will either side submit?

[FullbackIsKey]

I'm wondering if the election goes to Kerry, and its close, will the kerry opposers and Bush's team actually let it go and concede defeat. I wonder the same of the democrats if Bush wins, but becasue everybody's got a bias I personally think Bush is more prone to not give in, but that's just becasue of what happened last time(ok, no more partisanism, i'm actually worried.).

I think it was CNN who was already talking about the recount last night. Is this what we want as americans? One guy gets the votes, then the guy who lost just can't let it go and sues the winner? I'd like to have an idea of who won on wednesday morning.

It seems to me that somethnig is not right if we can't agree as a country on who's the more qualified president, at least 60% of us would be nice, to see that a lot of us are on the same page. A 50/50 split of very different views, coming from very angered people, tells me that we're just a few steps away from civil uprising. I dunno, i do a lot of thinking with no televisions or radios on.

[gbear]

I hope so.

I am as pro Kerry anti Bush as anyone I know (outside of my parents). That being said, for the good of the country I'd prefer a Bush clear win over a Kerry win in the courts. My nightmare is a Bush win in the courts.

THe reason I hope it doesn't come down to the courts is that each ruling which is very partisan weakens our court system and the faith we as citizens have to maintain in our court sysetm. It leads to people like me who enjoy reading supreme court rulings wondering why each and every one of them would rule contrary to how they normally rule on states' rights issues. We all want a nonpartisan court system, and there is no way they can determine a victor in the election without being partisan. I want a clean victory not for the sake of the presidency, but for the sake of the our judicial branch of government.

Something as important as that is the perception of how our government runs a democratic election while attempting to promote democracy abroad. Having a second straight election determined by a few powerful judges instead of the will of the many...will play as hypocritical. For better or worse, we are a nation builder now. To do it right requires a lead by example approach.

I know it won't be popular with which ever side loses, but I'll view as heroic patriot the side that concedes defeat in this election without damaging the country here or abroad.

[FullbackIsKey]

My thing, and I've never been into politics until this season, which tells me something. My thing has always been that I want the party in control of the White House to be the minority in Congress. I think both sides are wrong on some things and right on others. The thing that we need is a steady, meaningful debate where the 2 sides can come to a common ground. Didn't we have a republican controlled congress during Clinton? I think we did, and I know that a lot of people were pretty happy with his terms in office. And I think for Bush, both the White House and Congress are Republican controlled, And look at what we're all going through now, bickering at and arguing with each other.

We need balance, above all else, so that no one party or person can run away with legislation...I saw a fact that said Bush has not vetoed a single bill during his term. He was in compete agreement with everything the Congress did. That's not checks and balances to me. If Kerry wins, we need republicans in control of the Legislative Branch, If Bush wins again, Dems need to take back Congress

[Thiebear]

The Congress will be: Republican
The Senate will be: Republican / tie really
The White house will be: Kerry (due to the skins game yesterday) "hey does that call mean its going to the courts?"

[FullbackIsKey]

Originally posted by Thiebear
The Congress will be: Republican
The Senate will be: Republican / tie really
The White house will be: Kerry (due to the skins game yesterday) "hey does that call mean its going to the courts?"

That's exactly what I personally want to happen. I look at the house and senate as basically the same body. As far as I know, whatever gets through the Legislative Branch must go through both, so.

This to me would be ideal, unless Kerry tries to spend his time undoing all the stuff he thinks Bush did wrong instead of moving forward. Then he'd just be battling congress for his whole term and not get much accomplished.

[December90]

Originally posted by gbear
I hope so.

I am as pro Kerry anti Bush as anyone I know (outside of my parents).

Maybe I should search your posts but it seems to me the only name that influences any votes this election cycle is Bush. People are either voting for him or against him. I have yet to meet or speak with anyone who plans on voting FOR Kerry because of who Kerry is or what Kerry says he will do. Universally all of the "Kerry Supporters" that I know are pushing the ABB button and voting for the democratic candidate "Despite" Kerry not because of Kerry.

Can you (without using the name "Bush" or a reference to the "other Party") state why you are voting for Kerry and not just against Bush?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by FullbackIsKey
My thing has always been that I want the party in control of the White House to be the minority in Congress. I think both sides are wrong on some things and right on others.

Couldn't agree more... Great post.

[Henry]

The Process is far more important than the man. I'd much rather see the guy I don't vote for win than our election process compromised.

My first hope is for a clear winner. My second hope is that that winner is the man I'm voting for.

[gbear]

Sure.

He was fighting terrorism long before 9-11. He did it by going after the financing even when it was unpoular with his own party leaders because they stored money in many of the same ways. Personally, I think securing every possible target is a losing proposition. It will require giving up more freedom than I think we should. It will be too expensive, and finally I think it will still fail to stop low tech highly damaging attacks. Why build a billion dollar missile defense shield when somebody can drive a $10k truck with a nuke wherever they want? Ultimately, we need to address the organizations, and financially is where our greatest strength is.

