on WMDs was probably a mistake though I also think that even though we haven�t found any WMDs, Saddam was interested in getting his hands on some and was inquiring on getting the materials. Bush could have made a case that in addition to the possibility of WMDs, Saddam was harboring and maybe even funding terrorists and their activities, to which I do not have proof but I wouldn�t put it past Saddam. And besides that we gave Saddam chances to come clean before the world about his WMDs via U.N. inspectors but that was a roller coaster ride. He kicked the inspectors out for months at a time, giving him enough time to either get rid of the weapons and or materials or sell them. For someone who has nothing to hide, it sure seemed like he was hiding something. At any rate, I think if you asked (and I think they had a poll on this somewhere) most Americans before we went into Iraq, if they had WMDs, I for one would have said yes, and by the unanimous vote for the Appropriations Defense Bill of 2003 the Senate and House representatives obviously thought so too.

#3. As far as a Saddam link to Bin Laden. Who knows for sure, but I think I heard about documents or findings that has linked them together. I wouldn�t put it past Saddam to cut a deal or fund terrorist who would be willing to attack the US without the US thinking he was behind it nor had some part in it.

#4. Powell I think was the one who presented evidence to the U.N. trying to make the case for a strike on Iraq and garner support amongst allies.

#5. I don�t really care if Iraq becomes a democracy or not. That is up to their own citizens not us. I do care about hitting the terrorist where ever they are hiding and if that means Iraq for now then so be it.

#6. No solder is worth the country of Iraq, however many volunteered to join after 9/11. I rather risk one of our own heroes in order to protect 4,000 men, women and children in a building or even the millions that live here in the United States. I would like to think that the reason they joined the military was to protect our nation and our freedoms. So I would like to think that they are doing just that. I would like to point out that Bush was asked if Iraq interim government asked him to pull out the troops would he?? He said yes, they however do not want us to go and with the insurgents coming in like they are pulling out now would almost guarantee some psychopathic extremist to take over like Al-Sadar.

I think this terrorist situation is going to get worse before it gets better and we are going to need the help of many nations in order to fight this and win it. It is just sad that it is going to take more attacks to wake everybody up again. Like I said above I think Russia is taking a different view on this terrorist situation after what happened to them, sad it had to come to that in order for them to see this as a problem. People say that Afghanistan was ok to invade because it had the terrorists that attacked us and we should not have attacked Iraq. I say, what would you have us do then?? After we invaded Afghanistan, without finding Bin Laden, should we have stopped there and by doing so do you really think another terrorist attack wouldn�t happen?? So lastly even though I think both candidates are self-serving, I think Bush is the President needed in this current time and is the better of the two.