Voting for Bush = stupid

[MystyGlyttyr]

You know, I've seen so many people, on TV, on the Internet, in books and everywhere bashing Bush, calling him horrible names, and all that, and that pisses me off, but that's their deal, not mine. But aside from that, then most begin implying that people who voted for the man are morons and idiots, and frankly, I'm sick to hell of it.

I did vote for him. Not the first time around, but the second time, I did.

I don't agree with him 100%. No one agrees with anyone else every day all day all the time. I think he has some policies that are downright asinine. But that being said, I agree with his policies a hell of a lot more than I agreed with Al Gore or John Kerry or Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Ralph Nader or WHOEVER. He was the best bet for my belief system so he's who I chose.

I'm not going into my belief system because it's unimportant. I could state it and within minutes, I'd get people throwing study after newsreel after rumor after scare-tactic at me trying to convince me of their side, when the truth is I've probably already seen it. I listen to Rush Limbaugh and I watch Fox News, but I also watch MSNBC and read books by Michael Moore. I've examined both extremes and whatever middle ground I can find. I've chased the science where applicable, and I sat down alone and decided how I felt on all the issues.

I chose my beliefs on my own, without religion forcing it on me, without being convinced by some renegade media, without anything but my own gut feelings and my own research.

So the fact that people think my voting based on my own brainpower makes me a moron just because I picked a candidate they don't like is FUCKING IGNORANT.

I don't CARE if you don't like the President. I really don't, I promise. It irritates me to no end to listen to him being bashed, but I can accept that, especially if you actually have a real reason to dislike him and aren't just doing it because it's "the thing to do". It's just when MY intelligence, and more importantly, my CHARACTER gets called into question based on who I picked in a politician, then I get just a little bit provoked.

I don't go around calling people who voted for Kerry or Clinton stupid, even though I don't like their candidate or agree with their policies. The fact that because it's BUSH that's involved seems to suddenly make it okay just infuriates me.

(I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, this is something I've observed several places, but this is the only place I can actually mention it and expect rational discussion.)

[Pedersen]

To provide some possible explanation:

Bush is perceived by many as the most criminal president this country has had since Nixon (at least). That means that anybody under the age of 40 wouldn't even know the previous most criminal.

There are some who view him as the most criminal president ever. This means that they are unable to imagine someone having ever been more criminal in their actions while in the Oval Office.

Of those who see him that way, a fairly significant portion of the USA has disliked him since before the 2000 election.

Another (not necessarily disjoint) significant portion of the USA has felt that he is a criminal of the highest order since before the 2004 election, and believe that it was plainly visible before that election just how criminal the man was.

So, the people who are bashing Bush voters are really saying something to the effect of "Congratulations. You have just voted into office a man guilty of more crimes than I am able to list. Even with my having tried to do so repeatedly before the 2004 election, and you failed to listen. How could you not see the crimes?"

I'll not discuss my feelings on him, nor on people who voted for him. I will only say that I didn't vote at all, and don't foresee myself doing so until such time as it actually can make a difference. I'm in a state that has traditionally voted one way (which way doesn't even matter). It's done so by a large majority for over 20 years. My vote does not matter (I either vote in their direction, which makes no difference, since they already vote that way, or I vote against them, and get ignored).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: They believe him to be a criminal. They believe his criminality is obvious to anybody that cares to look. Therefore, they wonder why anybody would have voted for him.

Take that for what you will.

[DarthRetard]

No offense pedersen, but there are two statements in your post that bug the shit out of me.

First, if a significant portion didn't like him before the 2000 election, it must not have been significant enough to keep him from getting elected.

Second, I discount anyone's opinion who didn't vote because "it won't make a difference." That's a cop-out in true form, and it's the reason we have such a shitty voter turn-out every year, and it's the reason things get fucked up in government when we don't take responsibility.

Cop-out statements like this are the TRUE problem:

"It won't matter, they won't listen." Well, try, then we'll see.

"My vote doesn't count." In an election like 2000, it just may have, especially when we get to choose who we want.

"Politicians won't listen." If you motivate them, and influence them, they will, Martin Luther King, Jr. knew it, the Suffrage Movement knew it, etc. We have a right to petition for a reason.

If you don't like the current system, change it, do what you can to MAKE your vote count. Make your voice heard. Don't just say "I'm not voting because it doesn't matter." If I were in a third-world country without rights like that, I'd be right inclined to think you were insane.

[Pedersen]

No offense pedersen, but there are two statements in your post that bug the shit out of me.

None taken. I know that my point of view on this bugs most people. Oh well.

First, if a significant portion didn't like him before the 2000 election, it must not have been significant enough to keep him from getting elected.

