Your voting for Whoever, But Why?

POSTED BY: creeso
UPDATED: Sunday, November 22, 2015 22:59
VIEWED: 5941
PAGE 1 of 1

CREESO

Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:12 AM

So your going to vote for a candidate and you even know who it is (or for those in other countries, who you would if you could if you care). But why? Why are you really voting for that person? I have asked some Bush people why they're voting for him and many never could really give me a reason. So, here we are. Let us discuss why the candidates should get our vote. Lets try to give real reasons, and not “just because” kind of answers. Yeah, some of these will be an “I believe” kind of reason, but at least give something that supports that “I believe” statement.

Iraq, terrorism, and foreign relations top my list of what’s important this election. Therefore, I’m voting for Kerry because I never saw Iraq as a threat to America (if they could have shown me a reason otherwise, then maybe). We never should have invaded a country without some form of concrete evidence (which to my knowledge we didn’t have). Stopping terrorism should solely fall on our intelligence agencies and maybe some spec forces. The army shouldn't really be involved in the fight on terror. So besides invading and taking over every country that harbor terrorist, may harbor terrorist, or have very bad men as leaders; I think one of the best ways to guard against terrorism is to foster goodwill with other countries and respect beliefs different from our own. It seems that Bush has gone to the other extreme of the spectrum on this case. Kerry can perhaps give the US a new hope at restoring some of the recently degraded relations. After 9-11 America was confused, angry, and armed. We, including me, wanted justice for the wrong we endured. In search of this justice we seemed to forget to ask the very important "Why did this happen?" The why is what needs addressing, and the why seems to have a lot to do with our foreign policies. Oh, mayhap we should reevaluate our foreign policies and behavior.
Both candidates agree as do I that since we’re in Iraq we need to see this through to the end, I’m speculating that end is setting up a fairly stable country that can support itself. That could take awhile – and even though we could probably do it alone, we need help to do it well and faster. More help than Bush has gotten and seems capable of getting. Kerry perhaps can get more help; at least I feel he has a shot.

On the local front in no particular order:
I agree with Kerry (Bush holds the opposite opinion) that Gays should be able to have state recognized unions (not to open up a can of worms, but one should note that this is different from a religious union). In my mind, withholding these legal rights is the same as being discriminated against because of gender or color. I feel that most are born gay, and therefore should not be held accountable for something they cannot control.

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to repair nerves, muscles, many disabilities, and some diseases. This is important research. The moral issues with this process, well that seems to be a barrel of unpleasantness. Even balanced with this moral grey, the good that it could potentially bring – wow. So I am for Kerry’s support of this research whereas Bush more or less opposes it (for his moral beliefs, which in this instance I'm ok with).

Social Security - Maybe something needs to change. Kerry seems to have little in the way of suggestion or plan. Bush said in the 2nd debate (?) that he is for partial privatization. This would probably work well if you’re for getting rid of SS altogether. For me and people just entering the working world, this idea sounds ok - though I still have my doubts. For those about to exit the world of work and those already drawing SS, this seems like it could be not so good. I admit I have little understanding of this, but the idea just sounds like a bad idea for a fix. Maybe I’m completely wrong here.

Abortion – I do tend to frown on this being used as birth control, but in situations such as rape I feel that it should be an option. So I tend to be more in line with Bush on this topic I suppose, altho

SERGEANTX

Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:40 AM

For me, one issue trumps all others and leads me to support a candidate I disagree with in almost all other respects. In my opinion Bush's neo-cons have perpetuated the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history and are leading us down a path that will eventually end in the disintegration of our country, either from within or without.

For that reason alone I'm giving my vote, reluctantly, to Kerry. In all other cases I'd vote Libertarian and it irks me to do something I've always argued against, namely support the lesser-of-two-evils.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:10 PM

George Bush.

Because I don't agree w/ the Libertarian platform for national defense, and I do agree w/ Bush, somewhat. ( I voted Libertarian in 2000 )

Because the tax cuts worked, even if they were too small.

Because unemployment is down to 5.4% and more jobs are being creatd, even in Ohio.

Because there isn't a single thing of what I consider VITAL for the good of these United States that I agree with Kerry.

That pretty much sums it up.

Cilantro!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

WYDRAZ

Sunday, October 24, 2004 3:25 AM

Bush.

On one condition: we find Osama Bin Laden in the next ten days.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer.

What happened?

Remember 9/11? Osama claimed responsibility? We lost Osama, so go after... Saddam Hussein... Wha?

I want Justice, dammit!

