I was wondering if anyone knew much about each presidential candidates policies on health care for the future (socialized dental care). Also, who do you plan on voting for and why? I am excited to hear.
Who Has Your Vote???
- Thread starter openwyd22
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2002
- Messages
- 892
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm going to vote for Dean because it looks like he'll get the nomination. If not, my vote goes to Edwards?he plans to cut costs?cover every child?good stuff, not sure if it would ever happen.
Bush is a quack, and I consider myself pretty liberal.
Bush is a quack, and I consider myself pretty liberal.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know much about politics. With that said, isn't it to our advantage as dentists to avoid socialized healthcare? Won't that take away from our ability to market and choose our own fees? Going by this logic I would think voting republican would be to our advantage. All I know is I don't want dentistry to end up like medicine. I don't need the government or insurance companies telling me how to treat my patients and what I can charge. If anyone can help me out with this I would appreciate your points of view.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 0
Democrats screw everyone over (unless you are a minority). Vote Republican!!!
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
Democrats screw the minorities over even worse than they do the rest of the public. Deep down, the dems don't want minority issues solved. The entire Democratic power structure is based on keeping as many people as dependent on government as possible. When people (especially minorities) find that they can actually better their situation without government intervention, the Democratic party becomes obsolete.
That being said, I don't necessarily consider myself a Republican either. My views probably fall somewhere in between Republican and Libertarian. I'm sure I'll vote for Bush again, but only because he is the only viable conservative option.
That being said, I don't necessarily consider myself a Republican either. My views probably fall somewhere in between Republican and Libertarian. I'm sure I'll vote for Bush again, but only because he is the only viable conservative option.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
BTW, do any of you Democrats out there think any of the candidates have a shot at the White House? It seems to me that this election is pretty much in the bag for GW. Sure the left can keep complaining about the "quagmire" in Irag, but the only people they are reaching with this message are the people who already hate Bush in the first place.
No way Bush is going to lose. Market up over 2,000 points since he came into office. Overall economy up and Saddam caught. (I'm not arguing that he is or isn't the reason that the market and the economy are up.) The fact remains that things are giong well and he will surely be president again. All the current democratic candidates are weak and seem to have little to offer at this time.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
And the Democrats know this. That is precisely the reason all the Democratic candidates are weak. Anyone who really has a chance at becoming president is going to want to wait and campaign when the danger of defeat and losing face isn't quite so imminent. Most of the Dem candidates who are running now have only gotten this far because the "real" players have stayed out of it this time around.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2003
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 2
I agree. The democrats are weak. They have nothing to offer. Bush has done a wonderful job as president. I'm sick of the dem's whining about Iraq too. It seems that is their only basis for anything these days. Fact is, Bush will win again. He's done a good job and deserves a second term.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe Dean will get the nomination as the democratic candidate, which should be interesting b/c he's purposefully organized his positions as being anit-Bush. Pretty much anything Bush favors, he opposes ( not a very dynamic or original candidate if you ask me). I don't really care who goes up against Bush, b/c I don't belive a democrat has a real chance. Just as long as Edwards doesn't get the nomination I'll be happy. I'm from NC, but despise Edwards who used his being elected to the Senate as a platform to run for President. He's all talk, no substance. Anyway, thats my two cents.
Whatever "real players" you may be reffering to are staying out because they don't want to emberass themselves. Any smart democrat who is serious about winning the presidential election will wait four more years untill the next round where they will have a real shot. I assure you people such as Hilary Clinton are praying that the democrats lose because that way she may have a chance in 08.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2003
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 0
Bush sucks!!!
Everything has become worse and worse since he became the president. Well, you can't expect much from a man with an IQ of 94
Everything has become worse and worse since he became the president. Well, you can't expect much from a man with an IQ of 94
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2003
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 0
Bush sucks!!!
Everything has become worse and worse since he became the president. Well, you can't expect much from a man with an IQ of 94
Everything has become worse and worse since he became the president. Well, you can't expect much from a man with an IQ of 94
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Messages
- 8,393
- Reaction score
- 37
I'm generally a low-intensity Republican and I haven't decided yet who to vote for next fall, but I'd keep an eye out for Evan Bayh in '08 if I were a Democrat. He's the junior senator from Indiana, and it looks like they've been grooming him to be the next JFK. He's pretty moderate in most respects, and he's just about the nicest guy ever.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
no bush.
he's a ficticious leader elected by ficticious election results that doesn't represent the majority of americans and has therefore engaged himself in a ficticious war. (the wise words of moore)
and he'll use it to get himself re-elected. i bet he'll capture bin laden (who by the way is on kidney dialysis and assuredly responsible for 9/11) about two weeks before the election and get himself re-elected.
i won't vote for him for many reasons. i will vote for his most worthy opponent (democratic ticket) whether or not his brother is still the governor of florida.