I really do get tired of hearing these sorts of arguments, so I'm only going to bother with this once.

Per Wikipedia, the popular election elected Al Gore, with 48.38% of the vote. Bush received 47.87% of the vote. Bush won the electoral votes, though, (271 to 266), which is why he became President). To break down popular vote number, Gore received 50,999,897 votes, while Bush received 50,456,002 votes. This means that, of
105,417,258 votes cast (with nearly 4,000,000 votes being cast for other candidates), 50,999,897 people disliked Bush enough to vote against him.

Not enough to prevent him winning the electoral vote, to be sure, but that's still a pretty significant chunk of the country, don't you think?

Second, I discount anyone's opinion who didn't vote because "it won't make a difference." That's a cop-out in true form, and it's the reason we have such a shitty voter turn-out every year, and it's the reason things get fucked up in government when we don't take responsibility.

No, sorry, this is a mathematical certainty. My vote does not matter.

For points of reference, please see the following links for all presidential elections that have occurred for the time I've been alive. I've included summaries from each one that shows the Presidential voting election results from NJ (the state I currently live in). The first column is the democratic result, followed by percentage for democratic, followed by the republican, and then the republican percentage:

• 1972 NEW JERSEY 1,102,211 36.8 1,845,502 61.6
• 1976 NEW JERSEY 1,444,653 47.9 1,509,688 50.1
• 1980 NEW JERSEY 1,147,364 38.6 1,546,557 52.0
• 1984 NEW JERSEY 1,261,323 39.2 1,933,630 60.1
• 1988 NEW JERSEY 1,320,352 43.1 1,743,192 56.9
• 1992 NEW JERSEY 1,436,206 43.3 1,356,865 40.9
• 1996 NEW JERSEY 1,652,329 53.7 1,103,078 35.9
• 2000 NEW JERSEY 1,284,173 40.3 1,788,850 56.1
• 2004 NEW JERSEY 1,911,430 52.9 1,670,003 46.2

Take a look at those numbers. This state is overwhelmingly likely to vote for McCain this fall. And by a minimum vote of 100,000 people. More likely, they will vote for McCain by a margin of around 500,000.

Is it possible that this state will vote Democratic this fall? Yes, of course, but it's very unlikely. In fact, if you follow the trends back far enough, you have to find a wartime Democratic president to find this state reliably voting Democratic (with Bill Clinton being the notable exception). Outside of that? It votes Republican the majority of the time.

So, two scenarios occur, here's the outcomes:

1. I walk into the booth, and vote Republican. The state votes Republican by a margin of some 500,000 people. My vote did not matter.
2. I walk into the booth, and vote Democratic. The state votes Republican by a margin of some 500,000 people. I stood in line for an ungodly length of time for no better reason than I could. My vote did not matter.

Oh, but what if the state votes Democratic, I hear you say? Swap the names around in those two scenarios, and tell me what's different.

Mathematically speaking, my vote does not matter. My chances of winning the lottery are greater than the chances of my vote actually making a difference with the way this state votes.

Finally, in comes the real problem: I don't believe that any of the candidates represent my views. Republicans want to control what happens in my bedroom. Democrats want to control how I think. Both of them want the contents of my wallet to do so.

I want a candidate that will just leave me alone. I don't want more social programs. I want what we have to be fixed. I don't want more taxes. I want what we have to be spent better.

And nobody gives me that. So, I should go in and vote for the lesser of two evils? Why not cast a vote for Cthulhu? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They won't represent me, either.

No, what I want is something that will never be allowed, because it will allow votes to actually matter: Give me the option of putting in a binding vote for "None of the above". If "None of the above" wins the election, a new election is held and the previous candidates are barred from running.

"My vote doesn't count." In an election like 2000, it just may have, especially when we get to choose who we want.

In specific states, your vote mattered in 2000. NJ wasn't one of them. With the way it votes, it likely never will be.

"Politicians won't listen." If you motivate them, and influence them, they will, Martin Luther King, Jr. knew it, the Suffrage Movement knew it, etc. We have a right to petition for a reason.

If you don't like the current system, change it, do what you can to MAKE your vote count. Make your voice heard. Don't just say "I'm not voting because it doesn't matter." If I were in a third-world country without rights like that, I'd be right inclined to think you were insane.

Great, I'll hit the campaign trail tomorrow. Wait, one small problem: My public speaking skills are not going to motivate anybody to do anything but sleep.

Another small problem: The issues I care about are viewed as unimportant by around 90% of the people in this country, and nothing I say will change that (and yes, I have tried. When I'm unable to even persuade people close to me that these issues matter, it's a pretty hard sell to make me believe that others will think it important).

