I'm changing my vote

Stephen · Apr 1, 2004

I posted something similar to this on the AMC board...

If you've followed any of my postings, you know that I've been somewhat antagonistic in my views...

But a couple of the members from over there engaged me offline and we discussed the history of conservation politics, and I've conceeded the point.

It's important enough to me that I'm... somewhat reluctantly... switching my vote. It appears that the environment has more to gain from a Kerry administration than from the current mismanagement that's in place now.

I'm looking for support here, I guess... cause a lot of my friends are gonna give me a hard time about switching. Am I really doing the right thing here? :idea:

-T

riverc0il · Apr 1, 2004

i don't see how there could be any doubt actually. both parties are actually "bad" for the environment, because both parties support corporations, trading, and making money over people, environment, community, etc. even though they talk big on those issues, neither party is putting their money where their mouth is. there are actually very very few differences between the two major parties, that's why every election year half the population doesn't vote... cause they don't really have much of a choice. usually the choice is "bad" or "worse" - this is year in no different. but, we do have "electable" candidates! *shakes head*

but in regards to environment issues, i know of very few rebpublican politicians in washington that are putting the environment above special interest. while democrats in washington at least occasionally put the environment above special interests and corporations.

regardless of how you vote, cheers for engaging in a discussion about the topics and making serious considerations about how you feel and the direction of the country. if everyone excersiced this important option we all have as citizens, this country would be run much differently, washinton "politics as usual" wouldn't be as bad, and people would be a lot less apathetic.

SilentCal · Apr 1, 2004

A breath of fresh air to this election would be a third party that was the "anti-Party". The Democrats and Republicans on the national level really don't seem to care about the little guy. They are more intent on bashing each other's records and smearing the other guy. If we could have a legitamate third party candiate who could just talk about how he would make the country better:
1. Get working on the future social security time-bomb.
2. Get our Education system the money it needs.
3. Get our noses out of every other countries business. Why do we have to be the global policeman? Isn't that what the U.N. is for?
These plus countless other home-grown issues are the things that most people care about. Maybe I should run....

The8re- I'd vote for the guy you are most comfortable with. It's your vote and you should not let others influence it. Read the papers, watch the news and make an informed vote.

coberg · Apr 1, 2004

Bush is the anti-Christ

It would be VERY difficult for anyone to do as much damage to the environmental laws of this country as the Bush-inator has in the past four years. His policy seems to be to destroy any park, wetland, species, or reserve on earth as long as it provides some benefit to one of his buddies.

In short, don't be upset about switching your vote away from Bush if you care anything for the environment.

Greg · Apr 1, 2004

Re: Bush is the anti-Christ

coberg said:
His policy seems to be to destroy any park, wetland, species, or reserve on earth as long as it provides some benefit to one of his buddies.

I hear these types of arguments a lot. Can anyone point to specific events or policies that demonstrate this, and the corporate entities that profited as a result? Please, don't think I'm naive if this is obvious. I'm just looking for factual information to make an informed choice.

Edit: And a reference to an unbiased source demonstrating the above would be great too. Thanks.

coberg · Apr 1, 2004

Here's a start...

I get most of my information from Environmental Protection groups like DENLines: http://den.defenders.org/ but they typically link to news articles from major news sources, like the LA or NY Times.

I'll post more definitive sources once I'm not sneaking into the board when I'm supposed to be working...

I think you're facing an uphill battle looking for a truly unbiased report on anything environmentally related. We're all pretty emotional about these things!

:lol:

Stephen · Apr 1, 2004

I'm having a great day, thanks. How about you? :lol:

8) :beer: :dunce: :idea: :blink:

:-?

:roll:

-T

Greg · Apr 1, 2004

Nice sig, Spatula Boy.

skican · Apr 1, 2004

No politician will ever care about the little guy. It's all about the almighty dollar. Period! It's up to us to do what we can. Whatever we can.
Having a bad day....

coberg · Apr 1, 2004

You got that right!

skican said:
No politician will ever care about the little guy. It's all about the almighty dollar. Period! It's up to us to do what we can. Whatever we can.
Having a bad day....

