Bush or Kerry?
 

Not to cause any problems, but I was just wondering where the rest of Chief Delphi stood on the Presidential Election. This is just for fun so don't go into a crazy debate on this. All you actually have to do is vote on the poll. There will be 10 choices Republican, Democrat, Independent, other, Bush, Kerry, Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, or Undecided. Just pick two please.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

please search..there have been a bunch of posts about this election

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

There haven't been any polls have there?

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I just wanted to see how many would vote outside their party.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

That's not what the poll is asking, though. It's asking "out of these ten options, which two will you most likely vote for?" not "are you going to vote outside of your party - yes or no?"

So check these out:

Kerry or Bush and why?
John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
Women and the draft
Saddam Hussein wants a debate
Should we bomb/strike Iraq?
What is your Favorite Bushism?
Democrat or Republican?
Your thoughts on war
Politics, war, MTV
American "selectiveness"
Iraq Draft
War


If you take a look at those threads, you'll notice all of them deal with politics, and all of them are closed. It's not a coincidence. Most were started with good intention, to find out how people felt about the subject at hand. BUt it turns out, there are just some things that are too hard to discuss on these boards, without the threads turning into flame wars. The threads start out OK, usually, but by the end of the first page or so it starts to get pretty nasty. Another thread on politics is only going to cause problems and will be closed. It's been tried and tried again, and we just can't have a civil debate about the subject without flaming or putting someone down.

I'm pretty sure you can descern poster's political party preference from those threads - if not, try PMing them and asking for a clarification.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Friends,

I can understand why it is that political discussions are frowned upon in this forum; it’s because they bring to light our differences, which contrast remarkably with the brotherhood of FIRST.

That said, we cannot believe for one second that FIRST can exist in a vacuum. We cannot believe that the rest of the world will see it our way if only we ignore it exists. I became a mentor because I know that the youth of today are our future; and, I believe that the ones from FIRST will lead the way. That is reason enough to believe that political debate on ChiefDelphi is a good thing and should be encouraged. It doesn’t matter that it may turn ugly. What matters is that we learn how it turns ugly and thereby learn to rise above it.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Nobody is saying we can't have political discussions, they're just saying they already exist. It's just friendly reminder to search before you post. :)

But, on a side note... Woot! Bush is ahead!

Also, what about the "Schwarzenegger for President" movement? :D

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

While bringing a few of them to the attention of the thread starter, Katie pointed out a few days ago that practically every thread pertaining to politics has been closed in the past. She also noted correctly that it’s just one of those topics that has started flame wars in the past.

Bush may be ahead in some of the polls, but his double digit lead is down to mid single digits in most polls I’ve seen this morning, and even within the margin of error in a few. A lot of key states for both candidates are very close. My family has recently become involved in a massive nationwide grassroots debtor (as in consumer bankruptcy debtors) campaign. This movement has the possibility to turn out over 100,000 votes (just from people who have filed bankruptcy, not including their friends or family) in a few key states.

As for Schwarzenegger, you should probably wait on him until after he’s completed a term as my governor (not to mention most of his policies don’t match the average republican). Many politically savvy Californians were talking about Gray Davis possibly running for president back in 2001 when he was fighting to get Bush to step in and impose price controls on the energy price gouging by Enron, et al. We all know where that ended up. The moral of that story is “don’t count your chickens before they hatch (especially in politics).”

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

He should also wait until the constitution is changed to allow non US born citizens to be president :)

Cory

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

You are correct, you deserter ;). I was assuming that Dana Rohrabacher's proposed amendment was passed and ratified. I also assumed that Ryan was talking about that constitutional amendment movement, and not just a “run Arnie” movement.

<edit>
I'll make you right-wingers a deal. You take back the 22nd amendment, and we’ll give you foreign-born people who have been citizens for 25+ years. Bill Clinton vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger? Any takers? ;)
</edit>

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I'll second that for the Democrats, seems like a fair trade.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I'd like to take that up. But then again I do know how mad Clinton makes Republican. I do live in Kansas. I do also realize how people obsess over celebrities. Do they think they get the same Arnold as they got in jingle all the way?

Okay, I'll take that. I like well educated effective presidents. And note just because you go to Yale and Harvard does not make you well educated or effective for that matter. Plus I'm really tired of politics centering on ideologies. I always thought that was the things government should stay out of. I really don't like the growth in bueracacy under current Republican presidents either. I really wonder who pays for that, at least in the long run I think it is the people under 25 who will have to deal with the deficit.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Sounds good to me.

