NationStates Jolt Archive

Who shall you vote for? If you aren't eligible to vote than here's your chance! The election is coming. You can't stop it. Vote here and show the world who shall remain standing after the second tuesday in November. It is your only hope!

--The Cheese Farmer--

I vote 'STFU you party whores!' as a write in.

If I could, I'd vote Bush. My parents are!

And I hope this doesn't turn into a flame war against both candidates.

We can vote for anarchy now? Since when?

I'm chosing the "I've seen this poll 234059324098234098234092384092384 times already" option

We can vote for anarchy in my poll. I just wanted to see how many anarchists there were.

I'm chosing the "I've seen this poll 234059324098234098234092384092384 times already" option
I haven't seen it before and i'm intirested. notice i have very few posts.

Sadly, I'm turning 18 four days after the primaries...

If I were able to, however, I'd vote for Kerry.

Three Purple Hearts versus three DUIs. Who do you think makes a better leader?

Well, at least the 'anarchy' option makes this different from the usual polls on this subject...

Sadly, I'm turning 18 four days after the primaries...

If I were able to, however, I'd vote for Kerry.

Three Purple Hearts versus three DUIs. Who do you think makes a better leader?

Three purple hearts and leaving the scene while people have more and stayed at the scene?

Military experience doesn't make a good President. If it did, by that theory MacArthur would've made an excellent President, and by that theory Grant WAS a great President. JFK was in the military, and he got us into Vietnam. Roosevelt had no military experience, and he led us through WW2. There's no correlation between military service and the success of a presidency. Just because Kerry was a soldier doesn't make him the right man for the job.

Go Bush!!!



(and Cheney)

Edited it and its all in the second post!

Thanks to a forumn screw up!

You are right! Military Experience is not an indicator on how your going to be as a president. It helps though. Look at Teddy, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Grant. All four served, teddy you can actually question, and all were great presidents.

However, I wouldn't trust Kerry to guard my house let alone negiotate with other nations.

Military experience doesn't make a good President. If it did, by that theory MacArthur would've made an excellent President, and by that theory Grant WAS a great President. JFK was in the military, and he got us into Vietnam. Roosevelt had no military experience, and he led us through WW2. There's no correlation between military service and the success of a presidency. Just because Kerry was a soldier doesn't make him the right man for the job.

Go Bush!!!
(and Cheney)
Washington-Served.
Jackson-Served.
TR-Served
Eisenhower-Served.


Military service is a pretty good indicator in many ways. Especially when your service is basically hiding out in the national guard. I'm a republican, yet I'm anti-Bush, because simply put, one man isn't your party. That man...is the quintessential christian-right. The worst part of the Republican party.

As for Kerry vs. Bush in negotiating, at least Kerry would negotiate.

As for staying in Vietnam, relatively few people stayed in multiple stints, and those who did were largely taking advantage of the offers of promotions and bonuses.


At least we've kept the moron factor so far, nobody coming to scream Drr...BUSH SUCKS! or Kerry is a fag! . Lets keep it like that if we can.


The problem is that Bush doesn't have any useful experiences as a leader. The man was born into the lap of luxury even more than Kerry was, and has no idea how the world works. He plainly doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us. When you say "This will cost us 80 billion more dollars" he will shrug it off [b] Because he doesn't have any idea what else to do with that money [/i]. He cuts taxes for the wealthy, because that is all he has ever been, wealthy. He doesn't know what cutting taxes for the poor would do.

Furthermore, attempts to tie his ideas with Reaganomics makes no sense either. Reagan entered an America where executives regularly made only 10-15 times as much as entry level employees. Bush enters one where they can make hundreds of times as much. Trickle down economics do not work when the rich have nothing more to spend on.

Sadly, I'm turning 18 four days after the primaries...

If I were able to, however, I'd vote for Kerry.

Three Purple Hearts versus three DUIs. Who do you think makes a better leader?

Three purple hearts and leaving the scene while people have more and stayed at the scene?
But he joined the scene, that is the main point, whereas we recently had the whole scandal over Bush even showing up at his national guard station.

Sadly, I'm turning 18 four days after the primaries...

If I were able to, however, I'd vote for Kerry.

Three Purple Hearts versus three DUIs. Who do you think makes a better leader?

Three purple hearts and leaving the scene while people have more and stayed at the scene?
But he joined the scene, that is the main point, whereas we recently had the whole scandal over Bush even showing up at his national guard station.

Which he did! Don't forget though, that kerry through out his medals and called OUR FORCES WAR CRIMINALS! I may not know much on Vietnam but from what I have managed to gather that some where but the majority weren't.

Sadly, I'm turning 18 four days after the primaries...

If I were able to, however, I'd vote for Kerry.

Three Purple Hearts versus three DUIs. Who do you think makes a better leader?

Three purple hearts and leaving the scene while people have more and stayed at the scene?
But he joined the scene, that is the main point, whereas we recently had the whole scandal over Bush even showing up at his national guard station.

Which he did! Don't forget though, that kerry through out his medals and called OUR FORCES WAR CRIMINALS! I may not know much on Vietnam but from what I have managed to gather that some where but the majority weren't.
He was part of one of the many anti-war veterans movements, and a leader of it. The reasoning is quite simple, extremely liberal media. At that time, little was known of the real situation. What we had was an anti-war crowd influencing the media. For example the most notorious day in the Vietnam war, the Tet Offensive, was cast as a major loss. In reality it was a temporary loss, followed by major victories as major components of the Vietcong were destroyed, and their supporters found.

Many veterans threw out their medals. Many talked of war criminals. Hell, many denied they were involved in the war. But it was no individuals fault, it was the way the war was cast.

You are right! Military Experience is not an indicator on how your going to be as a president. It helps though. Look at Teddy, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Grant. All four served, teddy you can actually question, and all were great presidents.

However, I wouldn't trust Kerry to guard my house let alone negiotate with other nations.
Grant sucked. :?

You are right! Military Experience is not an indicator on how your going to be as a president. It helps though. Look at Teddy, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Grant. All four served, teddy you can actually question, and all were great presidents.

However, I wouldn't trust Kerry to guard my house let alone negiotate with other nations.
Grant sucked. :?

Ok so maybe he did to a point, I don't know much on the Grant presidency. The other ones were good though.