Help! I'm a Republican and I'm leaning to Kerry! Ahh!

I am Very undecided in the election which is about a week away.

I am a business owner, I am against banning the 2nd amendment, I feel the right to bear arms is very important, therfore I guess I am a Republican!

I am having a hard time putting all this into words but I will try!!!!

Until Yesterday I was all for President Bush and followed the line by defending the president from the democrats with lines like:

"Saddam was a WMD himself, nevermind WMD's themself"

"Al Quada is out to kill us, ruin and destroy us"

"We must attack Pre-emptivly and destroy threats to America"

I have found myslef in a precarious situation lately. I want to vote for bush but inside I am afraid that if I vote for President Bush and he ends up winning a second term that Bush will have a Blank Check to do what he wants and that our country will go in a downward spiral of pre-emptive strikes on nations with a need of a draft. I do not want a draft for our country for many reason and mainly:

"A decrease in Military effectivness"

"a force with massive precentage of soilders that dont want to be there"

I think that Bush is a little trigger happy. Before the war in Iraq I was for It because I believed the President that Saddam was a imminent threat. Now I know Saddam wasn't a imminent threat even though I agree with the regime change. Also I believe that Saddam was aquireing WMD even though he didn't have them at the Invasion.

With the way the Pre-emptive strikes are going I believe that we are going to have to invade most nations on the planet. I believe that NK anf Iran were more of a threat than Iraq. I feel that President bush is going to want to settle Iraq ASAP so we can continue invasions of the Middle East and Arabic World. I fear the world going into caos and death and destruction ensueing. I am very afraid and feel that my vote is very imporatant. I don't want to make a mistake and vote for the wrong person.

I don't really like Kerry but it looks like i will vote for him....... I guess the lesser of the two evils!

I would appretiate any responses or educated comments! thanks!

I want to thank all that read my post and also want to apologize for the gramatical errors and mostly for the emotional confusion of an undecided voter as myself.

God bless America, God bless our Population aswell the population of the world, and also God Bless the American population in our vote for a new president in 2004 for it will be a close one!

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Later,

Reason



[edit on 26-10-2004 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by REASON
I am a business owner, I am against banning the 2nd amendment, I feel the right to bear arms is very important, therfore I guess I am a Republican!

There are other parties that will suit you just fine.
You seem to be more of a holy person who loves guns.

The consitution party would probably be your best best.

THey are christian based and will defend every amendment

if not then come over to the other side and join the libertarian's, they aren't christian based but they will defend your right to practice whtever religion you want, and you can keep your guns too.

www.peroutka2004.com...

or

www.badnarik.org...



Just to let you know your not wasting your vote... But you will be if you are voting for someone you don't really want to vote for, like you said... kerry.

I can tell you that Badnarik is on 50 ballots like kerry and bush are, so they count, the constitution party is on 38 I believe.

educate yourself.



[edit on 26-10-2004 by TrueLies]

Also he has excellent ads out about wasting your vote

really good actually you might want to check em out

www.godfamilyrepublic.com...

when I was younger I considered myself a Democrat, however after reading and learning the constitution (which I feel they should teach more of in school) and specifically the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms)
I found myself in a quandry I felt very strongly about the second amendment if all you want is a slingshot then great go get one if you would like to own heavy artillery then go for it. I do agree with the thorough background checks after all who wants the crazy neighbor down the street with all the cats and the broken gate to have a howitzer.
at any rate the only thing I can say is that if you have weighed all the options and they appear to be equal then you may just have to go with the good ole gut feeling.

P.S. I have finally decided that I am a Republicrat and I like to vote for the issues and not for the party that way I don't have to sit and figure out who is to far to the left and who is to far to the right.

Good Luck with your Vote
geo

[edit on 10/26/2004 by geocom]

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by REASON
I am a business owner, I am against banning the 2nd amendment, I feel the right to bear arms is very important, therfore I guess I am a Republican!

There are other parties that will suit you just fine.
You seem to be more of a holy person who loves guns.

The consitution party would probably be your best best.