Does anyone here remember when Comedy Central had the movement to give Clinton four more years back in 2000? Given the choices back then (or now, in a way), I'd be very interested to see how that would break down.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Yeah, the only reason I said that thing about Schwarzenegger was I had just read a CNN.com article poking fun at Nadar and the Arnold people. :)

I'd definitely have to think about your 22nd amendment offer... ;)

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Eh dont know if i could give you the 22nd amendment, if you look pass it being more then an amendment its more of a tradition. Up till FDR that was never a amendment. George Washington was elected for 2 terms, then when he was up for relection the people came and asked him if wanted to be King and thats when he said he will not run anymore or be king and went and retired. This was tradition all the way up to FDR convincing the people to elect him four times because of the great depression and war. Then after FDR is when we made the 22nd amendment.

Sorry i just had a US government test on Friday and that was one of our essay questions

In my personal opiinion i am in favor of the 22nd amendment, even if its a good president no one should be able to serve more then two full terms. And as for schwarzeneggar i think we should keep it that you have to be a US born

Sorry i was just working on government hw also so that is my $0.02

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Just out of curiousity, why?

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Its more that i dont have anything against him. ITs the fact that it would take a ratification of the Constitution which is very hard and takes up resources. To ratify the constitution it takes a 2/3 vote of the Congress and if it gets out of there then it has to go to the states for a 3/4 votes and i just dont see it happening

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I don't necessarily agree that just because it is difficult to add a new amendment, then we should keep it the way that it is. I'm sitting here next to my box of 500 constitutions (don't ask) and looking at some great amendments we have that went through that exhausting process...I may be slightly biased to the 19th being my favorite. Whether something should change should be a matter of how pertinent and important it is to a country, and the pros and cons of the issue; not how logistically difficult it is. If it is important enough, change will happen, as it has 27 times (well more like 18 times since the bill of rights was one bulk package and then there were 17 more amendments).

Moreover, who ever said politicians today aren't ready for a good fight on amendments? It may be just used as a wedge issue but enough Republicans have been fighting to make the Federal Marriage Amendment a front and center topic. The difficulty of making this an actual amendment, coupled with overwhelming opposition (myself being one), didn't stop them.

This isn't a post advocating or protesting the citizenship requirement for the Presidency. That's another time, another thread. I guess to tie this back into the original topic of the thread, my message is don't stop fighting for something just because you don't think you can make a difference or it's difficult, especially in this election. Whether you live in a blue state, a red state, a swing state...whether you're a Kerry, Bush, or even Nader supporter...whether you can or cannot vote...it's always important to learn about the issues, get active, and make your voice be heard.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

i Def agree with you on everyone makes a difference. I def learned that in 2000 in Florida. This election i am out campaigning for the candidate that i want to win. I encourage everyone to learn the issues and make there decscion. The worste thing i think someone could do is not know the issues and vote for someone becasue thats who there parents voted for.

As my government professor said this could be the biggest election in history.
Let me explain his logic why and after hearing it i also agree with him.

As everyone knows there is 9 supreme court justices and when you are approved for the supreme court the term is for life. Well within the next four years one has already said she will retire (dont remember her name) and there are few that are well into age that might not make it to the next election. So if you put two and two together there is basically a possiblity of 4-5 vacant spots in the supreme court. Now since the president appoints these people whoever is in office is going to pick from there party. So if the assumption is correct at the end of four years in the supreme court we could have total switch of power. Please correct me if i am wrong but i am pretty sure the supreme court is democratic as of now. So now if this does happen the way things have been decided will totally change if a republican is president So please everyone if you can vote learn the issues and vote.

*NOTE: i will not say who i am in favor for becasue that debate should not be for Chiefdelphi. I did vote on the poll tho.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I hate to take this thread even further off topic, but I have to say that a "total change of power" from Democratic to Republican in the Supreme Court wouldn't be a huge thing, and definitely wouldn't make this election the most important in history. I'm not just saying that because I'm Republican (and yes, my parents are Republican, but I tend to agree with more conservative views anyway), but because our county has gone on since its beginning with different people in power, and these people haven't always had the same views on things.

My point is that although it might initially seem like a disaster to you if the Supreme Court were no long Democratic, our country has been run by people on every side of the fence and hasn't been destroyed.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Um it could be a poteintally big thing and no i am not goint to say its going to destroy our country at all i am a republican. I am saying if the supreme court go's republican alot of laws and court cases will be challenged. The supreme court has been democratic for over a decade. I guarentee you if it goes republican that youw ill see court cases like rode (sp?) vs wade go challenged and most possibly overturned

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Ok, this really should go back on topic but I just need to clear up some things beforehand because there's some misinformation floating around here.

1. Supreme Court Justices are neither Democratic or Republican. Those are political parties and judges are supposed to be non-partisan. Of course, they do lean certain way in ideologies. Which brings me to...