i can see that these viewpoints are going to cause me a lot of trouble in dental school. 🙂
he's a ficticious leader elected by ficticious election results that doesn't represent the majority of americans and has therefore engaged himself in a ficticious war. (the wise words of moore)
and he'll use it to get himself re-elected. i bet he'll capture bin laden (who by the way is on kidney dialysis and assuredly responsible for 9/11) about two weeks before the election and get himself re-elected.
i won't vote for him for many reasons. i will vote for his most worthy opponent (democratic ticket) whether or not his brother is still the governor of florida.
i can see that these viewpoints are going to cause me a lot of trouble in dental school. 🙂
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Messages
- 8,393
- Reaction score
- 37
You're using "wise words" and "Michael Moore" in the same sentence? That alone is enough to make me question someone's political acumen.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
He won the election fair and square... get over it. 😉 How many times would you have made them recount the ballots?
sore loosers...
I am definitely republican, and I certainly hope that if Gore would have won by a handful of votes in one state that I wouldn't say it was a rigged election. I might have said something to the effect of 'it's a shame there are so many misguided people out there'
anyway, rant over... for now.
sore loosers...
I am definitely republican, and I certainly hope that if Gore would have won by a handful of votes in one state that I wouldn't say it was a rigged election. I might have said something to the effect of 'it's a shame there are so many misguided people out there'
anyway, rant over... for now.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
I think that American citizens deserve a leader that will intruige and inspire them to do good deeds.
I do not believe that George Bush does more than instill people with fear and hatred of other cultures without trying to understand them. My biggest problem with him is the lack of education he possesses for other cultures. (although he does have a harvard MBA)
I do not believe that a democratic candidate would do this much better, but honestly, could not be worse than Bush.
As American citizens, we do not have much to fear. We do not need "Orange Alerts" and "Patriot Acts" to unite us in a culture of fear. We have had only one major terrorist attack in the past several years. Be happy you don't live in Chechnya or Liberia. Or the Great Lakes. Places that you might not even be able to identify on a map. Places where attacks upon civilians occur on a biweekly or monthly basis. Places you actually should worry about setting your foot outside after dark. Or even in broad daylight.
Instead, we need to realize how fortunate we are to live in a country where we have most of our basic human rights intact. As pre-dental students, you are in the top 1% of people in the world. You should feel priviledged and hope to make life better and easier for people.
Although I realize that agressive acts of violence might be a last resort in some situations, I do not believe that I can support someone who uses acts of terror and agression as everyday solutions to problems.
When I look at GW, I see a person who acts not to represent the majority of American citizens, but to support his vested interest in oil corportations and such. That however, is not my point.
I just hope that as future dentists all of you can work to make a difference in your communities and improve the low standards that some countries possess in terms of health care.
Enough rambling for now...
I do not believe that George Bush does more than instill people with fear and hatred of other cultures without trying to understand them. My biggest problem with him is the lack of education he possesses for other cultures. (although he does have a harvard MBA)
I do not believe that a democratic candidate would do this much better, but honestly, could not be worse than Bush.
As American citizens, we do not have much to fear. We do not need "Orange Alerts" and "Patriot Acts" to unite us in a culture of fear. We have had only one major terrorist attack in the past several years. Be happy you don't live in Chechnya or Liberia. Or the Great Lakes. Places that you might not even be able to identify on a map. Places where attacks upon civilians occur on a biweekly or monthly basis. Places you actually should worry about setting your foot outside after dark. Or even in broad daylight.
Instead, we need to realize how fortunate we are to live in a country where we have most of our basic human rights intact. As pre-dental students, you are in the top 1% of people in the world. You should feel priviledged and hope to make life better and easier for people.
Although I realize that agressive acts of violence might be a last resort in some situations, I do not believe that I can support someone who uses acts of terror and agression as everyday solutions to problems.
When I look at GW, I see a person who acts not to represent the majority of American citizens, but to support his vested interest in oil corportations and such. That however, is not my point.
I just hope that as future dentists all of you can work to make a difference in your communities and improve the low standards that some countries possess in terms of health care.
Enough rambling for now...
Based on health care views and keeping dentistry away from socialization (as dr benj said), which party would give us the better chance? I agree with dr benj in that we need to not allow the government to tell us what we can charge and what procedures can be done on a particular patient.
Bush will win 2004, and a lot of powerful Democrats want this so Hillary Clinton can win 2008. This way, she will have no direct competition with anyone in her own party as a re-elect in 2008. The Clintons know how to play politics.
There are zero good Democratic candidates for 2004. Bush will win due to his aggressive political nature, which has worked for the most part. People will want him in office during a time where we may be in danger. Though he is not the most well-spoken individual, he at least has the ba11s to protect our country at any cost. We live in an impatient society, and the large majority of people will side with Bush due to the drastic changes (good) that have occured over the past month.
