Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:55 am

This is a topic which someone brought up a little while ago and it sort of made me think a bit. Like the last election, is this election just going to be another "choose the lesser evil" deals? It certainly seems so, with the way John Kerry seems to act about certain points Republicans are making. Yet, no matter what Kerry does, I don't think this election will really be involving him at all. This election is between two sides.

Bush Supporters and Bush Haters. I don't think there are too many people that are really "adament" about supporting John Kerry - they would probably support Al Sharpton if the Democrats had put him there. You just have so much evidence and 4 years of, well, mistakes and faults to choose from.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... &e=5&ncid=
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

Long info things like this
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cokema ... tml#cutid1

On the other hand, there are these guys.

http://www.wanderingflame.com/forums/vi ... 08&start=0

Watch the Daily Show on any given night and there's a new rip on Bush, something he/Cheney/Rum did contradicts something they said before.

My question to you is, is it right to vote for someone just to vote AGAINST the other guy? Shouldn't we actually have a choice in this election, rather than the lesser of two evils again?

Just a friendly reminder - ONE reply per person; do not reply to other people, please just answer the question in an intelligent manner.

TO · Post by TO » Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:57 am

the way i see it, i already know what to expect from bush, and i dont like it.

i dont really know what to expect from kerry, but im willing to give him a shot. if he sucks, well, in 4 years hopefully john mccain will win the republican nod, and he'll have my vote.

back in 2000, my reasoning for voting bush was, al gore is a complete douche bag, and his running mate lieberman is someone who i wouldnt mind seeing hit by a bus. i still stand by that decision, because if al gore was running this time i still wouldnt vote for him

Kage · Post by **Kage** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:18 am

As far as I am concerned. I am bring my bush bashing ways over here. Bush is stupid idiot. :mrgreen:

Reiji · Post by **Reiji** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:33 am

We do have the option of third party candidates, but it's pretty useless to vote for third party presidential candidates because that's wasting a possible swing vote that could be used against the Bushites instead.

The Republicans love that word flip-flop, but they don't realize that the public is just as fickle. We think standardized tests are unfair education but think the disparities between classes and races has its merits. We want military funding but not if we have to pay more taxes.

HKK · Post by **HKK** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:46 am

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvo ... anyway.com

That is all.

TheDarkOne · Post by **TheDarkOne** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:43 am

i cant vote :( but even if i could.... i wouldnt... cuz politics are bullshit... i think they should have the top two candidates just duel it out... either with old ass pistols, or possibly fencing swords, which ever would incure the most entertainment for the masses... and would cause the more grusome death for the other douchebag that's actually running for this gig

Calbrena · Post by **Calbrena** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:38 am

If I was able to vote in America my vote would be against Bush, not for Kerry. I guess that like a lot of people I would just want anything but Bush.
Sure, voting for the lesser devil is not good enough, but do people really have a choice?

The whole election system would have to be reformed to allow people to really vote for someone they support. (because even the people planning to vote for Bush, I doubt all of them do it because they actually want him to be president, they just don't want a democrat to win...) How could it be reformed? I don't know, I just know how things work in France, and it doesn't work either, it has proved to be even more dangerous...

And even if the system was modified, for example to make it actually work to have more than 2 candidates, I'm sure a lot of people couldn't be bothered and just wouldn't vote. And then, people who would vote would have to unit and vote for a 'strong' lesser devil again, anticipating the opposite side's reaction who would do that (yeah, because even if there were more than 2 candidates, I believe there would be only 2 sides, still...).

So yeah, I think voting for a lesser devil is not right, but what else can we do? In such a big country you just can't vote for who you believe is best, you've got to vote for the candidate who's not that bad and more likely than any other to beat the 'worst' candidate. If you don't want to risk losing a lot you've got to vote for the party, not the candidate representing it. (but then again, even in terms of 'party' and not 'candidate' most people tend to go for the lesser devil. If people believed a party had really good ideas there would be 0 abstention...)

Anyway, I feel really sorry for Americans, because I know that if I was able to vote I would vote for someone who don't seem to be good enough to run the country correctly....

no name · Post by **no name** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:26 am

I'm with DO on this one. I personally despise American politics. I try to distance myself from them at all times (fairly easily accomplished being Canadian, and all).