2. Besides the fact that President's don't pick someone from their party because of the aforementioned fact, they don't necessarily pick someone with their own ideology. There are 7 Republican-President appointed Justices: Rehnquist (Nixon), Stevens (Ford), O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy (Reagan), and Souter and Thomas (Bush Sr.). There are 2 Democrat-President appointed Justices: Ginsberg and Breyer. However there's hardly ever been a vote that's been 7-2 favoring conservatives. Why in the world does this happen? Well, a lot has to do with the fact that the Senate has to confirm the nominees so justices aren't straight party line with the President who nominated them. So having a shift in Presidency won't dramatically affect the Supreme Court depending on who's in control of the Senate.

3. Where one would get the notion that we have a Democratic (or even liberal) Supreme Court is a little puzzling to me. This Supreme Court article along with many other articles about court rulings all generally say that Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are typically conservative leaning, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer are typically liberally leaning and O'Connor's a swing voter that based on history, usually leans right.

Sorry for the government lesson. I DO believe this election is important, but less so for the Supreme Court element.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Actually it probably be possible to get the 2/3's of the states. It would probably die in Congress though.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Everyone (since I've seen this mistake repeatedly, and I'm nitpicky):
Please check the constitution or your history books. It's requires ratification by 3/4's of the states to pass a constitutional amendment, not 2/3's. The 2/3's that you're thinking of is generally the first step of passing a constitutional amendment; the percentage of each house of the federal legislature needed to pass the proposed amendment. Although, there's another 2/3's that you could be thinking of which is the other possible first step in passing a constitutional amendment; the 2/3's of state legislatures calling a Constitutional Convention and passing a proposed constitutional amendment. In any case, the ratification by 3/4's of the states is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I saw Nadar will win. I feel bad for him...id vote for him if i can vote. I think that Bush isnt doing a very good job with this "conflict" (i dont call it a war for various reasons). If Kerry wins, he wont do much of a better job than Bush is doin right now. But yet, if Nadar wins, everyone will hate him and he wouldnt know what to do. But for right now Nadar would have my vote.
-Court-

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

So wait a second..... What you are saying is that none of the candidates know what they are doing? :p

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

mmmm ya I guess you can say that. lol
:D
-Court-

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

From a FIRSTer's standpoint, Kerry is the candidate I would choose, because he said in his speech to increase funding for science and technology. That could mean more money for FIRST :D ! Unfortunately, since Bush is significantly ahead now, he might win this election, but then there are three debates between now and November 2 :yikes: . That should even out the playing field.


I agree with CourtneyB in that nobody can win in Iraq. The best solution is to retreat.

Bush offended the world not once, but TWICE. Remember when he took office, he refused to sign Kyoto Protocols and such. The world then wished to help us after the tragic events in September, but Bush offended the world AGAIN by going to war with Iraq, which was not only unpopular in the world, but also RIGHT HERE (there were major protests in almost every city). Even worse, the unpopular war is anything but a success.

In addition, Bush offended me. His typical elitist right wing conservatism made me feel (I was born in Lafayette) like I didn't deserve to be an American. There's only one problem, and that was that I was born here, while my parents were legal residents of this country. I was also offended by his Louis XVI-style starving of the poor (reducing education and healthcare benefits and throwing many in jail). "I didn't leave Bush. Bush left me!"

There is also the issue of environment, which you can cover up, but will never go away. Rather, it is catching up right now. The weather is evidence that something has gone wrong. It is not normal under any circumstances. Bush is covering it up, letting the problem get worse (like cutting down forests to save forest fires). How about signing the Kyoto, getting Zero-Emissions Vehicles, and slowly nulling CO2 emissions (like what Kerry would do, but not immediatley). Kerry is an advocate for the environment, and environment is the only issue where Kerry leads Bush by miles.

Kerry isn't miles better than Bush, one could argue. He DID vote for the Iraq war. He doesn't have a solid point of view. But it is important to support The Lesser of Two Evils . ABB (anyone but Bush).

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

This isn’t aimed solely at you, but more broadly at young voters (especially here in FIRST).

If you’re going to nonchalantly cast your vote for whoever is listed first on your ballot, or if you vote for a candidate only because you feel sorry for them, or if you throw your vote away by not voting at all then you have no one to blame for the inadequacies and shortcomings of this country but yourself. You have not, in good faith, supported the candidate with whom you share beliefs that are important to you as a human being. You must also recognize the repercussions of the vote you cast. In a perfect world a third, fourth or fifth party candidate for president would be viable, but this is not a perfect country (we can discuss the history of political parties, etc. if you want).

