Support NeoGAF

[StoOgE]

I think this is something that we can all agree on at this point, whether Republican, Democrat or a smaller political party. If you are undecided at this point, you are a fucking idiot.

I will agree last presidential election allot of people did not see a big difference between the Democrats and republicans because the world was fairly peaceful, the economy was still doing well (the downturn had started, but the impact hadn't really hit home to most people yet)..

but for the love of God, the policies of both parties are in direct contrast to each other, we are in the middle of a major war with two sides in pretty much complete opposition to each other, homeland security, civil rights, homosexual rights, stem cell research and the nature of government involvement in the economy, medical coverage and tort reform are all on the forefront of this election...

I mean, honestly, if you are not decided at this point you are most likely going to vote for who you think looks most presidential, or 'down to earth' or some equally retarded reason for voting for president. I mean, I don't agree with Republicans but at least I can respect the fact that they HAVE an opinion on something. What the fuck have undecided voters been doing for the last two years?

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

What about the folks that agree with one side on some matters, and the other side on other matters. Picking a candidate and sticking to it isn't ALWAYS the best way to decide who would best represent you.

I'm not undecided, and to an extent I agree with you, I'm just throwing that out there.

 

[Drinky Crow]

DUR HUR I WANNA KNOW WHAR THA CAN-DEED-ATES STAND ON FUCKIN' MAH SISTER

CUZ I AIN'T GOIN BACK TA PRISON AGAIN

GAWDAMNIT

WHAR'S THUH REMOTE

DEGRASSI HIGH IS ON

 

[explodet]

GAWDAMNIT

WHAR'S THUH REMOTE

DEGRASSI HIGH IS ON

Yes, this is the primary reason for poor voter turnout. Cheesy Canadian television shows.

From The Beachcombers to LEXX, we keep America apathetic!

 

[xsarien]

The Daily Show nailed it on the head after the first debate:

"LET'S GO! SHIT AND GET OFF THE POT!"

 

[heavy liquid]

DUR HUR I WANNA KNOW WHAR THA CAN-DEED-ATES STAND ON FUCKIN' MAH SISTER

CUZ I AIN'T GOIN BACK TA PRISON AGAIN

GAWDAMNIT

WHAR'S THUH REMOTE

DEGRASSI HIGH IS ON

That pretty much sums it up. I even believe that this is a direct quote from one of the idiots that they interviewed after one of the debates.

 

[etiolate]

but for the love of God, the policies of both parties are in direct contrast to each other, we are in the middle of a major war with two sides in pretty much complete opposition to each other, homeland security, civil rights, homosexual rights, stem cell research and the nature of government involvement in the economy, medical coverage and tort reform are all on the forefront of this election...

Except where do they stand on the FCC, free speach, corporate ethics, the RIAA, media influence and the absolute overhaul of public schooling.

I do know where they both stand on Iraq though! Well sorta. Kerry's got a plan, what plan who knows. Seems to not realize there are and always have been more terrorists than old Al Q. Bush at least knows that, but doesn't seem to know modesty or admitting your mistakes and doing better.

Which is the other issue, their stances may be different but they still somehow end up not making me feel good about them.

BUT OH YEAH THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

 

[karasu]

yay more politics...

 

[Particle Physicist]

What about the folks that agree with one side on some matters, and the other side on other matters. Picking a candidate and sticking to it isn't ALWAYS the best way to decide who would best represent you.

im glad this was the first reply.. if you cant see how some people might be undecided (still!), you are a fucking idiot.

 

[Hitokage]

Except where do they stand on the FCC, free speach, corporate ethics, the RIAA, media influence and the absolute overhaul of public schooling.

Of these, only the RIAA and schooling overhaul would be issues not addressed by Bush as I understand it. The rest we know from his actual term as president... that is, FCC is run by Powell's son and supports expansion of corporate media ownership, Patriot Act kills terrorists so stop whining about civil liberties, and Microsoft got a slap on the wrist... even if you don't want to go into Enron/Haliburton.

 

[iapetus]

Yes, this is the primary reason for poor voter turnout. Cheesy Canadian television shows.

Then your course is clear. Vote for the candidate most likely to declare war on Canada.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

People just say they are undecided for attention...or they want to tip toe around and not piss off anyone. They might not be able to support their reason for like either Bush or Kerry, so they just say "I'm not really sure yet..."

I have a hard time seeing someone who hasn't made up their mind yet, but apparently they do exist. But every undecided person I've seen on the news has had some stupid reason. This one guy was saying that he wanted to vote for Kerry, but he voted for Bush in the last election and that's why he was undecided. Who you voted for last time has nothing to do with it, who the fuck do you agree with NOW!

