The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who are you voting for and why?
Bush, because he's the right person for the job. 25%  25%  [ 5 ]
Bush, because Kerry is worse. 5%  5%  [ 1 ]
Kerry, because he's the right person for the job. 30%  30%  [ 6 ]
Kerry, because Bush is worse. 30%  30%  [ 6 ]
Someone Else, because they're the right person for the job. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Someone Else, because Bush and Kerry are worse. 10%  10%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 20
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:01 pm 
While it's clearly implied by the options I feel the need to specifically point out that voting against someone excludes the idea that the person you are voting for is the right person for the job.

As someone who will be choosing the final option I would be most interested in everyone's reasons for believing that thier candidate is the right person for the job.

Please post comments, because the poll is rather boring without them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:36 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
That's the problem.

BOTH candidates are unfit for the job.

NEITHER candidate wants to talk about current issues.

So who was your third person, Nader?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:16 pm 
Ishidan wrote:
That's the problem.

BOTH candidates are unfit for the job.

NEITHER candidate wants to talk about current issues.

So who was your third person, Nader?


I think #3 is "SOMEBODY, ANYBODY!!!"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:46 pm 
Ishidan wrote:
That's the problem.

BOTH candidates are unfit for the job.

NEITHER candidate wants to talk about current issues.

So who was your third person, Nader?


I'll probably do a quick search to see who's going to be on the ballot here in Illinois, and check out thier positions (provided that thier web site has good descriptions of thier positions) to see which one agrees with me the most.

I'd probably end up with Badnarik, I agree with the Libertarian principle, though their application of it (if they ever gained power somewhere) is more than a little way out there. (Basically there must be some limits on capitalism, and I feel that laws against ethnic/sexual/religion/handedness discrimination are good things. I'm also an anti-smoking fascist (as defined by Rush) so I would be quite happy if it were made illegal. As I understand it there is a significant pro-smoking element to the Libertarian party.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:30 pm 
Ishidan wrote:
That's the problem.

BOTH candidates are unfit for the job.

NEITHER candidate wants to talk about current issues.

Counter-proposition . . .

Both candidates talk about about their positions on current issues on a daily basis. However, you aren't going to learn much of anything about them on any of the major media outlets. The people who run TV shows and newspapers aren't interested in that sort of thing.

Kerry's positions are detailed on his campaign website: http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html and are available as a 263 page book, downloadable in Acrobat.

I've not studied this material in great detail, but it seems to represent a fairly sober, slightly left of center, moderate position, and I've no reason to think Kerry won't follow through on it. Whether he can manage the country for four years is an open question.

Bush's Agenda for America can be found here: http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/ If he actually meant it, and there was money to pay for it (I don't see any forthcoming, myself) it might do some good for the country. Based on the four years of Bush we've already experienced, it might also lead to disaster and corruption that could take a decade or more to clean up. Your call on which.

My personal impression has been that Bush's Compassionate Conservative agenda from his first term was a propaganda front for a corrupt and radical ultra-right wing power grab, making a second Bush term the most dangerous threat American democracy has faced since the Seccesion Crisis of 1860.

Your views may differ, of course. There are plenty of people out there who feel the same about Kerry's possible election.


Last edited by Berken on Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:27 am 
Berken wrote:
Your views may differ, of course. There are plenty of people out there who feel the same about Kerry's possible election.


Either of them getting a/another term is a disaster. ;)

Personally, I'm voting for the most competent looking non-Bush, non-Kerry, non-Nader person on the ballot. The those three are too corrupt to be given any power. (Sadly, the majority of the government is that way.)

I doubt I'd want any of them delivering my mail, let alone being the figurehead of the government.

If I had to pick between Kerry and Bush with no third parties available, I would want foreknowledge of the future balance of power in the house and senate. The government seems to function best when we have a president of one party with a majority in the senate/house of another party.

(The ultimate of this was when the government shut down for a couple weeks. Yay! That was the best our government had functioned in YEARS!)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:44 am 
Kazriko wrote:
---big honking snip---

(The ultimate of this was when the government shut down for a couple weeks. Yay! That was the best our government had functioned in YEARS!)


Aye. We are definitly in the situation where "stupid things being done" outnumber the sensible things being done.

Anytime that can be slowed down is a good thing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:01 am 
Seeing how I can't vote on this poll, seeing how I'm not a Yank. :D

Quote:
Survey: World opinion favors Kerry

By CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 1100 GMT (1900 HKT)

In the survey, Kerry won all but one European country polled.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- It's being called a world election in which the world has no vote. Do we know how the rest of the world would vote? Some Americans claim they do.

Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry says he has heard "from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States.''

Maybe they are responding to opinion in their own countries.

link


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:21 am 
GW's charm is lost on foreigners. When the leaders of a nuclear superpower start using the word "empire" in public it tends to spook people.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:33 am 
Kazriko wrote:
(The ultimate of this was when the government shut down for a couple weeks. Yay! That was the best our government had functioned in YEARS!)

What actually happened was that an awful lot of money was spent (even when functions are shut down, money has to be spent to keep up the infrastructure) and little or no work was accomplished to show for it.

Of course, the fat cats got their swill from the trough a little later than usual. The widows and orphans on social security and medicare had a couple of fearful weeks wondering where their food, shelter, and medicine was going to come from. After the shutdown, of course, a lot was spent on overtime, etc., to catch up on the work that was missed. All in all, a net loss to the taxpayer.

The only plus side was that it burst the bubble of Newt Gingrich, the rising star of the hooligan right. For the rest of the politicians, it was just embarrassing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:56 pm 
This just in today, for what it's worth:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

Quote:
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
September 20, 2004
BY ROBERT NOVAK

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

. . .

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal.

. . .

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Novak has been a propaganda mouthpiece for conservative Republicans for twenty years and more. His nickname in Washington is "The Prince of Darkness," mostly because he is so utterly amoral in his manipulative writings. Case in point: Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal . . . a statement that would only make sense if Bush is a complete political sociopath and you considered that the proper attitude to take towards an election.

Someone needs to pin the relevant people down and get a clear answer to this question. Either . . .

a) Novak is lying (possible).
b) Novak's sources are lying to him (unlikely)
c) The President is being lied to by his aids.
d) The President is telling a bald-faced lie to the voters about the most important issue in the election.
e) The idea has been floated and the statement is an campaign ploy to give nervous Republican's something reassuring to mutter to each other in private. The president is still misleading the voters.

Josh Marshall is picking (e) on this one. If this is a serious option, our soldiers in Iraq are now dying and killing on behalf of Bush's re-election campaign.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:40 pm 
Kerry's a schmuck, but a schmuck is far better than a pack of sociopaths in my book.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:14 pm 
gwalla wrote:
Kerry's a schmuck, but a schmuck is far better than a pack of sociopaths in my book.


Schmuck? Not according to this guy: http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

The site is actually better than the name suggests it might be.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:40 am 
I saw this magazine cover that just about sums things up nicely...

"The Good news is one of these men will not be elected."

"The Bad news is the other one will be."

I'm torn between the thoughts of "Better the Devil I know" and "Anything better than what we got."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:25 pm 
Berken wrote:
money has to be spent to keep up the infrastructure) and little or no work was accomplished to show for it.


The question is, how did that differ from normal? The government spends very little of its "work" doing things that I would consider worthwhile and far more on things I consider actively harmful.

I would prefer that the government do less interfering, and simultaniously spend less doing it. Even if only one of those was accomplished, it's a good thing. I think someone said back in the days before the 1960's, "Be glad you don't get all the government you pay for." Sadly, we get most of the government we pay for now.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:39 pm 
Quote:
Personally, I'm voting for the most competent looking non-Bush, non-Kerry, non-Nader person on the ballot. The those three are too corrupt to be given any power.


So you're voting for Bush?

Seriously, not voting for one of the two candidates who matter shows an utter lack of understanding of the system. If you want a third party, lobby for electoral reform so that a third party has a shot at winning. I hate it when people decide that they are going to singlehandedly elect a third party candidate, and in the process essentially vote for the candidate who represents them the least.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:00 pm 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I'm voting for the most competent looking non-Bush, non-Kerry, non-Nader person on the ballot. The those three are too corrupt to be given any power.


So you're voting for Bush?


No, I'm voting against Bush.

If we had approval voting and could select 0 candidates, that is what I would be doing.

Quote:
Seriously, not voting for one of the two candidates who matter shows an utter lack of understanding of the system. If you want a third party, lobby for electoral reform so that a third party has a shot at winning. I hate it when people decide that they are going to singlehandedly elect a third party candidate, and in the process essentially vote for the candidate who represents them the least.


I said nothing of the sort, I'm voting for a third party because I want to drop out of the presidential race entirely. Really, I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Kerry and he won, and honestly, if I were being FORCED to vote for one of those 3, I'd probably vote for Bush, even though he shares very little in the way of views with me. Why? Because I'm voting for a Democrat for congress. I've decided that I'd rather have a divided government that is fighting amongst themselves instead of a united one that is passing heaps censorship and spying dreck.