Oh, and play Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. http://digital-eel.com/sais

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:26 AM

Osama might very well be dead. And remember, we sent troops in to kill / capture al Qaida a full year before we went to Iraq. Iraq was violating UN resolutions for 12 yrs and STILL was no cooperating. While they are seperate issues, that isn't to say one still didn't influence the other. We didn't go into Iraq 'because' we couldn't find Osama. Had we brought OBL's head on a stick in the 1st week of that war, we'd still gone into Iraq. Iraq is another matter entirely.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

TRAGICSTORY

Sunday, October 24, 2004 2:43 PM

I would strongly suggest not debating people's chioce of candidates. It never changes their opinion and turns the thread into a flame war.

Now I am voting for Badnarik. I am voting for him because:

1. I am sick of the US policing the world on my dime.

2. I am sick of foreign aid to other countries.

3. I am disgusted with the U.N.

In short I would rather have a government that will fix America's problems first.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

WASPFAN

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:25 PM

I am voting for the President.

I could give reasons, but the facts are the republicans believe in less government and less taxes.

If you make $100,000 a year in this country you get taxed $60,000 of it (sales tax, fed tax, baseball park tax, etc etc). This was on one of the prime time news programs (20/20, Primetime Live). Also, over 85% of federal taxes are already paid by the top 6% of working Americans (20/20). So give a break to the rich, some people actually worked hard to get rich.

So if anyone thinks that taxes should go up, let me know?

Libertarian and Republicans alike know changes are needed from antiquated overtime laws to social security.

The only problem with the Libertarian party is they don't understand foreign affairs and want to do a Pat Buchanin on the world and just worry about ourselves. Good Luck!

If the Libertarian party (calling it a party is stretching it as well) wants to get more votes they need to be much more organized. There is so much in fighting that they don't have the means of methods of competing with the likes of Dem and Rep parties.

I agree we need more choices, but in two weeks we only have two. Bush or Kerry.

I think the choice is quite that simple.

CONNORFLYNN

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:36 PM

I'm voting for Badnarik, which willultimately be a vote thrown away. I like his platform. Sadly in the state I live in (NY..which traditionally has been democratic), regardless of who I vote for ..my vote will be canceled out in one fashion or another.

More and more I realize this is because of the electoral process and the electoral college and the more and more I want to see it go away. I really hate the fact that our elections are controlled by special interest groups and regardless of who we elect from the 2 parties (all others tend to be of no consequence), the special interest groups are the ones who will be pandered to, and not the citizens.

CREVANREAVER

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:50 PM

I'm also voting for Michael Badnarik. He wants the government out of Americans' lives, he's against the welfare state, he opposes censorship, he believes in personal responsibility, he believes in American sovereignty, he realizes capitalism is what makes America great, he knows taxation is evil, he respects the right to bear arms, and he's neither a Republican or Democrat.

That's enough for me.

http://badnarik.org/
http://www.lp.org/

By the way I agree with TragicStory about "not debating people's chioce of candidates. It never changes their opinion and turns the thread into a flame war." We should all keep to stating who we're voting for and why. No condemnation of people's choices.

CONSCIENCE

Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:01 PM

I'll probably vote for Mike Peroutka.

Take a look at these:

http://www.peroutka2004.com
http://www.constitutionparty.com
http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com
http://www.facethetruth.com
http://www.issues2000.org/Michael_Peroutka.htm

terrorists

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:10 PM

I'm voting for Kerry, not because I particularly like his platform but because he isn't in some sort of imaginary world like Bush, and he stands a chance of winning.

I have yet to find my ideal candidate. If he or she existed, s/he would:

Get out of Iraq and focus on terrorism.
Eliminate all IP laws.
Withdraw from all "free-trade" agreements.
Re-write tax law to put individuals, small businesses and corporations on an even playing field.
Invest in energy conservation and alternative energy through low-interest rate loans.
Appoint Elliot Spitzer as the Attorney General.

Oh well, I could go on and on. Sadly, nobody seems to share my views!

BTW, I saw Mike Peroutka on public television and while I disagreed with some of what he was saying, I thought he was a principled and thoughtful candidate.

DAIKATH

Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:24 PM

I live in europe but here goes, if I'd be able and would want(its not my country...) to I'd vote for Ralph Nader.

Because even if only the Republicans and Democrats are the only parties which stand a chance of winning, Nader is the only other choice which has any real influence (as in if he would't be on the ballot Kerry would win).

Here in my country (The Netherlands, better known as Holland though that only represents two of the twelfe provinces)there are 8 parties in our senate. Whenever the elections are over usually the two biggest parties out of the elections are the only ones which will have the majority of the votes together (never does one party here have the majority). There are exepctions when other parties dont want a particular party in the government but thats a whole other story.