 

[cvxfreak]

I do agree that undecided voters need to hurry up and decide; hopefully the final debate seals everyone's deal.

 

[slayn]

does not caring count as being undecided?

 

[FoneBone]

does not caring count as being undecided?

No, I'd say it counts as "being stupid." Or possibly insane.

 

[KingV]

but for the love of God, the policies of both parties are in direct contrast to each other, we are in the middle of a major war with two sides in pretty much complete opposition to each other, homeland security, civil rights, homosexual rights, stem cell research and the nature of government involvement in the economy, medical coverage and tort reform are all on the forefront of this election...

Actually, the policies of both parties are distressingly similar. Kerry has said that he and the President have essentially the same view on homosexual rights, and as far as the War in Iraq and Homeland Security Kerry's platforms is that he'd basically do the same stuff Bush is doing, but he'd do it better. There'd be MORE support from the International community, MORE security at airports, terrorists would be more afraid, have to run more, etc, but there doesn't seem to be any key differences in how we wants to achieve these goals other than he just knows how to do it better than Bush. I agree that they definitely differ on stem cell research, medical coverage, and tort reform, but out of those three issues medical coverage is the only one that's truly important to most Americans, stem cell research and tort reform are more like issues where most people have a stance, but it's not strong enough to truly sway the them to one candidate or another.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Yes, this is the primary reason for poor voter turnout. Cheesy Canadian television shows.

From The Beachcombers to LEXX, we keep America apathetic!

What can I say? I've got a thing for girls that say "aboot".

Anyone? Any takers?

 

[Gek54]

I just saw Ferenhiet 911 and now I am undicided.

 

[Belfast]

Some people are undecided because they don't like ANY of the candidates.

 

[Hitokage]

Actually, the policies of both parties are distressingly similar. Kerry has said that he and the President have essentially the same view on homosexual rights, and as far as the War in Iraq and Homeland Security Kerry's platforms is that he'd basically do the same stuff Bush is doing, but he'd do it better. There'd be MORE support from the International community, MORE security at airports, terrorists would be more afraid, have to run more, etc, but there doesn't seem to be any key differences in how we wants to achieve these goals other than he just knows how to do it better than Bush. I agree that they definitely differ on stem cell research, medical coverage, and tort reform, but out of those three issues medical coverage is the only one that's truly important to most Americans, stem cell research and tort reform are more like issues where most people have a stance, but it's not strong enough to truly sway the them to one candidate or another.

Economy, Environment, Science, Foreign Policy, etc, etc... you cannot pick one pet issue then say that there aren't differences between them.

Oh, and as for homosexual rights, the sodomy ruling is one of the things republicans are decrying as ACTIVIST JUDGES... and it wasn't the democrats who are trying to push a constitutional amendment.

Really, if you can't see a difference then you aren't paying attention or you simply do not care about them.

 

[Diablos]

At this point in the game, if you're undecided, you are probably someone that doesn't care about politics and pretending to pay attention because you know it's almost over, OR you don't like telling people who you are voting for because you want to avoid conflict. Either that, or you're just plain stupid. Or, as Belfast said, you hate both of 'em.

 

[duderon]

Some people are undecided because they don't like ANY of the candidates.

And these people are rediculous. Who gives a shit if you like the candidate or not. They're going to be the president of the United States not your best buddy. Look at the facts. Look at their platforms and then choose a candidate.

 

[KingV]

Economy, Environment, Science, Foreign Policy, etc, etc... you cannot pick one pet issue then say that there aren't differences between them.

Oh, and as for homosexual rights, the sodomy ruling is one of the things republicans are decrying as ACTIVIST JUDGES... and it wasn't the democrats who are trying to push a constitutional amendment.

Really, if you can't see a difference then you aren't paying attention or you simply do not care about them.

There are definitely differences, but it's certainly not polar opposites, apart from a select few issues, that to me at least (I can't speak for the American public as a whole) are secondary to the primary issues at hand, namely the Iraq War.

Like I said, Kerry said his views on Homosexual rights were essentially the same as Bush's. I'm not seeing the difference here. They both oppose gay marriage. Frankly, I think this is a stupid position, but I'm basically completely ambivalent as to whether gay people can get married or not, and certainly won't vote based on a candidate's stance on this issue.