THey are christian based and will defend every amendment

if not then come over to the other side and join the libertarian's, they aren't christian based but they will defend your right to practice whtever religion you want, and you can keep your guns too.

www.peroutka2004.com...



or

www.badnarik.org...



Just to let you know your not wasting your vote... But you will be if you are voting for someone you don't really want to vote for, like you said... kerry.

I can tell you that Badnarik is on 50 ballots like kerry and bush are, so they count, the constitution party is on 38 I believe.

educate yourself.



[edit on 26-10-2004 by TrueLies]

Thank You very much for the information.

I considered voting for Badnarik but since he truly does not have a chance I was going to choose either Bush or Kerry.

It is quite sad that we are stuck in a two party system.

I always said that the presidential debates was all bull for it was truly not a debate.

If it were truly a debate we would have other candidates like badnarik and nader!

o well, what is a person to do!!

later,

Reason

I'm not overly political....but why does it have to be "republican" or "Democratic"? Why does one get up set if they consider themselves of one of party then decide on the other? You should always vote your conscious, not a party...vote for whomever you feel is the best one to do the job....though most of the time, it's the lesser of two evils

Follow your intuition, vote for whomever you feel would lead this country in a better direction, maybe not the perfect direction, as somebody will always be unhappy, but a better one. If you truly hate both candidates, follow TL's advice and vote for a third party. I'll surprise TL and say that the only wasted vote, is one not cast.

Originally posted by LadyV
I'm not overly political....but why does it have to be "republican" or "Democratic"? Why does one get up set if they consider themselves of one of party then decide on the other? You should always vote your conscious, not a party...vote for whomever you feel is the best one to do the job....though most of the time, it's the lesser of two evils

Thank you for the reply.

I agree with voting your conscince, and also feel that more americans should be doing it.

Lately I see many friends that when undecided just vote the party and I feel that is very wrong.

thanks again,

Reason

Originally posted by REASON

If it were truly a debate we would have other candidates like badnarik and nader!

o well, what is a person to do!!

Well for starters you can shake that brainwashed idea from you head...
And you can thank the big two monoplous parties for that.

Why do you think they don't have a chance? Because they aren't getting air time on the national level? Is that where you get all your politics from, if so I feel bad for you...

Your indocrtinating yourself not educating yourself..

Btw, if you don't want to vote for kerry and not for badnarik, but not bush either, ect cast a NO VOTE and send it to washington.

The reason you think other parties can't win is because a) you don't see them on tv (which is changing btw, badnarik will be on fox news tomorrow at 1pm et) 2) the media has lied to you because they are getting paid off from the d's and r's, if badnarik wasn't paying fox to run commercials they wouldn't be interviewing him wake up 3) He is doing a hell of a good job this election and if you cast your vote it will count, if you continue to vote for these big two parties that have a stranglehold on american politics, things will never change.

When are you going participate in steering the ship instead of going along with it?

Educate, not indoctinate.

Originally posted by 27jd
Follow your intuition, vote for whomever you feel would lead this country in a better direction, maybe not the perfect direction, as somebody will always be unhappy, but a better one. If you truly hate both candidates, follow TL's advice and vote for a third party. I'll surprise TL and say that the only wasted vote, is one not cast.

Thanks for the reply.

Very true with the phrase "the only wasted vote, is one not cast". I sure hope that americans take this election seriously. I feel that years from now we will look apon this election as a very important turning point or as the most imporant election in american history.

Time will tell.

later,

Reason

I'm going to say that politics changed in 64 the arena went downhill from there...

Or you could go further back and say politics went down hill after washington left..with the forming of political parties.

ps: I read my above post it may have come off alittle harsh but i'm not meaning to sound mean or anything, I just get passionate about this..

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by REASON

If it were truly a debate we would have other candidates like badnarik and nader!

o well, what is a person to do!!

Well for starters you can shake that brainwashed idea from you head...
And you can thank the big two monoplous parties for that.

Why do you think they don't have a chance? Because they aren't getting air time on the national level? Is that where you get all your politics from, if so I feel bad for you...

Your indocrtinating yourself not educating yourself..

Btw, if you don't want to vote for kerry and not for badnarik, but not bush either, ect cast a NO VOTE and send it to washington.