Honestly, if EITHER party were in complete control, they would be passing things like the Patriot act. If the government is divided, they would be too busy bickering over the details on how they're going to infringe our rights to get heavily rights-infringing legislation out the door. (at least in many cases. To me, if SOME of them get blocked, it's better than all of them getting through like it is when one party is controlling everything.)

I think I'm still voting for the Republican (Pete Coors) for senate. The democrats have a much better chance of taking the senate even without my state voting in a democratic senator. His opponent has been blathering on about how Pete Coors wants to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. Heck, I'm all for that. Anything that loosens the prohibition style restrictions we have in this country is alright by me, even if it would be financially motivated in his case. Really, I believe that lowering the drinking age would make drinking less attractive for people aged 18 to 21, and reduce the crime from people buying alcohol for younger people.

(And those 18-21 have more money to waste on paying people to buy them alcohol than someone aged 1-18.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:13 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Berken wrote:
money has to be spent to keep up the infrastructure) and little or no work was accomplished to show for it.


The question is, how did that differ from normal? The government spends very little of its "work" doing things that I would consider worthwhile and far more on things I consider actively harmful.

Examples?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:28 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
I think I'm still voting for the Republican (Pete Coors) for senate. The democrats have a much better chance of taking the senate even without my state voting in a democratic senator.

If you value freedom from oppressive and corrupt government, you might want to think twice about voting for the Coors family. Old Man Coors is one of the leading contributors to the rise of the right-wing busybody squads. If Pete is anything like him, you are voting in favor of the religious right telling you what to think, the FBI questioning your loyalty if you criticize the government, and corporate suits lining up to feed out of the public trough---and you will be paying for the swill.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:37 pm 
Quote:
I said nothing of the sort, I'm voting for a third party because I want to drop out of the presidential race entirely.


You've got to stop thinking of who you would like for president and voting for them, and start thinking about who you like better of the two who matter and voting for them.

Quote:
If we had approval voting and could select 0 candidates, that is what I would be doing.


A nice gesture, which nobody will see, and if they did, they wouldn't care. Why not try to actually have a positive effect?

Quote:
I've decided that I'd rather have a divided government that is fighting amongst themselves instead of a united one that is passing heaps censorship and spying dreck.


The president isn't going to be divided and fighting with himself, and Bush has shown that the president can do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of congress, laws, or the constitution. Your idea of dividing the government won't work. Vote for the candidate out of the two which you think is less evil, and stop coming up with plans to divvy up the government. If yours was the only vote that was considered, it would work, but it isn't, and it won't. Quite frankly, while I like none of the candidates, another 4 years of Bush will be the end of anything resembling a republic in America. And I'm really sick of people saying "I couldn't live with myself if I voted for a candidate who isn't as perfect as perfection and he won." Y'know what? There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. So howabout you make due with what you've got and not screw over the rest of us?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:42 pm 
Quote:
Honestly, if EITHER party were in complete control, they would be passing things like the Patriot act.


The Democrats don't have the guts to do something like that.

Quote:
If the government is divided, they would be too busy bickering over the details on how they're going to infringe our rights to get heavily rights-infringing legislation out the door.


And you're going to singlehandedly chop up the government into neat little squares with your magical meat-cleaver of one-voting-ness? Render unto me a break.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:50 am 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I'm voting for the most competent looking non-Bush, non-Kerry, non-Nader person on the ballot. The those three are too corrupt to be given any power.


So you're voting for Bush?


If Bush wins the third party vote was a vote for him, if Kerry wins the third party vote was a vote for him.

Your argument cuts equally well both ways.

Imagist wrote:
Seriously, not voting for one of the two candidates who matter shows an utter lack of understanding of the system. If you want a third party, lobby for electoral reform so that a third party has a shot at winning.


We'll never get electoral reform when a tiny fraction of the vote goes for alternate party candidates, it won't be seen as a compelling issue by either party or by the folks who ought to be running the show. (ie "We the people")

I recall hearing about electoral reform when Perot was looking like he might get 20%, voting against the dominant powers serves a valuable purpose.

Imagist wrote:
I hate it when people decide that they are going to singlehandedly elect a third party candidate, and in the process essentially vote for the candidate who represents them the least.