Many of us are registered voters in very important places for this upcoming election, and need to understand that voting for Ralph Nader instead of John Kerry (if you have moderate to liberal social beliefs, and/or conservative to liberal fiscal beliefs) is counterproductive to your social and fiscal interests. Due to his inevitable defeat, voting for Nader while harboring either misgivings towards Bush or ambivalent to supportive feelings towards Kerry makes it more likely that George Bush will be re-elected.

It is necessary, as a voter, for you to keep yourself informed as to the candidates’ positions so that you can better decide for yourself which candidate deserves your support and in the end your vote. If you believe that George Bush is failing our country in Iraq/Afghanistan, and you believe that John Kerry might or definitely will do a better job than the status quo isn’t that a good reason to vote for Kerry (assuming, of course, that you agree with his positions on other issues, or that you don’t agree more with Bush)? You also must be weary of many political advertisements. Political advertisements are the candidates’ “cliffs’ notes” of their positions and plans, and there is mass deception on both sides in these advertisements. There are many scare tactics used claiming that one side will ban bibles, require everyone to go to church, ban guns, require everyone to own guns, ban abortions, or require every woman to have an abortion, etc. To really enlighten yourself you should read each candidate’s platform, each party’s platform, and independent groups’ assessments of their plans and be able to read between the lines (recognizing possible bias one way or another from certain sources) and then decide for yourself which you agree with more.

http://www.factcheck.org/

You must take a proactive role in politics or at the very least be a politically knowledgeable American if you want to change things in America for what you believe is the better.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

I was interning in Washington D.C. with the (Democratic staff of the) House Science Committee this past summer. I was able to get this job through my congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, who has been a long time supporter of FIRST (since 2002 when she spoke at the Silicon Valley Regional). While working in Washington I was able to “spread the gospel” of FIRST to many democratic staffers, and there is a good chance that we can get hearings on “Collaborative Competitive Project Based Learning” programs in K-12 and colleges. This is the first step towards, and a short step from, federal monetary support for programs like FIRST and organizations that support them all over the country.

I disagree with your statement that the USA should retreat from Iraq. I believe that it was a foolhardy mistake for us to have invaded that country, but at this point in time we’ve made our bed (no matter how poorly) and for our security’s sake we cannot pack up and leave. President Bush has turned a country that was less of a threat than North Korea or Iran into a terrorist infested war zone. Iraq was not a threat to our security in the state it was just over 2 years ago, but now it has become the terrorist haven that the Bush administration claimed it was as part of their case for war. We must muster allies to assist in the putting down of the rebellious factions within Iraq. This is something that George Bush has proved himself incapable of time and time, again. It is in our country’s best interest to drop this “our way or the highway” attitude when it comes to our foreign policy. We must engage in an intelligent, respectful, and compromising foreign policy in order to give other countries the necessary incentive to provide troops and monetary support for the rebuilding of Iraq.

It isn’t a correct statement to say that John Kerry voted to support the “war” in Iraq. The vote that everyone refers to was not a blank check to go to war without cause, as Bush officials and supporters would make it out to be. It was a political threat to coerce Saddam Hussein to capitulate to weapons inspectors searching through the country for those ever elusive “weapons of mass destruction.”

Bush isn’t significantly ahead of Kerry in the polls. Most polls show the candidates within the margin of error, although Bush is ahead by slight margins (usually 2-6%) in most polls. It’s a close race, and will continue to be one, which is why it’s ever so important that we consider the repercussions of our votes this November.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Wait a second this doesn't make any sense. How can it be a threat unless there is no ultimatum. Looking at both sides just compounds the confusion.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

There was a threat. The threat was “you better let the weapons inspectors do their job, or else we’ll have no qualms with kicking your butt back to the Stone Age.” The problem arises when President Bush took this resolution to mean that he didn’t have to wait until weapons inspectors searched the country. So when the first reports of not finding any of those ever elusive “weapons of mass destruction” came in, Bush decided he was entitled to invade Iraq anyway.

Re: Bush or Kerry?
 

Concerning polls, the ball has definitley switched sides. Remember in late July/early August, when Virgina, North Carolina, Missouri, and Louisiana were swing states, Ohio was higher for Kerry (anywhere from a 1 pt lead to a "leans Kerry"), the entire upper midwest was "leans Kerry", and California, New York, and Illinois were solid blue?

Not any more. Bush is now ahead in the upper midwest, and in Ohio. He picked up Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana, and it is pretty certain that if voting is tommorrow, Bush will win. According to Newsweek (9/27), even Florida leans Bush. According to Rasmussen Reports, New York is in blue territory by only 4 percent. Do people think Kerry has a July-like rebound coming, or is he past his peak (like BushCorp's oil production will be in 5 years)?

Of course, my ultimate political goal in life is to turn Indiana and Texas into blue states. :yikes: .