Interesting...

[Adeli]

I was wondering, those of you who voted Bush...
Be honest please...
was it:
A) Because you like his policies?
B) Because he was the Republican candidate?

So, were his policies better than Kerry\'s?
Or was he just not the Democrat candidate.

Edit:
Ionas: Yes, I know I could, but I chose Bush because I saw Arcane say he voted Bush, and another person said he liked Bush more. The other reason, is that Bush won, seemed appropriate. I\'ll change it if you want?

[Ionas]

Of course you could ask the voters on Kerry something similiar:

Did they vote:

A) because they like his policies?
B) because they want to get rid of Bush?
C) both

PS i am TheTaintedSoul btw

[Hatchnet]

I voted Bush; unlike the democrats we have had in office in recent years he was willing to take decicive action when necessary (instead of being to busy wood fastenering the intern)

[Icefalcon]

I think most people who are against Bush are influenced by the media. The media tends to favor Democrats, so they only report stories (or make up stories) that hurt Republicans. If you could look at each of their lives as pure facts, each will have weaknesses, but I strongly believe that Bush can do a much better job leading the US than Kerry. If people would not let the media influence themselves, and look at each candidate equally and draw their own conclusions, I think Bush would have totally killed Kerry in the election.

[Shadowfax]

I wanted Kerry but too yong to vote unfortunately. I didn\'t really care about Kerry so much as I HATE bush.

I think that the IQ stats are very likely becuase only an idiot would re-elect Bush. And Clinton was a much better president than Bush. Clinton was actually a really good president and he had everything going wll to Bush came into office and ruined everything he had worked for.

I think people voted for Bush because they think he actually did something in response to 911 and terrorism when he attacked the wrong country and payed with many lives. Also they think he is trustworthy which has proven not to be. Also he appealed to the higly religious people who believe gays should burn in hell with the rest of the people that don\'t fit in with God\'s plan.

And my opinion have not been influenced by the media but only the facts that Bush is a moron and not fit to lead the US.

[sashok]

I voted Kerry because I live in a blue state

[Efflixi Aduro]

Kerry should have won...
Just to make this better, if ur IQ is below 75 ur considered retarded.

[ArcaneFalcon]

Let\'s see here, ok, in order:

Melbourne:  

Well there is something called the electoral college, that kind of makes the whole popular vote thing all pointless.

You\'re correct to a degree.  The electoral college does the voting, but they (generally) listen to the popular vote in their district.  Also, there are MANY other offices that the popular vote does directly affect (senate, representitives, governer, and countless other smaller state and regional offices and mandates).

Adeli:  I looked at what both candidates stood for, and I chose the one who agreed with me on more policies than the other.  Bush is Pro-Life, he doesn\'t want the government to fund stem cell research, he doesn\'t support gay marriage, and I felt his response to 9/11 as well as his war against Saddam\'s regime were both adequate.

Hatchnet:  I completely agree.

Icefalcon:  You\'re correct to a degree.  Newspapers tend to lean republican (I\'m talking generally here, stereotypically) and TV news, etc. tend to lean democratic.  However, both types of media distort so much it is hardly believable.  I do, however, completely agree that as far as qualification for running the country Bush definitely had the advantage.  The fact that Kerry couldn\'t make up his mind (at least at the beginning of the campaign, before they brought in that crack campaigner guy, name slips my mind) worried me alot.

Shadowfax:  Oh boy.  We\'ve already been over how the IQ stats are completely skewed in that they only take a very small sampling of the population among one particular age group in a way that can\'t even be used to calculate an IQ (ACT and SAT were not designed to calculate a person\'s IQ, that\'s what IQ tests are for).  As for the rest of what you said, it\'s hard to disagree with alot of it because all you gave were general statements.  You gave little or no reason to back it up, and therefore strike me as the kid who sits in front of the TV all day and occasionally catches some news (which immediately becomes truth, because after all, it\'s the news, and it\'s on TV).

I think people voted for Bush because they think he actually did something in response to 911 and terrorism when he attacked the wrong country and payed with many lives.

Perfect example of a general statement with no back up.
With the information he received I think he made the right decisions.  Remember, hindsight is always 20/20.  Foresight is often nearsighted (with good reason).  The Taliban had already presented itself as a threat (world trade center bombings, which Clinton did nothing about, and 9/11) so it was not the wrong group to commence military action on.  They killed innocent Americans and therefore had it coming.  As for Iraq, he was told there was a threat, and he did a pre-emptive strike to avoid anything bad.  What if he hadn\'t, and terrorists aided by Saddam had attacked a large target like the Taliban did on 9/11.  Wouldn\'t there be more of this \"the president was warned and did nothing\" talk going around?  Yes!  In addition to this, Saddam needed to be gone.  He was killing his own people.  If you don\'t care about the people that died under his orders then you are just cold hearted.

Lastly, the men and women who enlist in the military know that they may be called to another country to fight, and that they may die.  If they don\'t want to do this, then they won\'t sign up!  People in the military overwhelmingly support Bush, and that says a lot for me (because of my overwhelming respect for those in uniform).

sashok20:  What a terribly dumb reason to vote for anyone (nothing personal, it\'s just a dumb reason).

Arf, this is really long, sorry, I\'m done now.

:emerald:

[Melbourne]

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
I looked at what both candidates stood for, and I chose the one who agreed with me on more policies than the other.  Bush is Pro-Life, he doesn\'t want the government to fund stem cell research, he doesn\'t support gay marriage, and I felt his response to 9/11 as well as his war against Saddam\'s regime were both adequate.