Both the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by interests which do not have our best interests in mind. Voting for either of them is voting for the candidates which represent us the least. (There are a few exceptions of course, Bush and Kerry are not among them.)

Politicians *must* raise funds all the time, and it reduces the amount of time they have to do thier jobs.

It's pretty long, if you don't have time to read the whole thing read down to Peter Kostmayer and then skip to Jim Bacchus at the end. You'll be missing a lot of good stuff in the middle though.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:58 am 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
I said nothing of the sort, I'm voting for a third party because I want to drop out of the presidential race entirely.


You've got to stop thinking of who you would like for president and voting for them, and start thinking about who you like better of the two who matter and voting for them.


That's just the problem, I don't want either of them, and personally I don't think there will be a significant difference between them if they were elected, it mainly depends on who is in congress in relation to them.

The attitude that you have to vote for one of the two parties or your vote is wasted annoys me.

Quote:
Quote:
If we had approval voting and could select 0 candidates, that is what I would be doing.


A nice gesture, which nobody will see, and if they did, they wouldn't care. Why not try to actually have a positive effect?


I'm afraid that is impossible. There is no such thing as a positive effect when it comes to Kerry and Bush.

Quote:
Quote:
I've decided that I'd rather have a divided government that is fighting amongst themselves instead of a united one that is passing heaps censorship and spying dreck.


The president isn't going to be divided and fighting with himself, and Bush has shown that the president can do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of congress, laws, or the constitution. Your idea of dividing the government won't work. Vote for the candidate out of the two which you think is less evil, and stop coming up with plans to divvy up the government. If yours was the only vote that was considered, it would work, but it isn't, and it won't. Quite frankly, while I like none of the candidates, another 4 years of Bush will be the end of anything resembling a republic in America. And I'm really sick of people saying "I couldn't live with myself if I voted for a candidate who isn't as perfect as perfection and he won." Y'know what? There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. So howabout you make due with what you've got and not screw over the rest of us?


I'm not saying Perfect, I'm saying "i don't want to vote for either rich, lying scumbag and wouldn't like myself if i did."

EITHER candidate will be working towards moving the government away from a republic. It's just a matter of "How do you want to be screwed today?"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:03 am 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
Honestly, if EITHER party were in complete control, they would be passing things like the Patriot act.


The Democrats don't have the guts to do something like that.


Oh, but they do. Especially when they can trade it for votes on a new welfare program.

Quote:
Quote:
If the government is divided, they would be too busy bickering over the details on how they're going to infringe our rights to get heavily rights-infringing legislation out the door.


And you're going to singlehandedly chop up the government into neat little squares with your magical meat-cleaver of one-voting-ness? Render unto me a break.


No, I'm splitting my vote up in such a way that the odds should favor a split government. I'm not going to do it alone, but I'm hoping enough people will see what scum our Republican congressional candidate is and vote for someone else. Judging by the fact that he only won the primary by about 170 votes, there just may be enough people jumping ship for the democrat this year to boot out what is traditionally a republican seat in the house. Sucks when a congressman you respect retires and you have to choose between two losers that made it past the primaries even though you voted against them before.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:04 am 
Berken wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
I think I'm still voting for the Republican (Pete Coors) for senate. The democrats have a much better chance of taking the senate even without my state voting in a democratic senator.

If you value freedom from oppressive and corrupt government, you might want to think twice about voting for the Coors family. Old Man Coors is one of the leading contributors to the rise of the right-wing busybody squads. If Pete is anything like him, you are voting in favor of the religious right telling you what to think, the FBI questioning your loyalty if you criticize the government, and corporate suits lining up to feed out of the public trough---and you will be paying for the swill.


And this differs from the current state how?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:14 am 
Berken wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
Berken wrote:
money has to be spent to keep up the infrastructure) and little or no work was accomplished to show for it.


The question is, how did that differ from normal? The government spends very little of its "work" doing things that I would consider worthwhile and far more on things I consider actively harmful.

Examples?


War in iraq
Patriot act
Guantanimo bay
Ruby ridge
Waco
DMCA
Mickey mouse copyright extension act
Various Manditory digital cable encryption acts
Prohibition Part 2 (Marijuana-etc)
Eroding fair use rights until they no longer exist
Amending and eroding the constitution until it no longer has meaning
Redistribution of wealth in such a way that if people work harder they lose money. US Welfare, IRS taxes, etc all have this problem.
Pyramid schemes as the primary form of retirement money for the elderly.
And many more.