 

[videogamer]

# Protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Vigorously defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress in 1996.
# Pursue a Federal Marriage Amendment - Continue to urge Congress to send to the states for ratification an Amendment to the Constitution to define and protect the institution of marriage in the United States.

Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families: John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Speaking Out Against the Clinton Administration Ban on Gays in the Military: John Kerry opposed the Clinton administration's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy and was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee against the policy.

kingv: you need to look at their actions. Bush is actively working against the advancement of gay rights. This admendment would prevent individual states from recognizing gay marriages, even if it were legislated. Kerry is essentially saying that he won't push for gay marriages. Also, if you look at these quotes from their websites, you'll see a distinct difference between the two.

Christopher Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay-rights group, was livid after the panel endorsed the first-ever call for a constitutional gay-marriage ban in a GOP platform and went beyond that to oppose legal recognition of any same-sex unions.

As the leader of the Republican Party, Bush let that through.

 

[videogamer]

Oh and Bush opposes gay adoptions while Kerry would support it.

In other words, there's a huge difference between the candidates on the homosexual issue. For most politically aware gays like me, it's a no-brainer.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html

 

[StoOgE]

Kerry's official line is the same as Chaney's, not Bush's. Both Chaney and Kerry want the states to be able to decide what to do. In both of their cases they most likely support gay marriage but wont say it publicly for fear of political consequences.

Everything Kerry says about gay marriage sounds like he is for it and then at the last second he says "but I don't support it, but I support civil unions". If he came out and said he supports gay marriage that would mobilize the religious right in this country like nothing else.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I can easily believe that people are undecided... but if someone is so split that they can't decide by this point, maybe it's just best they don't vote for president? I mean, if they really think they'd be about equally pleased with each candidate, might as well leave it up to those who care.

But really, I'd guess a lot of people listed among "undecided" are really more like "not absolutely positive yet, so don't want to say one and then change my mind later, like people obviously do since polls swing so much with time".

 

[B'z-chan]

Well i'm undecided completely. This is my first time being able to vote for president and i will vote. I'm split on some issues cause they both seem like the same thing but just said differntly. I honestly dont think either one could fix this country in four years. So i'm planing on looking over smaller issues that i've not really thought about. And by round 3 i should have made up my mind.

 

[xsarien]

Like I said, Kerry said his views on Homosexual rights were essentially the same as Bush's. I'm not seeing the difference here. They both oppose gay marriage.

The key difference being that Kerry wouldn't impose his *beliefs* on the people, nor would he attempt to hijack the Constitution in the process. You know, Kerry said something during one of the debates that I wish more people would pick up on: He said that he's Catholic, but he wouldn't let his religion dictate policy, implying (well, pointing out the obvious) that Bush lets his Evangelical Christian beliefs into the Oval Office and dictate where he wants the country to go.

You're right, Kerry doesn't believe that marriage should be anything more than between a man and a woman, but he's not about to take away the rights of others in some naive attempt to "stay true" to that faith.

Bush's handlers will call that a "flip-flop," I call it evidence of a first-rate intelligence.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Some people are undecided because they don't like ANY of the candidates.

A-FUCKING-MEN. Fuck the electoral college and fuck the entrenched parties. I ran into a few brainwashed Republicans tonight and it almost made me sick. Before they even knew my position (they simply interpreted me as; not completely pro-Republican = Democrat) they started railing on me with anti-Democrat rhetoric (some of which I agreed with, imagine that!!). They had heard not a smidge of my actual political views, yet because I simply opposed the status quo, I suddenly stood for the opposition, instead of possibly somewhere inbetween.

I'm undecided for a number of reasons. Being a fiscal conservative, I am naturally opposed to the welfare state and any form of handouts, big government, excessive taxation, or tipping of the markets. But that said, Bush despite being pro-tax cut, is as big a defecit spender as has ever been in Washington, regardless of his tax cuts. He's the king of the unfunded mandate, almost a Democrat's Republican so to speak. Though Kerry supports maintaining the tax-cut for my bracket, he's also openly talked about upping funding for a number of programs, which will require either more tax money, or a bigger defecit. So I'm stuck between a proven free-spender and a man pledged to the free-spenders party.

I'm largely opposed to the Iraq war, but despite that opposition I'm not sure who I stand to benefit the most from given that we're already there. Are their policies really going to differ that much regarding post-war Iraq? Bush seems to want to "follow through" with the situation, but is anti-draft and is largely hinging on the January elections + added UN support to allow a large-scale US pullout, with only a support force remaining. Kerry seems to support a pullout and oppose a draft as well, but given his criticism is less likely to garner support given his bashing of the war and its "coalition of the bribed" etc. Assuming its the worst case scenario, who leaves us, and me, specificially in the worst situation? Kerry will likely be more rational about the situation, but Bush is more likely to have the best capability to execute his plan. My opposition to going to war has little to do with the outcome of its future, and choosing between the candidates leaves a hazy proposition regarding its outcome. Hard to DECIDE. Imagine that.