The reason you think other parties can't win is because a) you don't see them on tv (which is changing btw, badnarik will be on fox news tomorrow at 1pm et) 2) the media has lied to you because they are getting paid off from the d's and r's, if badnarik wasn't paying fox to run commercials they wouldn't be interviewing him wake up 3) He is doing a hell of a good job this election and if you cast your vote it will count, if you continue to vote for these big two parties that have a stranglehold on american politics, things will never change.

When are you going participate in steering the ship instead of going along with it?

Educate, not indoctinate.

TrueLies, Thank you for replying.

I want to thank you for sparking an interest and "lighting a bulb in my head"

I am truly not educating myself and am living a quite ignorant life when it comes to politics.

I truly am following the ship and am not realizing other ships in port.

I can either vote for one of the two evils which will show an emidiate result or I can vote for a third party which will help create a balance which would not prove to be quite immediate.

Truelies, thank you for lighting my bulb for it was to stay dim with the vacuum of the two party system.

Thanks and God bless.

later,

Reason

.
.

I'm with you on gun ownership, and I'm with you on this one. In the circle of Republicans for Kerry, I'm beginning to hear a moto going around:

[size=18]Country First,
Party Second

.
.

But why would a Republican vote for Kerry?

-----

Bush has a bush-whacked Congress willing to rubber stamp any spending bill he decrees. If reelected, Bush's outrageous spending promises will pass, and the damage will be real. Kerry's campaign promises are idle election campaign fluff. The fact is, spending will absolutely be lower under Kerry. Why? Because we will maintain a Republican controlled Congress who will pass none of Kerry's ridiculous plans into law. Kerry will be forced into a corner. With no conceivable wins on his domestic agenda, Kerry will retreat to the same ground as all Presidents with a hostile Congress, he will spend his Presidency entirely on foreign policy issues. Regardless of Bush's election year propagandizing, this will play to Kerry's strengths. He will refocus attention on Bin Laden, and he will have the clout to bring European players to the table in Iraq by incentivising them with post war contracts, lowering America's tax burden and casualty burden. Bush cannot do this. His credibility abroad is spent.

Even if Kerry should prove wildly successful at any of these foreign policy goals, he will still be rewarded with a one term Presidency. In 2008 John McCain will handily win the Republican nomination, and defeat Kerry in a landslide, probably on a ticket with Rudy Giuliani.

I could write more at length, but I think this establishes the core of my argument for putting Kerry in the Whitehouse (Albeit with a four year non-renewable lease, and one hand tied behind his back).

-----

LINKS TO REPUBLICAN FOR KERRY ARTICLES:

This is a good one:
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH
By New York Republican, William Bryk

This one is excellent:
THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE ENDORSES JOHN KERRY

.
.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Chris G]

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Chris G]

Originally posted by TrueLies
I'm going to say that politics changed in 64 the arena went downhill from there...

Or you could go further back and say politics went down hill after washington left..with the forming of political parties.

ps: I read my above post it may have come off alittle harsh but i'm not meaning to sound mean or anything, I just get passionate about this..

Your topic is not comming off harsh at all. I completely understand where you are coming from.

thanks again.

Later,

Reason

Originally posted by Chris G
.
.

I'm with you on gun ownership, and I'm with you on this one. In the circle of Republicans for Kerry, I'm beginning to hear a moto going around:

[size=18]Country First,
Party Second

.
.

But why would a Republican vote for Kerry?

-----

Bush has a bush-whacked Congress willing to rubber stamp any spending bill he decrees. If reelected, Bush's outrageous spending promises will pass, and the damage will be real. Kerry's campaign promises are idle election campaign fluff. The fact is, spending will absolutely be lower under Kerry. Why? Because we will maintain a Republican controlled Congress who will pass none of Kerry's ridiculous plans into law. Kerry will be forced into a corner. With no conceivable wins on his domestic agenda, Kerry will retreat to the same ground as all Presidents with a hostile Congress, he will spend his Presidency entirely on foreign policy issues. Regardless of Bush's election year propagandizing, this will play to Kerry's strengths. He will refocus attention on Bin Laden, and he will have the clout to bring European players to the table in Iraq by incentivising them with post war contracts, lowering America's tax burden and casualty burden. Bush cannot do this. His credibility abroad is spent.