Things I would consider worthwhile?
More spending on military technology and training and less spending on actively making war.
Space exploration
Law enforcement (albeit with a much smaller lawset)
Roads


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:26 am 
BTW, another reason not to choose between Kerry and Bush...

George Bush behaves more like a democrat than a republican. It's like being forced to choose between two democrats!

He's a democrat that panders to the religious nuts and by doing so gets labelled a republican.

One example of this is the war in iraq. This is the first war I can recall that has lasted more than a year, that was started by a republican! Normally it's the democrats who start lengthy wars that last years. IIRC, the only republican that had a long war during his term was Nixon, and he didn't start it and was the one who eventually got us out of it. Democrats are the masters of the political war where you send the troops over with so many restrictions that all they can really do is duck when they start getting shot at. That's what Iraq is turning into.

I really see the whole mess in iraq lasting for the next 4 years at least, unless we get out in January. Kerry doesn't have the guts to pull them out and neither does Bush.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:14 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I'm voting for the most competent looking non-Bush, non-Kerry, non-Nader person on the ballot. The those three are too corrupt to be given any power.


So you're voting for Bush?


If Bush wins the third party vote was a vote for him, if Kerry wins the third party vote was a vote for him.

Your argument cuts equally well both ways.


Not quite, it all depends on the nature of that third party. Perot's run took away votes from Bush senior. Nader's run took away votes from Gore.

So in the current set-up, a third party vote would be a vote for Bush if he were to win. Yet a third party vote, with Kerry winning, would be him winning despite the number of people voting for said third party.

Keep in mind that groups closely linked to the RNC are helping Nader in his various fights to get on the ballot. They wouldn't be doing that, if his running would hurt Junior's chances.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:25 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
BTW, another reason not to choose between Kerry and Bush...

George Bush behaves more like a democrat than a republican. It's like being forced to choose between two democrats!

He's a democrat that panders to the religious nuts and by doing so gets labelled a republican.

One example of this is the war in iraq. This is the first war I can recall that has lasted more than a year, that was started by a republican! Normally it's the democrats who start lengthy wars that last years. IIRC, the only republican that had a long war during his term was Nixon, and he didn't start it and was the one who eventually got us out of it. Democrats are the masters of the political war where you send the troops over with so many restrictions that all they can really do is duck when they start getting shot at. That's what Iraq is turning into.

I really see the whole mess in iraq lasting for the next 4 years at least, unless we get out in January. Kerry doesn't have the guts to pull them out and neither does Bush.


Your comparison seems rather off though.
a) Democrats have for the most part been the peace party post-Vietnam.

Yes, there were police actions under Clinton, yet none lasted the year time limit you indicated. (Note, picking on nations that couldn't fight back, does seem to be a Republican preference, Grenada is an example of that.)

b)Junior's domestic policies are definitely Republican in nature as opposed to Democratic, whether it be his attempts to get Roe vs Wade abolished, whether it be his views on gay marriage, whether it be his views on stem cell research, whether it be his views on the enviroment and what big business can and cannot do, whether it be his views on taxation and spending and the list just goes on.

And let's not even address the differences in foreign policy and approaches.

To call him a Democrat, is to hearken back to the time of the Democrats prior to the '60s. When Democrats did behave in a way, which would be deemed abhorrant to most current day Democrats.

So I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that Junior is a Democrat in disguise.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:51 pm 
Quote:
No, I'm splitting my vote up in such a way that the odds should favor a split government.


The odds don't favor a split government. Your vote isn't going to split the government. And bot enough people are going to go along with your idea to make any difference.

Quote:
Oh, but they do. Especially when they can trade it for votes on a new welfare program.


And why would they do that if they had the majority? A split government would actually encourage this sort of vote-trading.

Quote:
I'm not going to do it alone, but I'm hoping enough people will see what scum our Republican congressional candidate is and vote for someone else.


You're basing your voting on people being intelligent?

Quote:
Judging by the fact that he only won the primary by about 170 votes, there just may be enough people jumping ship for the democrat this year to boot out what is traditionally a republican seat in the house.


I hope you do realize that changing one seat in the house to Democrat is about equivalent to changing one chunk in a ten-foot pile of shit into chocolate.

Forget about the other candidates completely- none of them have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Next, forget about them both being no good- most people will agree that they both suck. Finally, forget the silly idea that you can split the government up, and that other people will work with you to do so, because national-scale group dynamics don't work that way. Now, choose the candidate who you think is least evil.

Quit overthinking the election. Just because you have a more complex way of manipulating govenment that would have better results doesn't mean it will work.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group