What Im trying to say with that last overly written paragraph is that the majority of the poeple should be acknolidged, through CNN's poll of polls Bush would have a small lead on Kerry while Bush has 49% of the votes. If the US would adopt another voting system this would not be enough if the other parties bonded together to form 51% of the votes.

Poeple who have spoken about Nader said that they didn't see it as a wasted vote but rather an investment in the future when poeple would have more choices.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Osama might very well be dead.

Show me the corpse.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We didn't go into Iraq 'because' we couldn't find Osama. Had we brought OBL's head on a stick in the 1st week of that war, we'd still gone into Iraq. Iraq is another matter entirely.

That's entirely debateable. Regardless of the reason, as far as I can tell, we gave up on finding Osama. If we are still looking, I'd at least like to hear what our progress is. If it's "no progress", and if we don't find him, we aren't seeking justice, we're seeking revenge on those who have a vague connection to him.

A War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It's unwinnable, because they can never all be eliminated. In every country there are terrorists, and as long as people are allowed to think freely, there will always be seperatists, terrorists, rebels, and yes, even Browncoats. But they are just labels for the extremes.

Find those who are guilty of specific crimes (like 9/11) and that is the best and most just action you can take.

Oh, and play Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. http://digital-eel.com/sais

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:37 PM

Ooo imma prolly annoy some folk, but what the hell...

Kerry, know why ?

It ain't even about mosta the issues, you see, I don't even truly mind the whole world conquest game, save for one pointed factor.

THEY BUNGLED IT.

We coulda used a combination of shyster diplomacy, assassination (c'mon, it's a time-honored *tradition* of american politics and foreign policy), economic squeeze plays to have everything we wanted, and if we'd played it right, they'd have been happy to give it to us!

Use someone else's troops as cannon fodder, then move in an 'secure' the resources you want, "ok, we'll take it from here, folks.."

Not all wars are decided on the battlefield, some are truly decided in the stock market floor, or the negotiating table - you use the best tactics for the situation, instead of going toe-to-toe in situations where your opponent has every advantage over you, and you DON'T let your ego prevent you from using allies to pick up the slack, even if you have to play nice with them for a little while, and you don't "stay the course" when yer headed for an iceberg, you change your tactics!

So, the current administration has completely BUNGLED the world conquest game, and like any employee who totally screws the pooch, they're gonna be FIRED.

As for third parties ? sure, they sound like they got a plan, but they DON'T... they come to a rigged game and play it by the cheaters rules, and then expect to get anywhere? PUH-leaze.
You can NOT 'play nice' in politics and win, it's a dirty, shameful business where an incumbent has EVERY advantage, from press coverage to gerrymandering - and the only way they ever really lose is if an opponent plays real hardball with em, and they're an incompetent bungler to boot.

There IS no 'play nice' that's gonna work when it comes to third parties, the only one even CLOSE to angry enough was Dean, and he allowed the press (fully in the control of the incumbents) to set his pace, his race - and paid the price for it.

I will not vote for a third party till they're angry enough and MEAN enough, to ram the iron fist of the american peoples' suzerainty down the throat of the politican machine till it chokes, and then put the big bad boot of the people up the rear of corporate american and the military-industrial complex that's turned us all into tax-slave fodder to feed the ever-growing beast.

Till they can do that, till they're WILLING to do that, no matter what it takes, no third party is worth my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Kerry almost as I hate Bush the Bungler, but seeing how NO ONE has been punished or held accountable for this total FUBAR - it's up to us to get out the paddle and spank ole George right out of public office.

And if Kerry screws it up just as bad, IMPEACH his waffling arse - it's just that simple.
We pay them to get a job done, and if it ain't getting done, we need to FIRE them.

So here's to handing those bungling incompetents some pink slips, and a waffling idiot is the only thing we have to replace em, there's plenty more pink paper in my printer....

You are "We the people", the power is yours - play to WIN, for once, instead of playing 'nice'.

-F
(Umm, for them that don't already know, i'm an anarchist of the non-pacifist stripe, so take that into account here...)

THEGREYJEDI

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:35 PM

I'm going to wait for the country to fall apart, then take over.

Either that, or whoever brings gas prices down about a full dollar first.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:37 PM

Fremdfirma

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

That's Dean yell, BTW. I guess I'm an anrchist too, since I am totally behind what y'all said!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:16 AM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Osama might very well be dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Show me the corpse.