I believe in a man who believes in hardwork and values. I will vote for George Bush.
There are zero good Democratic candidates for 2004. Bush will win due to his aggressive political nature, which has worked for the most part. People will want him in office during a time where we may be in danger. Though he is not the most well-spoken individual, he at least has the ba11s to protect our country at any cost. We live in an impatient society, and the large majority of people will side with Bush due to the drastic changes (good) that have occured over the past month.
I believe in a man who believes in hardwork and values. I will vote for George Bush.
Let's face it, each party has it's own very negative extremes. If a republicans or democrats ruled the office for too long it wouldn't be that good. However with this rotation between dem/rep these extremes cancel out to an extentent. I also beleive that a certain type of president is better during one period of time then another. For instance I think a republican press is a bettech choice during a war period. A democrat may be a little better during economic high's. It balances out somehow i think.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
1. No matter who counted the votes or how they did it, Bush always came out the winner. Yes, it was close, but Bush won fair and square; I would love to see evidence to the contrary. You can argue that he didn't win the popular vote, but that's another argument entirely. We have always had an electoral college and hopefully always will. You can't change rules in the middle of the game just because they aren't working to your advantage.
2. Do you really think the grounds for going to war were fictitious? 99% of the reasons given for deposing Saddam have been justified, 1% have not panned out yet. The man murdered millions - MILLIONS - of people. He left millions more in poverty and misery in order to retain power. We know by Saddam's own admission that Iraq had WMDs in the past, yet he refused to provide evidence that they were disposed of. It's not like WMDs are the size of an entire military base. We're talking something the size of a Ford Escort or smaller. If I gave you an Escort, unlimited funds, and an area the size of California, don't you think you could find a pretty good place to hide that?
BTW, I don't mean to come across as being belligerent. Just offering my point of view as I have all kinds of time on my hands right now. 🙂
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
The answer to that is republicans. Vote for George Bush for this because the republican platform supports less rules and regulations upon the free market. However, you have to weigh all the benefits and consequences of a decision such as this. (Although I tend to be towards socialization, I just wanted to answer your question.)
Something I find interesting (and I am not sure if is true) is that private companies cannot own dental practices. I see the benefits of not being able to get an oil change and a teeth cleansing while you are at Walmart, but I also see how this is a monopoly because there is little competition from the open market. (only other dentists---which is tough competition 🙂 )
Hope that answers your question. Have a good holiday.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
As for socialized dentistry - How many of us want some bureaucrat whose entire science background consists of a C in highschool biology dictating how we treat our patients?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 0
I think this is one of the major advantages of dentistry over medicine. Doctors are told what to do by insurance companies and can do very little if they disagree. I pray that this never happens to dentistry, and I think socialized healthcare would get us one step closer. I'll be voting republican for this reason alone.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 1
Some states stipulate that only a dentist may own a dental practice, but that little hangup certainly wouldn't be able to deter a savvy businessman. Just bring on a dentist as silent partner. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find some dentist who would let you use his name while getting an extra $15,000 a year for sitting back and doing nothing.
BTW, there are plenty of dental chains out there right now. In fact, many of us will probably work at these for a year or three right out of school until we can afford to get into a practice of our own.
BTW, there are plenty of dental chains out there right now. In fact, many of us will probably work at these for a year or three right out of school until we can afford to get into a practice of our own.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
1. All right. I don't agree. I think you probably expect that though. Why? Lots of messed up ballots and other reasons. I don't care that much since it has been almost four years and there is no reason to be bitter about the situation. I can only hope for better results in 2004. I think arguing about this is pointless because neither of us will change our mind (plus my evidenciary support is at home and I am at work)
2. Yes. We put Saddam in power. We are murdering people in the middle east as we speak. Must we submit to this level?
On WMD: I have many questions for you. Do we have weapons of mass destruction? Well, yes, of course. Why? That's a good question. Do we have evidence that the Saudi's will use them? Not that you or I could ever read. Does Japan have weapons of mass destruction? Probably. Are we worried? Not really. Does China have weapons of mass destruction? Probably. Are we worried? Not really. Does either of these countries have reason to attack us? Probably. If not, we can imagine them. Should we spend billions of dollars on finding something the size of a ford taurus in Iraq? Sounds like a waste of time, energy and lives to me.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,473
- Reaction score
- 1
I think it's the other way around. 99% of reasons for going to were seem to be fictitious, and only 1% have panned out. Seddam wasn't an immediate threat to US security. Saddam did not have nukes. Saddam didn't have WMDs. Saddam wasn't affiliated with Al Quada.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Messages
- 8,393
- Reaction score
- 37
Bingo. These are the enlightened souls who brought us HIPAA, people.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
Wait, did JesIca say that we have had only one major terrorist attack in several years? What about the USS Cole, or the American embassy in Kenya, among others? Or do they not count?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
before the war, didn't Colin Powell tell the American public that they knew exactly where these WMDs were? All the reasons they gave us for going into Iraq have yet to be proven, other than Saddam being a tyrant. We have found no WMDs, no links to bin Laden, none of that. We just went in, made a huge mess, and finally got rid of the horrible dictator. Yes, we needed to get rid of him, but the administration needed to tell us why we were going into war. That whole "we know where the WMDs are, and we're going over to get rid of them" thing is bs. I'm voting anyone but Bush. So I guess that means Dem... even though I'm not a big fan of any of them. Whoever has the best chance to beat our current "misunderestimated" president. I feel kinda sad that I have to use my vote to keep someone else from not becoming president, rather than voting for who I really want.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
Or Bali...whatever. I was almost there when that happened. I was just saying that the number of terrorist attacks we have had against us is relatively low compared to some other countries. I know there hasn't been just one.