I do, however, agree with what TO said:

TO wrote:the way i see it, i already know what to expect from bush, and i dont like it.

i dont really know what to expect from kerry, but im willing to give him a shot.

Bush has already done his fucking up. At least give someone else a chance

.

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:53 pm

My answer is an emphatic no. It is not right to vote for the lesser of two evil, not if you rtruly consider both to be evils. So I'm voting against Bush and against Kerry. I'm no democrat and I'm certainly no republican and I'm not going to be a party to keeping this system running the way it is out of fear that my vote "won't count."

Guess what? The chances are your vote won't count no matter which candidate you vote for, even the winning one. It's ridiculous to argue on the basis of the effect if others felt the same way while ignoring that if enough others felt the same way we could deal a crippling blow to the two party system.

Many people seem to dislike the two party system, but theyact like there's nothing to do about it. Well, the only way it will change is if people vote for candidates outside the two parties. So I think people should vote for a candidate they really think should take office at every election until more follow and do the same.

Me? As a Catholic Monarchist, I'm going to vote for someone I feel will be under the control of the Pope. :p

Vincent · Post by **Vincent** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:24 pm

This will be the first election I'm allowed to vote in and I find it extremely disappointing when I see just who exactly is running this year. I have an extreme dislike for President Bush, a lot of this stemming from the fact that I'm an atheist. So when I see the man who is running my country say things like this:

I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.

I obviously take offense to it. On the subject though, I am voting for Kerry. I don't very much like him personally but I do believe that he'll do a better job then Bush could ever do, especially with his daddy "helping" him. The only way to find out is vote for him and hope that Bush doesn't get (re)elected. I also think that, had it been any other election year, Kerry wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. But I saw something on tv that pretty much sums up how most of Kerrys "supporters" feel. "Anything but Bush"

Entr0pi3 · Post by **Entr0pi3** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:24 pm

Each time I hear about elections in the USA, it reminds me of that Halloween Simpsons episode, in which the democrat and republican candidates got abducted and replaced by aliens... Since no one would vote for an independent candidate, one of the aliens ended up President, of course.

But this "voting for the lesser evil" thing also reminds me of a very crappy situation which occured in France during the last presidential elections...
It's a two stages election, with tons of candidates, but only candidates with 20% or more of the votes pass the 1st stage. So quite often the 2nd stage has only two (somewhat moderate) candidates facing each other : one from the big left wing party, and one from the big right wing party.
That particular time, the big candidates were the former President (major right wing party) and Prime Minister (major left wing party)
[a somewhat schyzophrenic situation, when the Prime Minister (and its Administration) are of the opposite side of the political spectrum than the President. It's called "cohabitation". Politicians don't like it because it limits their power. But many voters seem to prefer it that way...]
Anyway, people were unhappy with the Administration (as usual) and (to a lesser extent) the President (who hadn't done much, but was suspected of bribery), so many of them expressed their dissatisfaction by voting for alternate candidates (there was dozens of them, that year. Especially far-left ones), or even not voting at all...
In the end, only two candidates passed the 1st stage : the right wing President, and... the candidate of the far-right wing, nationalist party

Left wing voters had scattered their votes on too many candidates. Many of them thought the Prime Minister would pass no watter what, and planned to vote for him on the 2nd stage... Many moderates also actually didn't vote at all (abstention got a higher score than any of the candidates, at the first stage).
That was a terrible shock (and a terrible shame) : people had no choice but "voting either for the crook or the fascist"... Eventually, the former President ended up being re-elected with more than 80% of votes.

Lesson of the story : too many candidates can end up favoring the extremist parties, since, while moderates tend to scatter their votes equally between candidates, extremists rather focus theirs on a single one...

saranicole · Post by **saranicole** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:45 pm

Reiji wrote: The Republicans love that word flip-flop, but they don't realize that the public is just as fickle. We think standardized tests are unfair education but think the disparities between classes and races has its merits. We want military funding but not if we have to pay more taxes.