Morally I could give a fuck about the gay marriage thing. I'm not a homophobe, but to be honest I could give a shit about the plight of gays. I'm not in support of gay marriage per se, because I don't believe a gay union is a "marriage" by definition (given that marriage is a religious institution), but I am against the govt giving marriages any sort of beneficial recognition on a legal level to begin with. I feel its a relgious issue and none of the governments business. So I am opposed to gay marriage, but in a good way, so to speak. So I may be pro-Kerry in the regard that he seems semi-progressive in this issue, but its not an issue that I really give a flying fuck about to be honest.

Regarding the job loss issue, I realize that Bush inherited a recession, and I don't hold him entirely accountable for the state of the job market per se. But I do hold him accountable for not helping defend this nation against off-shore tax shelters for corporations and against job outsourcing. The president may not be able to immediately affect the day-to-day functions of the market, but he can support policies that we stand to benefit from. Kerry talks more along my interests on this issue.


Though I may be opposed to Bush as the head-moron-in-charge of the free world, settling for lame-ass Kerry as simply the next best option is not exactly appealing to me either. In fact its practically insulting that I should have to choose between these two. I mean there are a ton of issues to be considerd here and niether candidate represents me even by a majority. Intellectually I'm choosing between an ideologue golden-boy moron and a shifty career politician slickster, who regardless are both going to be pro-corporate welfare, pro war on drugs, anti-flat tax etc etc, all of which are counter to my views.

Why this should be an easy decision for me is NOT for a bunch of polarized, conformist donkeys and elephants to decide, especially given that the STAGNANT, largely CORRUPT system in place leads us every 4 years back to another "lesser of 2 evils" election. Just because you're either a) so fucked up that either Kerry or Bush fit EXACTLY with your politics (God help you either way), or b) so polarized by a single issue (Opposed Iraq? We're there now regardless!! Pro/anti gay marriage? Pick from 2 shades of "fuck the fags"!!) that you've decided to settle for the quagmire of the middle ground should not illegitimize those of us who, as in every other facet of life, have *SHOCKER* nuanced, diverse opinions regarding our politics.

FUCK settling. I'm probably gonna vote for Michael Badnarik just to spite the brainwashed establishment pro quo moronathon that is mainstream politics. You vote your pocketbook, FUCK YOU. You vote with your religion, FUCK YOU. You vote with your penis (or desire for/lack thereof), FUCK YOU. You fuckers deserve whichever elitist, silver spoon corporate lackey you elect. Either the country will wise up sometime in the next 20 years or it will "mainstream" its way into oblivion. My bet is with the latter, but I won't contribute to the deterioration of this country. I will VOTE MY CONSCIENCE, as my rights have not only afforded me to do, but OBLIGATED me to as a free member of this society. Many of the founding fathers were diametrically opposed to faction and polarized party politics, and we are finally starting to see the disastrous consequences of its longterm effects. America should not be a country of ONE or the OTHER. If the Fox News pricks I met this evening would have allowed me a word in edgewise, THAT would have been what I would have most tried to convey to them. It is my hope that all of you would be open minded enough to see for yourselves..

 

[DDayton]

I've never understood how someone can be undecided at this point... unless they despise both major candidates and really don't know what to do.

Which isn't my case.

 

[Belfast]

I pretty much agree (obviously, you agreed with *my* point), but I'm not going to vote this election. Why?

1) I didn't register. Oops. Some states allow you to register right up to the vote, but good old Florida sticks it to ya on Oct. 2nd. And this is a fact I didn't know. So, I'm pretty much screwed for voting this time around.

2) See the above. I'm going to use my non-vote to speak my mind. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah everyone should vote bullshit. There are plenty of people not voting who don't know anything about politics and could care less. I indulge in a fair amount of political goings-on, so I would call myself informed. But given all the information I have, I'm not satisfied with anybody. I'll pull for Kerry as the underdog and, yes, the "lesser of two evils" but I'd rather not have my vote go to putting ANY evil in office.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Except where do they stand on the FCC, free speach, corporate ethics, the RIAA, media influence and the absolute overhaul of public schooling.