Even if Kerry should prove wildly successful at any of these foreign policy goals, he will still be rewarded with a one term Presidency. In 2008 John McCain will handily win the Republican nomination, and defeat Kerry in a landslide, probably on a ticket with Rudy Giuliani.

I could write more at length, but I think this establishes the core of my argument for putting Kerry in the Whitehouse (Albeit with a four year non-renewable lease, and one hand tied behind his back).

-----

LINKS TO REPUBLICAN FOR KERRY ARTICLES:

This is a good one:
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH
By New York Republican, William Bryk

This one is excellent:
THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE ENDORSES JOHN KERRY

.
.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Chris G]

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Chris G]

Thanks you for all the information was quite informative.

Thanks,

Later,

Reason

I think it really is representative of us. Most of the problems we have, I think are only still problems because we announce them to ourselves with our idiot boxes every day 6 hours a day on average. We watch TV, we believe what we�re told, and then we get to choose from the most wealthy and influential spoiled brats from the top 1% of us. Who turn around and treat us like we�re idiots, and get re-elected. Someone loan a real leader 20 million dollars so he can buy the presidency. Oh, but we�ve made that illegal, so you have to have 20 million dollars worth of friends at 2 grand a piece to be president.

www.belowtopsecret.com...
in "do americans eat their own poo?"

I thought that was great, very nicely put DC.

Now go steer that ship!

[edit on 26-10-2004 by REASON]

Originally posted by REASON

I have found myslef in a precarious situation lately. I want to vote for bush but inside I am afraid that if I vote for President Bush and he ends up winning a second term that Bush will have a Blank Check to do what he wants and that our country will go in a downward spiral of pre-emptive strikes on nations with a need of a draft. I do not want a draft for our country for many reason and mainly:
................

If you are worried about a draft, then worry about Kerry becoming president. I reported the following on ATSNN and ATS. Let me link and quote a small snip in here again.

quote: John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.
.............
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

Excerpted from.
web.archive.org...

The original from Kerry's site was taken down, this is an archived link, but you can find references to the same thing in the links below, including a democrat link.

Another site corroborating this, at least in part since in this site he says he plans on recruiting 500,000+ youth each year for required service...and look what kind of required service...

The plan Kerry outlined today offers young Americans from all walks of life a chance to serve their country. His "Service for College" initiative will offer young people who agree to serve for two years in one of America's toughest and most important jobs four years of tuition at a public university in return. These young people will be able to serve as teachers, police officers, tutors, and in other key roles.
.........
KERRY OUTLINES RECORD EXPANSION IN NATIONAL SERVICE

500,000 in National Service Within Decade-National Call to Help Children Learn-Pays for Every Penny

America is built on simple principles: Everyone should have the same opportunity to get ahead, and everyone has a responsibility to give something back. The men and women who serve in our military take the greatest risks and make the ultimate sacrifices. John Kerry honors their service, and he also believes that Americans who are not in the military want to serve and ought to have opportunities to do so.

Since September 11, Americans have been searching for ways to contribute to our country. But President Bush has broken promise after promise to rally "armies of compassion," even causing cuts in AmeriCorps because of bureaucratic failures.

Today, John Kerry calls on all of America's young people to serve, especially meeting education challenges, and he outlines his agenda for domestic service. John Kerry would engage 500,000 more Americans in national service each year within a decade, compared to 75,000 in AmeriCorps this year. As part of his commitment to the fiscal responsibility this administration has recklessly abandoned, John Kerry will pay for every penny of his service initiatives with resources to spare. At the same time as he is making the hard choices required by the reckless Bush deficits, John Kerry is proposing the largest increase in domestic national service in our history.

Excerpted from.
releases.usnewswire.com...

And the following from a democratic site if it is still up...

