Most Important Presidential Election of your Lifetime?

[Keverian FireCry]

Totally seperate days and years. Senators have 6 year terms and Reps have 2 year terms. Heres the thing though, if you sign up for absentee ballots, which I *think* every state has, you will automatically get ballots for any current issue in your area. So you won't miss a vote and you don't have to keep track, because whenever anything comes up, whether it's a state issue, town issue, regional issue, or national issue, a ballot will arrive and you'll know that it's time to vote on something.

As far as initiatives, here's a link to a pdf on how they work atleast in Washington State. They also will come automatically if you are signed up for absentee ballots.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/in ... hklist.pdf

Also, though Senator terms are 6 years, they are staggered through out the nation, so that there is a senatorial election for 1/3 of the senate every two years. This is so that there isn't 6 years of the exact same senate, there is atleast some change happening every 2 years.

[Kargyle]

The guy that wrote that is an idiot, and he doesn't appear to know anything about the psyche of the American people. People doubt the justness of our cause in Iraq. It is not a commentary of the strength of will of the American people. Americans have shown time and again that we are willing and able to overcome any hardship as long we believe the cause is just.

Plenty of us Americans believe in the cause.

I'm not disputing that. I dispute that this election is a test of the American will to greatness. The guy who wrote that article was basically saying that if we fail to re-elect Bush, then we have shown Americans do not have to will to achieve greatness, and further, that that attitude will dicatate our politics for the next 50 years, or whatever length of time he gave. I disagree. I think this election, atleast for Iraq, is about whether or not our cause is just. Some people will vote that our cause is just, and well worth the loss of life and resources. Other's will vote that it is not. That we "rushed" to war on false pretenses to satisfy the agenda of men who had decided to deal with Iraq long before 9/11. (Note: I am not drawing a link between Iraq and 9/11, only that 9/11 was used as a (false) motivation for the Iraq invasion.)

[Rekaar.]

The motivation has nothing to do with judging the cause as just. You are likely a lost cause though =p

I hope someone that's on the fence reads that article and sees the implications more clearly. Kerry is just the wrong man for the job. He's relying on the mass media to paint him in a favorable light and the President in a negative light, and he really offers nothing in terms of his history nor his plans for the future to make anyone but the staunchest anti-bush people think that the man will solve a darn thing.

This election IS a test of America's will, because if all it takes to make us give up is a few beheadings then they know they can win. They only have to win in the news rooms, and the rest will collapse around that.

[Kargyle]

Well, it sounds as if you believe that if Kerry wins the election he will remove us from Iraq, and that a vote for Kerry must mean that the person casting it must want us to pull out of Iraq. Of course Kerry has never spoken of abandoning Iraq, so I don't know why you are making that assumption. Obviously I can not speak for anyone else, so I will lay out my thoughts, and why for me this is about the cause, atleast where Iraq is concerned (In reality Iraq is not a voting issue for me, and would not influence who I vote for). I think that as we are already engaged in Iraq, and have already created a power vacuum it would be irresponsible in the extreme to abandon Iraq. We would basically be setting ourselves up for another Afghanistan. So, if neither Bush or Kerry is going to pull us out of Iraq before the job is done, what you are left to vote on is:

A) Who will do a better job finishing the job in Iraq?

B) Was our cause just to go there in the first place?

I don't think there is any objective way to know whether Bush or Kerry would do a better job in Iraq because neither of them is willing to really be specific about what they intended to do in Iraq. No, I don't think "Kill terrorist" is specific, nor do I think "beg for help" is specific.

If you agree the cause is/was just, then there's really no reason not to support Bush on Iraq. Because if the cause is just, it doesn't matter that it was a unilateral action, or that we are bearing the brunt of the casualties. If a cause is just, it is just regardless of the cost. On the other side. If you disagree that the cause was just, then you have no reason to support Bush on Iraq, and our losses are just that much more tragic.

That's how I see it, but like I said, Iraq is really a non issue for me. I think Kerry or Bush will fuck Iraq up equally more than likely. I don't agree that our cause is/was just, but if I agreed with Bush on domestic or social issues then I would vote for him anyway. For the record, I don't like Kerry either, and I'm strongly considering voting 3rd Party since Bush is going to carry Texas regardless.

It is time to go home, so no time to proof read, please forgive any spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes.

[Chmee]

Even if it was the most important (which I am skeptical of) having what amounts to a choice between Kang and Kodos doesn't exactly inspire me to be too excited about it.

[Rekaar.]

If you agree the cause is/was just, then there's really no reason not to support Bush on Iraq. Because if the cause is just, it doesn't matter that it was a unilateral action, or that we are bearing the brunt of the casualties. If a cause is just, it is just regardless of the cost. On the other side. If you disagree that the cause was just, then you have no reason to support Bush on Iraq, and our losses are just that much more tragic.

That's exactly it. If you fire Bush then you send the message articulated in the article. And Iraq is the key issue in this election. Anything else is, in my view anyway, secondary at best and more likely a selfish distraction than anything else.

[Kargyle]

The key issue in an election is really up to each indivdual voter. The key issues for me are protecting american rights, education, and medical reform. I could really give two shits about Iraq. But either way, I will have to respectfully disagree that firing Bush is affirming a lack of american will power. I think it shows a disdain for squandering resources on a task that really wasn't important, or vital to american interests. So we must agree to disagree. There's nothing to be gained by each of us repeating ourselves over and over in this thread.

[Rekaar.]

So would you agree with me in classifying your point of view as more isolationist than imperialist?