I do know where they both stand on Iraq though! Well sorta. Kerry's got a plan, what plan who knows. Seems to not realize there are and always have been more terrorists than old Al Q. Bush at least knows that, but doesn't seem to know modesty or admitting your mistakes and doing better.

Which is the other issue, their stances may be different but they still somehow end up not making me feel good about them.

BUT OH YEAH THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

That reminds me, I've always wondered if many people even realise that the name Al Quada was created by the U.S. government.

 

[Phoenix]

And these people are rediculous. Who gives a shit if you like the candidate or not. They're going to be the president of the United States not your best buddy. Look at the facts. Look at their platforms and then choose a candidate.

In the Bush/Kerry debate world where everything is black and white that makes sense, however you have to look at more than that such as what are the impacts of their platform, is it likely to be carried out, and how will it impact you. While I have a 'likely' candidate for the elections - I myself remain undecided.

The only way you can choose 'quickly' is to make an uninformed decision based off all the bullshit you hear and not following up on things yourself.

 

[olimario]

I'm more undecided now than I was a month ago. Do you doubt the debate's ability to change minds, StoOge?

 

[Phoenix]

Morally I could give a fuck about the gay marriage thing. I'm not a homophobe, but to be honest I could give a shit about the plight of gays. I'm not in support of gay marriage per se, because I don't believe a gay union is a "marriage" by definition (given that marriage is a religious institution), but I am against the govt giving marriages any sort of beneficial recognition on a legal level to begin with. I feel its a relgious issue and none of the governments business. So I am opposed to gay marriage, but in a good way, so to speak. So I may be pro-Kerry in the regard that he seems semi-progressive in this issue, but its not an issue that I really give a flying fuck about to be honest.

Be careful about how you address this one. Marriage is not purely a religious matter as it also has a large number of law and tax implications that are purely government based. So be careful about your opinion about marriage. While I personally don't have an opinion on gay marriage - the gay union would not be a marriage by definition in the governments legal sense.

who regardless are both going to be pro-corporate welfare, pro war on drugs, anti-flat tax etc etc, all of which are counter to my views.

Thank goodness for that. Flat tax doesn't work

FUCK settling. I'm probably gonna vote for Michael Badnarik just to spite the brainwashed establishment pro quo moronathon that is mainstream politics.

While I understand your position entirely, and appreciate it as I too would like more choice as I think there should be more choice for the presidential election and then a run off... even within the parties. Nevertheless, voting off the ticket in protest is unfortunately fruitless

 

[duderon]

In the Bush/Kerry debate world where everything is black and white that makes sense, however you have to look at more than that such as what are the impacts of their platform, is it likely to be carried out, and how will it impact you. While I have a 'likely' candidate for the elections - I myself remain undecided.

The only way you can choose 'quickly' is to make an uninformed decision based off all the bullshit you hear and not following up on things yourself.

There is most definately a black and white if you look at the bush administration and believe they are the worst thing to happen to the country in decades. That's my stance, and i don't believe it's uninformed. I don't want people in the white house that feel the need to scare the population just to get their vote. Not to mention all of the other shit they have pulled.

This isn't a "lesser of two evils" vote for me, it is pure evil vs. pretty good.

 

[Dan]

In fact its practically insulting that I should have to choose between these two.

I've never understood how someone can be undecided at this point... unless they despise both major candidates and really don't know what to do.

In the Bush/Kerry debate world where everything is black and white that makes sense, however you have to look at more than that such as what are the impacts of their platform, is it likely to be carried out, and how will it impact you. While I have a 'likely' candidate for the elections - I myself remain undecided.

That's about where I'm standing. I have my absentee ballot in hand now, but I don't have a fucking clue who I'm going to vote for. I like maybe 20-30% at most of what each candidate stands for and is likely to put forth, and I think the rest is terrible. I just don't see the country getting better with either in office. I see significant ways in which the country will be screwed regardless of who is elected, some the same and some different depending on who.

These debates have only intensified my dislike of Bush and Kerry. No matter who I vote for I'm going to feel guilty for being perceived of supporting all the terrible beliefs and policies they have.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Be careful about how you address this one. Marriage is not purely a religious matter as it also has a large number of law and tax implications that are purely government based. So be careful about your opinion about marriage. While I personally don't have an opinion on gay marriage - the gay union would not be a marriage by definition in the governments legal sense.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been on this one. When I say "I am against the govt giving marriages any sort of beneficial recognition on a legal level to begin with", I mean that I am against the government giving any sort of advantageous status to marriages. I don't believe you should have a tax break (*cough*flattax*cough*). I do think its important to have joint property rights and the ability to make medical decisions for your partner in the event of an emergency, but to me that doesn't necessarily hinge on being married by a religious institution, but on a legal recognition of voluntary partnership. I think there needs to be a separate legal option for this and a diminishment of govt favoritism for marriage. That would likely LEAD to a later govt recognition of similar partnerships/unions for gays, but thats not the reason I support such a change.