I agree. One thing that bothers me the most is the frightening number of people who blindly affiliate with a candidate because they are Republican or Democrat or let a single issue control their voting decision. For example, I know plenty of people who say, "Well, I don't really like Bush but I'm not voting for Kerry because he supports gay rights/abortion/gun control/ whatever." This can be said for the other side too. This single-issue single-mindedness is the biggest problem I have with elections lately. People are so quick to usher in a candidate without thinking about the other issues that affect their lives more directly or finding out later that they are opposed to almost all of the candidate's views except for a few that they so fervently support. Seems like everyone today has a bad case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

-Bobby- · Post by **-Bobby-** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:58 pm

These canidates are the reason why Im not voting. The only person I was ever interested in voting for was Alan Keys (the black guy in the 2000 election.) He was the only person whose beliefs I agreed in and the only person who could keep my attention while talking through his lighthearted friendly demeanor. It wasn't just because he was black

Im not registered now but hopefully one day someone actually worth voting for will make it past the bs.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:45 pm

Eh, is this really that new of a thing?

How much of the 2000 election was "pro-Bush vs. pro-Gore" rather than "anti-Gore vs. anti-Bush"?...

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Calbrena wrote:Sure, voting for the lesser devil is not good enough, but do people really have a choice?

Exactly--there is no other choice. If you are emphatically against Bush being President for the next four years, but don't take the time to learn about Kerry or find out if you agree with him, what other choice do you have? Either don't vote (which is basically a vote for Bush, because Bush has the Christian Right in his pocket, which is a huge supply of automatic votes), or vote for John Kerry.

Hell, most of the people voting for Bush don't know anything about what he has done in office and are voting for him because they think he's helped them by giving them a little tax break (while plunging the country from a surplus to an incredibly huge deficit) and "fighting terrorism" (by invading a sovereign nation based on faulty intelligence and getting over 1000 of our soldiers killed). Is that responsible? No, but these people are still going to vote for him.

The Pro-Bush maniacs love to make the 'point' that this kind of vote against the status quo is wrong, and from a moralistic standpoint, I agree. However, there is only one reason they preech this so vehemently--they want Bush to win, and they'd rather have people waste votes on third parties or abstain from voting than vote for John Kerry, the only person with a chance of beating Bush.

To put it simply, a vote for anyone other than John Kerry is a vote for George Bush. Therefore, voting for Kerry because you want Bush ousted is the best you can do (and honestly, this is always how the majority of people vote... for or against the status quo, not for the candidate himself).

And for the record, I'm a registered Independant, and I don't know who I'm voting for yet, but it's definately going to be against Bush. Living in California, it doesn't matter very much who I vote for unless I vote for Bush, since there's a very small chance John Kerry won't carry my state. That said, if I did live in one of the more "important" contented states, I'd vote for Kerry for the previously stated reasons as well as the fact that I find myself in agreement with his positions far more than with Bush's.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:19 am

We're so fucked right now.

Bush is for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He preemptively attacked a sovereign country without the support of the UN. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can try to defend these things and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Kerry is a horrible candidate. His cookie-cutter platform is pathetic, and it might as well be non-existent since all the focus is on his war record and the fact that his name is something other than George. Speaking of the whole vietnam thing, I thought the issue was going to finally die leaving the GOP looking like morons. Then the Dems showed how petty they really were by running yet another damn add about Bush's service or lack thereof.

So then we have the third parties....
Honestly I mean really, no third party will win this election. There is no chance. You can throw all that morality or ideaology or mob mentality out the window. I respect those who vote for third parties, but I can't bring myself to do it myself.

Ole Kentucky Shark · Post by **Ole Kentucky Shark** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:09 am

People throw out "Third parties" like they're some kind of miracle solution, when really they're not. Third party platforms try to embrace some kind of favorable idealogy, preaching reform in the pursuit of mankind's interests... but the candidates and delegates are always single-issue focused lunatics who have no buisness running a country.

Nader, Cobb and Badnarik are ridiculous people and even more ridiculous choices for president, and a vote for them is really nothing more than a vote against the two party system (which is a just enough cause in itself, and I really wish people would just say that they're doing that, rather than trying to pretend that their party has all of the answers).

In regards to Kerry/Bush... Bushes international, domestic and economic policies have all been deplorable, and he has certainly done everything to lose my vote. Of course, on the other hand, Kerry has done little to Earn my vote.

I'll still be throwing my hat in the Kerry ring, though.

