It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An observation about the electoral demographic...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
So... security was a big issue during this election... many would say the biggest issue. So with this in mind, doesn't it seem odd that Bush's primary support comes from just about any area without a major city?

Where are terrorists likely to strike? A corn field? Or Manhattan?

Look at any news-sites color-coded county-by-county map and you will find almost invariably areas with large cities voted majority democratic and rural areas voted republican. If the majority of voters were voting with security as their focal issue, does it seem right that those of us in higher risk areas should have our safety and security determined by those who are relatively safe? Or, to put it another way, does it say something when those who live in high-risk areas choose for one candidate over another, keeping in mind that they have the most to lose from Bush's inept handling of the so-called "war on terror"?

-koji K.




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I don't know, if Kerry got in there would be a real risk of gays having marriages on their corn fields. Could you possibly ask someone to live with a risk like that? I mean every day you passed the field you would be expecting to see the worst. I sure wouldn't want to live with the fear of that hanging over my head.



[edit on 4-11-2004 by Sabre262]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I got a real problem with the diebold voting machine...

It's too easy to mess with the central tabulator especially when the numbers appear on microsoft spreadsheet... Just click and rearrange numbers...

I'd have a field day with that system too if I was the incumbant.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Look at any news-sites color-coded county-by-county map and you will find almost invariably areas with large cities voted majority democratic and rural areas voted republican. If the majority of voters were voting with security as their focal issue, does it seem right that those of us in higher risk areas should have our safety and security determined by those who are relatively safe? Or, to put it another way, does it say something when those who live in high-risk areas choose for one candidate over another, keeping in mind that they have the most to lose from Bush's inept handling of the so-called "war on terror"?
-koji K.


An interesting question however there is only one election. The fact is (and my wording here will probably piss at least one person off) that more minorities live in cities than the suburbs. Less commute, more jobs, lower cost of living (relative to the burbs). You see that in voting maps. Unless we have two presidents (one for burbs and one for cities) you won't escape this. You could pose this argument about every single issue the two parties oppose each other on: Gay rights, gun control, less social services, tax breaks, what to eat on Friday....

There's a winner and a loser in politics.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Where are terrorists likely to strike? A corn field? Or Manhattan?



This was, quite literally (corn was mentioned) on last night's John Stewart show. I laughed myself sick, thinking of a corn barn being bombed by an ominous cartel of evildoers.

What can I say... Less dynamic areas tend to be, how should I put it, backwards? They travel less, and aren't exposed to other cultures.





[edit on 4-11-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
What can I say... Less dynamic areas tend to be, how should I put it, backwards? They travel less, and aren't exposed to other cultures.



yup, we got a bunch of hermit's trying to subject their morale on other's...

Indeed,we have a separation of church and state.

I guess when your a christian though it's ok to mix the two, after all your above everybody else who isn't like you.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I didn't see that Daily Show, so any similarities are purely coincidental.


But it just doesn't seem right to me. I live in Manhattan. Yesterday morning I rode to work and saw people in the subway with tears in their eyes.

The majority of New Yorkers believe that the Bush administration was in someway complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen, according to a recent poll by a reputable polling company.

New York suffered the most from the events of 9/11. New York houses the financial engine that runs the United States economy. The Republicans stage their convention here for the first time in decades.

And New York votes more strongly for Kerry than any other five counties in the nation. Republicans tell us it figures because we're all a bunch of liberals, and yet it doesn't stop them from using our city and the tragedy that those who lost the most are so skeptical about as a prop in their election platform.

It just doesn't seem right.

-koji K.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
It just doesn't seem right.



That's because it isn't right... This administration is a fraud, everything you just explained are perfect examples of something a shyster would do.
He manipulated the 911 attacks for personal gain, he manipulated people's emotions at the convention when they were playing the 911 videos...

Republican's speak bunk when they start squaking about how "now they can restore the supreme court and interpret the constitution the way it's supposed to be", but their forgetting something.

The Patriot Act is an outright infringement on the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments... Bush's administration's doing, not the liberals, although they did vote it in too. With that kind of interpretation going on I have no other reason to believe in the opposite.

The republican's are so damn blind to the facts and the track record.

just because he's a #ing republican... It's doesn't make him a republican...

I can go around saying i'm a billionaire and hanging with other billionairs, but when I start dropping hints people should be smart enough to pick up on them.

This election had everything to with compromising liberties for security, and instilling fear in a republican mass: if you vote for a liberal this country will no longer have morale thus needing to keep close to god.

and while they keep close to their god they are going to interpret the constitution the way they think is the right way, and while they do that, it's not just going to be the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments thats cause for concern it's going to be the whole damn thing.

All in the name of security and morale.

That's all they have to run with... Pretty pathetic excuses for voting him in, we got much worse problems in this country too but I guess if you tune into fox all night and only read and converse with others alike, it's hard to be objective and think for yourself isn't it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join