I just think that, if I don't want to get married, but I want my partner to have power of attorney or the right to make medical decisions in my stead, that the government shouldn't exclude me, nor do I think that a couple who just met a week ago and is married today should get favorable joint filing status simply because the government recognizes their religious union.

So even though I find it impossible to sympathize with a man who wants to butt pump another man, in a roundabout way I support a course of action that is likely to favor government recognition of Adam's partnership with...Steve.

Thank goodness for that. Flat tax doesn't work

Care to elaborate?

While I understand your position entirely, and appreciate it as I too would like more choice as I think there should be more choice for the presidential election and then a run off... even within the parties. Nevertheless, voting off the ticket in protest is unfortunately fruitless

I'm not voting in protest really. The Libertarian party is far more in line with my views, and, given that I'm in Texas, the wonderful electoral college has assured me that a) voting Bush will just be redundant, and b) voting for Kerry won't mean shit. But a healthy showing for the Libertarian party candidate may build some positive momentum toward legitimizing an alternative to the entrenched corporate parties that we've been stuck with for decades. Maybe if enough of us show that, even in such polarized times, we prefer an option not of the "either, or" world of mainstream, braindead politics, people will start to wake up to more diversified political perspectives.

 

[Phoenix]

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been on this one. When I say "I am against the govt giving marriages any sort of beneficial recognition on a legal level to begin with", I mean that I am against the government giving any sort of advantageous status to marriages.

If you think you get a tax advantage by being married then clearly you aren't married. There is a reason its called a "marriage penalty" in tax terms. My wife and I together get pushed into a tax bracket such that we are taxed more than if we were individuals. Even filing seperately, we still pay more money than we would filing seperately Unfortunate situation, and a benefit it is not.

I just think that, if I don't want to get married, but I want my partner to have power of attorney or the right to make medical decisions in my stead, that the government shouldn't exclude me, nor do I think that a couple who just met a week ago and is married today should get favorable joint filing status simply because the government recognizes their religious union.

Don't get married and leave a will or power of attorney for your partner.

Care to elaborate?

It is fiscally impossible to support a system in which all parties in the taxed population are taxed at the same rate and keep the system fair to all parties. There is a finite amount of tax revenue generated by the country - most of which comes from the people who make the most money. In a flat tax scenario these people pay a smaller percentage of their earnings - this must be recovered from the other 85% of the population - increasing the burdon on those who are just getting by. As such it doesn't work because it would turn the lower class into virtual slaves - though for the most part its heading that way anyways. Those who can barely afford to take care of themselves and their families from a financial and insurance perspective would be guaranteed to not be able to do so. That is a situation which definitely does not work for America.

I'm not voting in protest really. The Libertarian party is far more in line with my views, and, given that I'm in Texas, the wonderful electoral college has assured me that a) voting Bush will just be redundant, and b) voting for Kerry won't mean shit. But a healthy showing for the Libertarian party candidate may build some positive momentum toward legitimizing an alternative to the entrenched corporate parties that we've been stuck with for decades. Maybe if enough of us show that, even in such polarized times, we prefer an option not of the "either, or" world of mainstream, braindead politics, people will start to wake up to more diversified political perspectives.

I'm afraid that its going to take more than you voting libertarian or any other party before any significant change is made. In order to successfully launch a new political party will require a significant amount of money in educating the populace and getting people to actually give a crap about any third party candidate. This will require the once thing that you are mentioning that you are against - corporate sponsorship of candidates. The democratic and republican parties have enough money and influence to effectively drown any competing third party candidate in noise making it virtually impossible for them to have an effective voice.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I know who I'm votin' for.

 

[Doth Togo]

I'm torn (on the fence, etc) because I don't know whether I want to support a president who will raise taxes out the wazoo but will allow the US to look better by foreign interests.

Or...

Do I support a president who, like me, will not support social programs that are wasteful but will bring the US to a potentially new low.

Do I support Kerry or Bush (?), I really haven't decided yet. The debates tell me nothing other than a judge of character.

PS - While I agree with Phoenix's post, in an ideal world, I'd also vote Libertarian.