Bush's Economic policy is irresponsible, with increasingly regressive tax cuts and incentives waiting to be piled on, coinciding with even more increased spending, and all in the disguise of social aid. I mean, consider the CBO: A formerly non-partison Watchdog group for economic plans, the CBO was reformed by the Bush Administration to use "Dynamic" equations when predicting economic returns... an equation set which has been proven to be heavily biased to Supply-side economics. This current organization, which should have given Bush's own proposals and promises merit, released a report recently which showed that Bush's economic plans for his second term would only INCREASE the budget deficit (he promised to cut it in HALF) and drive the US further into debt.

But enough on Economics. Lets talk about Neoconservatism.

Neoconservatives distrust experts in ANY field. At this current stage, the prevailing belief is that expert analysis, which is based around statistics and the study of facts, is inherently liberally biased. This belief stems from some actually merited observations, mostly pointing out how statistics could not always predict or fix social problems, as it did not account for things like faith, community strength, or the strength of a family unit. That belief has quite a bit of merit to it... however, this belief has now started to extend to frightening branches of government: namely, military intelligence and soft sciences (economics, psychology, some medical research.)

The bush administration has been one of the most anti-scientific in... well, at least a hundred years. Now, this isn't to say he's out there destroying textbooks and burning heliocentrists, but he has stifled a number of research reports on ecology and biology, denied some 99% of possible funding for (what I would consider) VERY important stem cell research, and just generally been a moralistic dick.
(On another somewhat unrelated but somewhat relevant note, His brother, jeb bush, said of hurricane Charlie after it went farther inland than expected: "God doesn't follow the linear paths of computer models". Fuck you, Jeb. The men who develop those models work a thousand times harder than you, are a thousand times more talented than you... whenever you manage to get your magic man in the sky to start telling us when and where that hurricane is going to go, they'll stop doing their work. Until then, show some fucking appreciation.)

Don't even get me started on Bush's moral agenda. In my eyes, it is dispicable and goes completely against the civil liberties founded deep in our countries history. He's the kind of president who would claim this country was founded on Christian beliefs, that "In god we trust" was our national slogan from the beginning, that the ten commandments are what we based our laws off of... seriously, ask him, that's what he'd say. (It's like no one understands why they took the ten commandments out of that courthouse and out of schoolhouses. They try to spin it, trying to make it look like the ACLU wants people to murder and steal. I don't think its "Thou shall not kill" that they want to get out of classrooms, I believe that it is "I am the lord, your god", and "Thou shalt not take my name in vain" that tthey're trying to Axe).

Oh jesus, I am tired and I am rambling.

In conclusion, vote Kerry. Hopefully, he wont get universal healthcare off the ground and we'll have four more years to find a decent Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative candidate (Arnold anyone?)

ruroken · Post by **ruroken** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:43 pm

I'm not American but after watching Farenheit 9/11... Bush must not live.

Craddyshack · Post by **Craddyshack** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:16 pm

TO wrote:the way i see it, i already know what to expect from bush, and i dont like it.

i dont really know what to expect from kerry, but im willing to give him a shot. if he sucks, well, in 4 years hopefully john mccain will win the republican nod, and he'll have my vote.

and I'm a liberal.

Garbo · Post by **Garbo** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:26 am

ruroken wrote:I'm not American but after watching Farenheit 9/11... Bush must not live. :ruroken

I think that's a pretty shallow argument, since Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly biased in such a way that even if Bush were not that bad a person, Michael Moore would not use any of the positives anyway and still make the exact same film, in no way toned down.

On the other hand, seeing as how I don't live in America, I've basically tried to avoid this thread, since my lack of knowledge on politics would give away any sort of argument I might have, and I think it's unfair to just think a certain way because it's what the media bombards you with. Then again, I'm not very much interested in politics in general, and since I'm not an Australian citizen either, I'm not required to vote, and have even less reason to get into politics.

I will say this though - I have a personal inkling that Bush is not going to remain President. That is to say, there appear to be far more Bush haters then there are Bush lovers. But then again, all this controversy surrounding Kerry, may tip the scales in Bush's favour, since Kerry doesn't seem to be the ideal president either, but who's to say there won't be an unprecedented event in which one of the other candidates aside from Bush and Kerry, is the winner? (Assuming there are other candidates of course.)