Wow, someone actually gave a reasonable response for voting for Bush, I looked at the issues and felt the opposite.

In response to the electoral college, you are right, there is still the legisature and state offices to consider, but I still feel that the electoral college is outdated and pointless, I just hope some president in the near future will get rid of it.

Here\'s a funny little clip that I\'m sure most of you have already seem but if you haven\'t, if you turn the volume up, you can hear the audience start laughing after the first time he says sovereign entity.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=sovereignty.mov

[ArcaneFalcon]

but I still feel that the electoral college is outdated and pointless, I just hope some president in the near future will get rid of it.

To a degree it is outdated, but pointless, no.  When the US of A first started it was more a coalition of seperate countries than it was a bunch of states unified under one country.  Each state had its own currency, it\'s own almost complete set of laws, and naturally, its own vote for president (with weight based on the population of the state).  It was also generally accepted that the average citizen wasn\'t qualified to vote for president (hence suffrage was available to very few).  As history progressed, the states grew together, suffrage increased, and now it is the general concensus that each person\'s vote should count, not the vote of the electoral college.  In summary, yes it is outdated, but it does have a point in that it gives each state a sense of identity, and helps to keep the states as semi-seperate entities united under one flag.

:emerald:

Edit: typo

:emerald:

[sashok]

I was sarcastic, sorry if that affended you.  I did vote Kerry, but I didn\'t know anything about importance of blue vs. red states in this election.

[Olig]

First off, I do not beleive any graph shown to me, including the one on this thread. Nobody should beleive polls or graphs such as these because they are always bent to support the opinions of the creator.

There is no way I can fit in the whole reason why I voted for Bush and not for Kerry. Its true that Bush isn\'t very smart, a bit too conservative, and has buddies in \"big oil\", but I\'d rather vote for him than a compulsive liar that will say anything just to become elected. You cannot trust a man like that for Head of the State. I also did not vote for him because of his good pals Ted Kennedy, George Soros, and many members of the United Nations. Here is the kind of proof I beleive in. His own words.

[Adeli]

That \'general statement\' you quoted Arcane, allow me to back it up.

I think people voted for Bush because they think he actually did something in response to 911 and terrorism when he attacked the wrong country and payed with many lives.

Before I answer this, allow me to address Olig at the same time.

Its true that Bush isn\'t very smart, a bit too conservative, and has buddies in \"big oil\", but I\'d rather vote for him than a compulsive liar that will say anything just to become elected. You cannot trust a man like that for Head of the State. I also did not vote for him because of his good pals

Four simple words\"
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Your great president lied to everyone! He got half the world to believe Saddam Hussein had these weapons, just for a reason to attack Iraq most likely. Did he find any? No. Did he really have intelligence saying there were any? His intelligence officers say \"No\"
To answer you Arcane, what did Iraq have to do with 911? Nothing, how odd... Also, the  first allied casualties, were cause by the American Military! I\'m sure the British appreciated having their helicopters blown up... (Do Iraqis even fly blackhawks?)

Olig, how you back one person who has the same traits as the reason you backed the other. You say Kerry is a liar, and has disreputable friends, and you say bush did too.

I\'m glad I\'m not an American... Very glad, not to be ruled by a war-mongering idiot. (Ever read up on his Bush-isms?, the fool can\'t even speak properly.)
eg. \"I had no reason to be subliminibable.\"
Also, I worry about the voting system there... Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected? What in the hell is going on there? I guess they like politicians that can\'t speak well, with low intelligence, (easy for the military to control)

To finish, Arcane I am glad you made an informed decision, not one I\'d make, but you didn\'t just go for the Republican, which many older people did I hear. Many also went with Kerry because he\'s a Democrat.

I am ashamed of Australians too... How the hell could an idiot like John Howard be re-elected twice? Are the people of these countries that excited about war?

-Tyralus Shadowdancer

[ArcaneFalcon]

Did he really have intelligence saying there were any? His intelligence officers say \"No\"

ok ok Gee, seemed easy enough for me to find (note those are both .gov, not some second rate media site).

Originally posted by Adeli
To answer you Arcane, what did Iraq have to do with 911? Nothing, how odd...

You\'re right, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, way to be observative.  Oh wait, what\'s this?

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
The Taliban had already presented itself as a threat (world trade center bombings, which Clinton did nothing about, and 9/11)

I guess I fail to see how attacking the Taliban was \"the wrong country\" (they weren\'t even attacking a country, they were attacking a group in control of a country).

Also, the first allied casualties, were cause by the American Military! I\'m sure the British appreciated having their helicopters blown up... (Do Iraqis even fly blackhawks?)

Umm...no, Iraqis don\'t fly Blackhawks, and neither do the British.  What on earth are you talking about?  The first casualties in the war were because of a helicopter malfunction, and beyond that, all wars have problems with friendly fire, there\'s no getting around it.  I\'m not quite sure what you\'re point is here...

About his \"bushisms,\" so the guy has a speech problem, who cares?  Does a small speech problem impeed a person\'s ability to lead?  No.  Again, not quite sure what the point is here.

:emerald:

[Olig]

Originally posted by Adeli
You say Kerry is a liar, and has disreputable friends, and you say bush did too.
-Tyralus Shadowdancer

I\'d much rather have \"big oil\" than multimillionaire gun-banning porkers and canabalists for our president\'s friends.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Did you even click on my link? Here it is again for Kerry the big liar.

Even if Bush did lie about those weapons, so did Kerry. Kerry also said that there were no weapons of mass destruction and always thought so, contradicting himself. Every president has lied. Hell, EVERYONE has lied. Its just that Kerry and Edwards made an occupation of it.