US 2004 Election

[Sherv]

Number of Candidates
Total 8
In Your List 8









How This Works

1 Kerry Score: 100%
2 Sharpton Score: 99%
3 Kucinich Score: 98%
4 Clark Score: 97%
5 Dean Score: 91%
6 Edwards Score: 86%
7 Lieberman Score: 82%

8 Bush Score: 40%

[tamara]

I am a Libertarian. If anyone has a good theory why Libertarians have not been able to field ONE plausible candidate over the years I sure would like to hear it.

[Hilly]

So its Kerry for the Democrats. He seemed to be the favourite here, according to the results of the survey we all took.
Bush is in some hot water already with his ads, one of which apparentely showed a flag draped body of a firefighter being removed from Ground Zero shortly after 9/11. Bush has since agreed to stop running the ad after a backlash from familys of those killed and others who found it in bad taste. I must agree, talking about 9/11 in general terms as in what happened and why is OK. But for Bush to capitalize on the death of heros, who may or may not of even supported the Republicans is unfeeling and disrespecful.

It looks to me like this election is going to be a close one. Should be interesting.

[Griffey]

Tamara, I heard a story that there was once a Libertarian presidential candidate (or maybe he was Independant?) Well anyway, there was this poll some people took from the whole country that said 80 percent of the people would vote for him...but they weren't going to, because they didn't think he'd win.

I think non-Democrat and non-Republican parties are stigmatized. It really sucks, y'know? If you are any other party but Democrat or Republican, you can't win an election. And if you run as Dem or Rep, but your agenda doesn't match up with the party's, no one will vote for you. So now we have two narrow views running the country. Ick.

[atheistmom]

I would vote for Nader but I feel I am wasting my vote. Happened last time, not the same mistake again.

It is sad they we are stuck with these two groups.

[BaalShemRa]

Tamara,

"If anyone has a good theory why Libertarians have not been able to field ONE plausible candidate over the years I sure would like to hear it. "


There's Hilly's explanation which is certainly an important factor in the US. However, the libertarians in Germany are having troubles too and the politcal systme is quite different. In Israel, Shinui ( the most libertarian-like party ) surged for a while but it didn't last long. The political system over there encourages kooks and freak parties ( Kahane, anyone? ).

Also:
Because a Nozickian anarchic utopian state is platonic.

Because libertarians, who tend to dislike anything having to do with gov't, are the people least likely to want to run for office.

Because many libertarians would trade a vote for misogynistic, partially racist, homophobic, theocratic, interventionnist, authoritarian party in exchange for a $200 tax rebate.

[coolguy]

nonbeliever said:

And statistic wise(right word/spelling) Bush has a big chance of being re-elected becouse only once or twice(can't remeber which) has a president not served two terms.

What the hell is that? What country are you talking about? There have been 21 one-term (or less) presidents in the US, not one or two. Bush, Carter, Johnson (withdrew voluntarily from the running for a second term), JFK (not even a whole term), Ford (not even a whole term) to name a few just in the last 40 years. I can't believe no one else pointed this out. But people answer your question that has such an obvious answer... if a school has a rule, should it enforce the rule? Of course, or if it won't enforce the rule, it should repeal it.


All of these candidates suck sooooooo bad!
1 Kucinich Score: 56%
2 Sharpton Score: 52%
3 Kerry Score: 50%
4 Bush Score: 47%

They all suck sooooo bad (oops I already said that).

I'm probably voting for Kerry in 2004, I decided that nearly two years ago the very first time I ever saw him on TV or heard his name for that matter. I was pretty sure he was going to be the One, turns out I was right, whether that's a good thing or not, who knows.

That poll really makes me laugh, because.... Sharpton? LMAO


I think the comparison of Bush to Hitler was perfectly justified and called for considering that he has been even bolder than Hitler was at seizing power, pushing people around and all sorts of effrontery. He is worse than Hitler, he just hasn't gotten as far in over his head as Hitler did... yet, and hopefully we'll never let him. Actually I think he has done more harm already, the death toll has not climbed as high (yet) but for the harm he has caused to nations of people, billions of people, he has done worse than Hitler.

He falsely credits himself for liberating Iraq (population 40million) while he is actively supporting China's two-billion person concentration-camp-country. Instead of eliminating all trade with China as the US has in the past with Communist nations like Cuba and USSR and watching them crumble under their own weight, he is allowing open trade with China, so that 2 billion human beings with no individual rights whatsoever can subsist as slaves... to us. That's not capitalism, nor is it any type of form of democracy; it's slavery, modern feudalism. Hitler could only have dreamed to have dominated and subjugated so many people, because he certainly never did. Bush is some liberator.