Perhaps focusing upon our domestic problems would bring more peace and joy to the lives of American citizens than engaging in a war that illicits more violence towards us. It's a positive feedback cycle of hate, violence, killings etc.
But I'm one of those hippies that believes in peace and love and rock 'n roll. I don't mean to offend so many people. I just like people to be open-minded and challenge themselves and their beliefs. I've spent a lot of time and effort to develop the opinions that I have and I appreciate others trying to keep me from being completely lost in left field. 🙂
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 457
- Reaction score
- 100
Politcs! My favorite subject!
I am not a Bush fan. He seems like a nice person, but he lacks something as president. I am not to sure he is in full control of things. I get the feeling that other people who weren't elected are running the country through Bush as the front man. I voted for Gore in the last election because I thought that he put in his time and paid his dues. He spent his life wanting to be president, did everything he could to accomplish his goal, kept his nose clean, and was a solid, loyal vice president. Bush on the other hand, lived off his father wealth, drank half of his life away, and squandered many opportunites all of us only dream of having. Then he decided he would run for governor 10 years ago, and daddy paid for that. I feel that he was/is underqualified, and that all three of the other candidates (John McCain, Bill Bradley, Al Gore) had done more with their lives.
I think the only person who can beat Bush is Al Sharpton, just kidding. Al does make the debates fun though. I think a Clark/Edwards ticket could beat Bush. Both are southerners, and the election will go through the south. If the democrats don't nominate a southerner they will lose ever state in dixie, just like 2000. Clark gives the Dems credibility on terrorism, and international issues, Edwards is a good speaker, and can deliver North Carolina. I don't think Bush is unbeatable. People said his father was unbeatable, and the 10 Dems that were running in 1991 were weak. Then Bill Clinton emerged, with some help from Ross Perot. By the way, Wes Clark is from Arkansas too. ;-)
I am not a Bush fan. He seems like a nice person, but he lacks something as president. I am not to sure he is in full control of things. I get the feeling that other people who weren't elected are running the country through Bush as the front man. I voted for Gore in the last election because I thought that he put in his time and paid his dues. He spent his life wanting to be president, did everything he could to accomplish his goal, kept his nose clean, and was a solid, loyal vice president. Bush on the other hand, lived off his father wealth, drank half of his life away, and squandered many opportunites all of us only dream of having. Then he decided he would run for governor 10 years ago, and daddy paid for that. I feel that he was/is underqualified, and that all three of the other candidates (John McCain, Bill Bradley, Al Gore) had done more with their lives.
I think the only person who can beat Bush is Al Sharpton, just kidding. Al does make the debates fun though. I think a Clark/Edwards ticket could beat Bush. Both are southerners, and the election will go through the south. If the democrats don't nominate a southerner they will lose ever state in dixie, just like 2000. Clark gives the Dems credibility on terrorism, and international issues, Edwards is a good speaker, and can deliver North Carolina. I don't think Bush is unbeatable. People said his father was unbeatable, and the 10 Dems that were running in 1991 were weak. Then Bill Clinton emerged, with some help from Ross Perot. By the way, Wes Clark is from Arkansas too. ;-)
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Messages
- 8,393
- Reaction score
- 37
Yeah, but if Nader runs again (he's considering it), you can throw all that out the window 😉
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Messages
- 457
- Reaction score
- 23
I agree Bill, the reference to a "wise" Michael Moore made me shudder.
Firm - I would bet against Edwards winning the vote in NC. I am from NC, and even in liberal Chapel Hill Edwards is pretty unpopular. Clark is a joke - he has no clue what he is doing in politics (like Dean on foreign affairs).
Firm - I would bet against Edwards winning the vote in NC. I am from NC, and even in liberal Chapel Hill Edwards is pretty unpopular. Clark is a joke - he has no clue what he is doing in politics (like Dean on foreign affairs).
Similar threads