What actually got me behind him was a speech he gave while trying to pick up the Dem nomination. It was a speech where he talked about the politics of meism. Right now, our current administration (to some extent both parties) is all about the politics of meism. His speech hit on how there has to be something more. We need to be setting our children to succeed economically. We can't leave them with huge debts/defecits. Whether we do it with revoking tax cuts or cutting programs...it's just got to be done. I'm not willing to leave my kids with a huge debt just so I can have another $300 this year. At some point, we have to stop looking at the "how does this effect me right now" side of politics and start looking long term.

Finally, when you look at the judges appointed by recent Dems, they are more centrist than judges appointed by Rep. There was an article in the post with some stat analysis this weekend. I prefer a centrist judiciary.

That's why I voted for Kerry in the primary and in the general election.


amen henry

[pez]

To tell you the truth, I am not particularly impressed with either Bush or Kerry, therefore, I will vote (not saying who for), and hope that 4 years comes VERY quickly....

[FullbackIsKey]

Originally posted by December90


I have yet to meet or speak with anyone who plans on voting FOR Kerry because of who Kerry is or what Kerry says he will do. Universally all of the "Kerry Supporters" that I know are pushing the ABB button and voting for the democratic candidate "Despite" Kerry not because of Kerry.

Can you (without using the name "Bush" or a reference to the "other Party") state why you are voting for Kerry and not just against Bush?

I can say, quite honestly, that the main reason I am voting for Kerry is because I actually know where Kerry is on the main issue of what will shape my future, which is media consolidation and his broadcasting views in general. Throw all the other issues out the door for me, this is what I go to school for and in December have to find a job at a radio statio or TV station somewhere.

Bush is pro-media consolidation, and Kerry is flatly against it. Anti-media consolidation would mean more jobs in broadcasting for me to pursue, and also it means that you, the audience, get more viewpoints from which to get perspective on things. One newsman(woman) on 10 different channels means you're going to hear the same newsperson and newscast on the morning show, the AM news station, the oldies station's news updates, The classical station's news updates, etc.

But let's not mince words, I'm not inspired by John Kerry, I'm inspired by Ralph Nader, and if i didn't feel strongly enough against Bush i'd vote for Nader... So your point is valid, mostly I'm voting anti-bush, but I do have an actual reason besides just not wanting Bush anymore.

[Cskin]

I think Bush is man enough to concede defeat should that be needed..... but I believe a Kerry defeat will bring nothing but lawsuits and legal challenges that draw the process out to January. The Dems took the 2000 loss incredibly hard... I can't see them walking away from this election quietly.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Cskin
I think Bush is man enough to concede defeat should that be needed..... but I believe a Kerry defeat will bring nothing but lawsuits and legal challenges that draw the process out to January. The Dems took the 2000 loss incredibly hard... I can't see them walking away from this election quietly.

I agree.

If Bush loses decisively a state he should have won and that swings the election I see him conceding by midnight.

If it happens to Kerry I see lawsuits galore.

However if Kerry is the president on January 20th, 2005 at about 1 pm I will fully hope he is successful both on the domestic front and in the war on terror. I am not some power hungry liberal hoping the country goes down the toilet so I can get back in power

[December90]

Originally posted by gbear
Sure.

He was fighting terrorism long before 9-11. He did it by going after the financing even when it was unpoular with his own party leaders because they stored money in many of the same ways. Personally, I think securing every possible target is a losing proposition. It will require giving up more freedom than I think we should. It will be too expensive, and finally I think it will still fail to stop low tech highly damaging attacks. Why build a billion dollar missile defense shield when somebody can drive a $10k truck with a nuke wherever they want? Ultimately, we need to address the organizations, and financially is where our greatest strength is.

What actually got me behind him was a speech he gave while trying to pick up the Dem nomination. It was a speech where he talked about the politics of meism. Right now, our current administration (to some extent both parties) is all about the politics of meism. His speech hit on how there has to be something more. We need to be setting our children to succeed economically. We can't leave them with huge debts/defecits. Whether we do it with revoking tax cuts or cutting programs...it's just got to be done. I'm not willing to leave my kids with a huge debt just so I can have another $300 this year. At some point, we have to stop looking at the "how does this effect me right now" side of politics and start looking long term.

Finally, when you look at the judges appointed by recent Dems, they are more centrist than judges appointed by Rep. There was an article in the post with some stat analysis this weekend. I prefer a centrist judiciary.

That's why I voted for Kerry in the primary and in the general election.


amen henry

Thanks for the "real answer" one of the things that has me so upset with this election is that, as I stated before, Kerry voters are not Kerry supporters as much as Bush haters.

I like the fact the GWB is willing to take the fight to the terrorists rather than waiting to get hit again.

I like the fact that GWB thinks that the average American can do more for themselves with their own money than the government can do for them.

I like the fact that GWB expresses and confesses his Christianity and stands by his convictions as if they were .. well.. convictions. (to the jokers out there I am talking about core beliefs not DWI)

I enjoy when a political conversation can focus on what you like about your candidate instead of what you hate about the opponent.