In looking to the future at 2020, Senator Kerry says that "I want to create a seamless web of service where every American - young and old, rich and poor, of every race, religion, and background - can enlist in a new army of patriots who will serve on all the frontlines of our future - guarding our nation from danger abroad, strengthening our homeland security, reducing illiteracy, preserving our environment, providing after-school care, helping our seniors live in dignity, building new homes for those who need them - and in all of this, building a nation that is more truly one America."

Excerpted from.
www.2020democrats.org...

The following is another link which mentions that Clark and Kerry (both democrats) were competing for an ambitious new service program. The names are even similar...i also found a CBS story in which Clark mentions this program...

Let me quote just Kerry's "New Army of Patriots."

A New Army of Patriots

Would reverse President Bush's promised expansion and subsequent cuts to Americorps with a "national goal of half a million servers a year in the next ten years."

Offers a "Service for College" initiative in which students earn "the equivalent of their state's four-year public college tuition in exchange for two years of service." Money not spent at state schools can be applied to job training, starting a small business or purchasing a home. Furthermore, graduates with college debt can serve two years after college to repay outstanding student loans.

Utilizes children and seniors to contribute community service in exchange for educational grants and supplemental healthcare grants retrospectively.

Enlists young people "to protect our nation from future terror attacks" via the expansion of Police Corps, an educational program that pays officers for their education in exchange for their work commitment after graduation.

Excerpted from.

www.utne.com...

If you look at the bottom of the above link you will see that they posted a link to the document on Kerry's site, which dissapeared....


This is the link to Clark's plan...

Clark Sees Civilian Service Corps

Oh, and do not forget that the draft bill was made by....15-16 democrats....


Now look at the similarities of the following and Kerry's "Army of New Patriots."

Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft
Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice

WASHINGTON, D.C. � U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation.

Sen. Hollings stressed that the national service mandated by his legislation would not mirror that of the Vietnam era, nor would it replicate the inequitable deferment and exemption standards associated with the military draft of the past:

"We all share the benefits of life in America, and under this plan, we all help shoulder the burden of defending our freedoms," continued Hollings. "Our proposal ensures that all Americans answer the call of duty. High school students could be deferred until they graduate, but in no case will that deferment extend beyond the age of twenty. As we fight this war on terrorism and protect our way of life, we must once again listen to the words of President John F. Kennedy, who implored us to, 'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'"

Excerpted from.

hollings.senate.gov...

Oh btw, Hollings is also democrat together with the other democrats who concocted this bill....

Now notice in the report below what Republicans are saying and what a democrat says about the draft....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Tuesday crushed a bill to reinstitute the draft as Republicans accused Democrats of raising the specter of compulsory military service to turn voters against President Bush's reelection bid.

After a bitter debate on Bush's handling of Iraq, the House killed the bill 402-2 as Republicans sought to stamp out rumors of an impending draft that have swept college campuses and the Internet, worrying young people and parents across the country.

With the presidential and congressional elections less than a month away, the White House also worked to dampen draft rumors that Republicans said have been fueled by Democrats. It threatened to veto the bill it called "both unnecessary and counterproductive."

"This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democrat party," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. "It has one purpose -- to spread fear."

Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, countered that Bush's Iraq policies have so strained U.S. forces, that a draft was possible no matter how unpopular it would be.

"Guess what, we're running out of troops ... Let's not be astounded that what follows is a draft. The only problem is that you can't announce it until after the election," Conyers said."

Excerpted from.
www.reuters.com...=politicsNews&storyID=6422347

So....wasn't Edwards saying Kerry was not going to introduce a draft?....

Who is lying now? It was Republicans who voted against this bill and defeated it.....

Democrats are the only ones saying we need a draft.... while Republicans and the Bush administration are against it.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

I'm not an american, so I won't advice you for whom you should vote.

I just wanted to point out that I was expecting a fight-to-the-death , and Kerry- or Bush-bashing... Instead of it what I see, is a couple of helpful posts, and friendly advice to a confused voter.

Applause for all who posted so far!

WTH?........ the reuters story just dissapeared......
Ooooh boy.......

Here is another link to the same story...let's hope this one doesn't dissapear also....

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20041005/us_nm/campaign_draft_dc

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]