Amen, my brotha!

Max · Apr 2, 2004

Can we expect a retreat over to the "Ross Perot write-in camp" when Kerry stumbles into some political pothole that the media eventually digs for him?

ChileMass · Apr 2, 2004

It's too bad - both Kery and W have personal amibitions that don't translate into good governance, and we all pay the price for it. Both of these guys are buffoons, so I'm voting with my wallet. If Kerry's democrat programs will cost me more than W's elephant plans, I will probably vote for W. But if W continues to pander to the religious right, I may have to vote for Kerry. Neither gives a crap about trees and mountains.....I am up in the air now..... :roll:

Stephen · Apr 2, 2004

ChileMass said:
I am up in the air now..... :roll:

The air... another thing they don't care about... right? :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-T

MtnMagic · Apr 2, 2004

It was reported today that at White House staff meeting last week there was a heated discussion about the health of Vice President Cheney and his angina problem.

President Bush interrupted and stated emphatically that men do not have anginas.

The president was especially perplexed when a staffer said that Cheney has acute angina.

coberg · Apr 4, 2004

One Man

uphillklimber.

I guess we could be punishing one person a little too much, but I think your football analogy misses the mark slightly. If the quarterback had the power of veto, or the power to sign any play he wanted into law, then it would be dead on. But nowhere else does one man have that veto/law power, hence it is much easier to blame Bush.

smitty77 · Apr 5, 2004

I have always maintained that politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected. One ironic point: Kerry wants us to have a lower dependency on foreign oil, yet he criticized Bush for not opening our reserves to lower the price of gas. Which side is he on? Higher prices will cause us to use less, and yet he wants to flood the market to lower the price so that the public can use more!

I wish someone would make him outline exactly HOW he's going to reduce our dependency on oil. In fact, I wish he would clarify a lot of his blanket statements. How can the economy be in the crapper if the unemployment rate is the same as when Clinton was in office and the stock market and housing markets are booming? Personally, my company 401k returned 25% last year, and it was supposed to return 4 or 5%.

Personally, I'm voting for the evil I know.

Another scary thought: The rumor mill has Unsteady Teddy Kennedy as his potential running mate!!!!!!! Anyone else hear this??

Smitty

Stephen · Apr 5, 2004

smitty77 said:
Another scary thought: The rumor mill has Unsteady Teddy Kennedy as his potential running mate!!!!!!! Anyone else hear this??

Smitty

That'd never happen.

Wikipedia said:
The Constitution also provides that if the candidates for President and Vice President come from the same state, the electors from that state cannot vote for both. This might result in the Vice Presidential candidate receiving insufficiently many electoral votes for election even if the Presidential candidate is elected. In practice, this requirement is easily circumvented by having the Vice President change the state of residency as was done by Dick Cheney who changed his legal residency from Texas to Wyoming in order to serve as Vice President for George W. Bush.

Kennedy would never survive ourside of Mass...

Oakley · Apr 5, 2004

the8re said:
Kennedy would never survive ourside of Mass...

He's been in Washington FORTY-TWO YEARS. Hello, Mr. EatRE?
Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT. You, sir, are really not qualified to shine his shoes, much less criticize him. Sorry. :roll:

coberg · Apr 6, 2004

WOW!

Oakley said:
He's been in Washington FORTY-TWO YEARS. Hello, Mr. EatRE?
Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT. You, sir, are really not qualified to shine his shoes, much less criticize him. Sorry. :roll:

WOW! That was a little harsh... take things a little personally?

MtnMagic · Apr 6, 2004

BTW Oakley:
For the record, it reads as theater.
You seem to be from Mass?
:argue:

I'm changing my vote

New member

New member

Member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Oakley

Guest

New member

New member

Similar threads