And yet another small issue: I have some pieces of my past that I would prefer to keep buried in the past. If I make myself a public figure, those pieces will become public in fairly short order. Since I don't want them public, I have no choice but to avoid the public eye.

So, no, my vote doesn't matter, and it will not matter.

As for the people in third world countries? They need to learn to pay attention to the math, as do the people in this country. One person among millions does not matter, no matter how much people might like to think otherwise.

The difference between me, them, and you? Unlike them, I've realized that my vote does not matter. And without major change (change that will not be allowed, because it could actually start denying career politicians jobs), my vote will not matter in future.

[DarthRetard]

I do realize that Gore was elected by popular vote, believe me, I understand the issue it caused in 2000, I live in the county that had the issue of the "hanging chads".

I understand that mathematically, it may not matter, but on a philosophical standpoint, it just seems like a futile way to look at things. I respect your opinion though.

On topic, I understand exactly what you mean Mysty. I get grilled because of the way i vote or my stance, and it's just plain rude.

[Boozy]

I don't think everyone who voted for Bush is stupid. Just ill-informed.

No one with a firm understanding of current events, economics, and geopolitics would have voted for him in 2004.

[Pedersen]

No one with a firm understanding of current events, economics, and geopolitics and thinks that the direction the world is going in is a bad one would have voted for him in 2004.

There, fixed that for you.

You might not like it, but it's entirely possible that some people like the direction the world has taken. Have to account for that.

[Boozy]

You're right, I forgot to factor in those who are just complete douchebags.

[machinest]

Some of the problem is that we see citizenship and voting in a different light than the writers of the Constitution . Where they saw themselves as citizens of their state which was a member of the United States we are more likely to see our selves as Americans who live in a certain state .Unfortunately the voting system especially for the President is geared to reflect an importance of states as entities that we no longer perceive them as having.

[Pedersen]

You're right, I forgot to factor in those who are just complete douchebags.

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

[Zyanya]

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

Frankly, anyone who thinks what Bush has done to this country is somehow a good thing is one or the other.

I miss living in a country where the bill of rights meant something and the government wasn't committing and justifying human rights abuses.

[Amethyst Hunter]

It's just when MY intelligence, and more importantly, my CHARACTER gets called into question based on who I picked in a politician, then I get just a little bit provoked.

*takes a long, deep breath*

I will state this right now and get it out of the way:

I fucking loathe Bush.

I think that "man" - and I use the term VERY loosely - is a misogynist warmongering ignorant greedy religion-abusive scumbag who deserves *at the very least* a lifetime hard prison term for all the shit he's done. (Ditto for his cronies) "Piece of shit", is, in fact, the NICEST thing I can think of to say about him. Frankly, he DESERVES every bit of misery that comes his way as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I don't necessarily think that people - all people, anyway - who voted for him are stupid. I think it was a stupid decision to have voted for him (because hey, we all do dumb things every now and then, as the commercial goes) - but I don't think the person him/herself is stupid. If that makes any sense.

[Rapscallion]

Keep it to the issue, folks, not the personalities of other posters.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Some of the problem is that we see citizenship and voting in a different light than the writers of the Constitution . Where they saw themselves as citizens of their state which was a member of the United States we are more likely to see our selves as Americans who live in a certain state .Unfortunately the voting system especially for the President is geared to reflect an importance of states as entities that we no longer perceive them as having.

Probably quite the opposite, really. The founding fathers were probably more like today's Libertarians than the two main parties, in that they were very strongly for states' rights, a fairly weak central government, and a strong agrarian way of life. We really didn't get a stronger federal government until Lincoln came in to prevent states from seceding.

I never liked Bush, there was something about him that I just didn't trust in 2000. His ratings were going south after his first election. The only reason he got to be a 2 term president is simply because of 9/11 and his ability to play off people's fears.
While I recognize he's not the worst president we've ever had, he's probably right up there with the worst, especially since the middle part of last century, even including Nixon and to a lesser extent, Johnson. At least Nixon and Johnson had better foreign policies than Bush has.

[Boozy]

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

I definitely wasn't calling Mysty a douchebag. I like and respect Mysty, and I hope she knows that. I'm very sorry if anyone took offense.

I should have taken the time to clarify my position earlier. Here goes:

The Bush administration serves the interests of the greedy rich. These are the jackasses who like the direction the world is going in because it puts more money in their pockets. War, pain, pestilence - its all good, as long as the cash keeps rolling in.

People who sell their souls like this are undeniable douchebags.

Most Americans, however, are good people. So to get around that pesky "democracy" issue, Bush and company needed to find a way to get normal, peace-loving Americans to vote for them. And they did so through a campaign of misinformation and fear. Hence my belief that the average Bush voter was ill-informed.

I hope that clears things up.