Daisy Cutters don't leave 'corpses'.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:20 PM

Auraptor- My, but you change evidential requirements very quickly! One moment you're pointing to "mountains of evidence"

www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7602

the next thing you're pointing to a void! Please, please, please- don't EVER work in law enforcement!

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ooo imma prolly annoy some folk, but what the hell...

Kerry, know why ?

It ain't even about mosta the issues, you see, I don't even truly mind the whole world conquest game, save for one pointed factor.

THEY BUNGLED IT.

We coulda used a combination of shyster diplomacy, assassination (c'mon, it's a time-honored *tradition* of american politics and foreign policy), economic squeeze plays to have everything we wanted, and if we'd played it right, they'd have been happy to give it to us!

Use someone else's troops as cannon fodder, then move in an 'secure' the resources you want, "ok, we'll take it from here, folks.."

Not all wars are decided on the battlefield, some are truly decided in the stock market floor, or the negotiating table - you use the best tactics for the situation, instead of going toe-to-toe in situations where your opponent has every advantage over you, and you DON'T let your ego prevent you from using allies to pick up the slack, even if you have to play nice with them for a little while, and you don't "stay the course" when yer headed for an iceberg, you change your tactics!

So, the current administration has completely BUNGLED the world conquest game, and like any employee who totally screws the pooch, they're gonna be FIRED.

As for third parties ? sure, they sound like they got a plan, but they DON'T... they come to a rigged game and play it by the cheaters rules, and then expect to get anywhere? PUH-leaze.
You can NOT 'play nice' in politics and win, it's a dirty, shameful business where an incumbent has EVERY advantage, from press coverage to gerrymandering - and the only way they ever really lose is if an opponent plays real hardball with em, and they're an incompetent bungler to boot.

There IS no 'play nice' that's gonna work when it comes to third parties, the only one even CLOSE to angry enough was Dean, and he allowed the press (fully in the control of the incumbents) to set his pace, his race - and paid the price for it.

I will not vote for a third party till they're angry enough and MEAN enough, to ram the iron fist of the american peoples' suzerainty down the throat of the politican machine till it chokes, and then put the big bad boot of the people up the rear of corporate american and the military-industrial complex that's turned us all into tax-slave fodder to feed the ever-growing beast.

Till they can do that, till they're WILLING to do that, no matter what it takes, no third party is worth my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Kerry almost as I hate Bush the Bungler, but seeing how NO ONE has been punished or held accountable for this total FUBAR - it's up to us to get out the paddle and spank ole George right out of public office.

And if Kerry screws it up just as bad, IMPEACH his waffling arse - it's just that simple.
We pay them to get a job done, and if it ain't getting done, we need to FIRE them.

So here's to handing those bungling incompetents some pink slips, and a waffling idiot is the only thing we have to replace em, there's plenty more pink paper in my printer....

You are "We the people", the power is yours - play to WIN, for once, instead of playing 'nice'.

-F
(Umm, for them that don't already know, i'm an anarchist of the non-pacifist stripe, so take that into account here...)

One word..SWEET. You hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately for the third parties, they just don't have the funding to get recognized. I'm voting for Badnarik, because I can't in any good faith vote for Bush( I'll import vaccines from Canada, but I won't allow the importation of cheaper drugs..what a shithead, with all due respect to the position) or Heinz Kerry (I mean comeon..how can you take anyone seriously that can marry a psycho like her, even though she has the big bucks to fund his presidential campaign LOL). I'm a firm believer , that if you don't vote..even if it's a protest vote or a write-in, you have no room to bitch about the results..and god knows I love to bitch.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:47 PM

Quote:
Auraptor- My, but you change evidential requirements very quickly! One moment you're pointing to "mountains of evidence"

.

Actually, that is what I got my degree in.

But you're comparing apples to oranges, and your segue from one to the other is not but a big non sequitur. OBL may or may NOT be alive. I've not made an affirmative claim either way on that one. As for WMD, there's no question what so ever Iraq had 'em, tried to hide 'em and likely DID scurry some out of country, or bury them in the Iraqi sands. That fits their M.O., and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:54 PM

Quote:
That fits their M.O., and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

Except a UN report, a CIA report, and complete lack of evidence. Anyway, let's continue this in another thread.

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:23 PM

if only you voted the opposite of this http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21536-globalists-
who-created-refugee-crisis-now-exploiting-it

gangster globalism

THGRRI

Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:59 PM

You opening up old thread after thread, most not supporting your anti Muslim agenda just so you can post hate is very telling. Your sick JAYNZTOWN and need some help. My responses to your posts in these links will be to explain that you are, as I said, sick.

Scientists believe that implicit racism is fundamentally founded on fear,