[/Semi-intelligent post for the rest of this century]

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:08 am

I'm voting McCain as a write-in. That is all.

Son-kun · Post by **Son-kun** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:10 am

Definately voting against Bush

Fuck Kerry........ but Fuck Bush more :]

Shuzo Ru · Post by **Shuzo Ru** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:40 am

In a perfect world of American politics

there would always be a definite good choice. But alas this year there really is not. Bush is under constant scrutiny for his actions post 9-11, and John Kerry is constantly accused of switiching sides on issues. Who would I pick? I'll just close my eyes and see who I get when I go to the polls.

Further, it is not really "fair" to the people to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Much like the world of fashion unfortunately we are told who to vote for. It's naive however to think that there will ever be the "perfect" candidate. Everyone is going to have certain policies others will not like, or even those that are completely insane. Our best bet as voters is to pick and then pray that whomever wins doesn't screw up.

My bold prediction: Hilary Clinton will be elected president in '08.

Z? · Post by Z? » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:18 am

I'll be voting against Bush (yes, I'm Canadian, but I have a dual-citizenship), even though it runs powerfully against my personal philosophy to endorse a candidate simply to strike a blow against another. That I am prepared to do so is a testament to how serious I feel the issue is; usually I would just spoil my ballot or write someone in if I couldn't find a decent candidate.

I summarized my views on "voting against" in a small essay I wrote earlier this year; rather than rewrite it I'll just post it here.

I still remember the first time I ever voted in a provincial election. I proudly walked into the voting booth, read my ballot and associated instructions carefully, scrawled "none of these bastards" across the ballot in large, friendly letters, and dropped it into the ballot box.

Some have criticized me for my idealism, but I still believe that a vote in someone's favour should be an endorsement of them; by voting for them, one should be saying, "I believe that you will do a good job running this [whatever]". Sadly, due to a frequent dearth of anything resembling a desirable candidate, combined with the popular practice of "strategic voting", a vote more often means "I believe you will be less harmful than this other fellow". We're not electing a leader; we're electing a placeholder to keep something even worse from getting in. The logic is somewhat akin to renting your spare bedroom to an anaconda just so that you can refuse the man-eating tiger who was asking about it.

Now, I refuse to play this particular game. I insist on voting for the candidate I think best, whether or not they have a chance, and if I can't find anyone suitable, I dutifully cast a vote for "none of 'em". If everyone voted like this, those candidates who "don't have a chance" would have a chance, and maybe we could stop letting the NDP and the Liberals take turns seeing who can screw things up worse.

However, I am well aware that most people are not going to come around to this point of view. As such, I have a humble proposal which, I believe, will not only improve our electoral system in the practical sense by eliminating the need for "strategic voting", but will also restore the philosophical integrity of the vote.

My proposition is this: introduce the anti-ballot.

An anti-ballot would work as follows: when each voter turns up at the polls, they will be given the option to cast either one ballot or one anti-ballot. If they wish to endorse a particular candidate, they may choose to cast a ballot in his or her favour. However, if they do not care for any of the candidates, they may instead choose to cast an anti-ballot against the candidate they dislike the most. After the polls close, the ballots cast in each candidate's favour are added up, and the number of anti-ballots cast against them is subtracted from this sum. The candidate with the highest net total wins.

In addition to saving individual voters from having to vote for someone they don't like just to keep out someone worse, this strategy also has wider implications when the results are tallied. The final figures each candidate received would be a more accurate representation of the public support for said candidate. No longer would a candidate be able to fool themselves into thinking they got in because "the majority of the population supports them"; the final numbers would make it clear exactly who actually supports them, and also tell them if they simply got in because "less of the population hates them". This would also allow for more accurate opinion polls and make it harder to crank out misleading statistics during the campaign period. (Though I am of course not so naive as to think this would eliminate them.)

Furthermore, this would mean that each candidate would have to work harder to acquire actual votes, instead of just avoiding anti-votes. Under the current system, a candidate can slide by on being less odious than his opponent, but with the introduction of the anti-ballot, he or she will have to actually work to convince people to vote for him/her. They would have to show that they have actual positive qualities in their favour. Otherwise the constituency may simply spend all their votes casting anti-ballots against the opposing candidate. I would imagine that winning because you had -2750 votes while your opponent had -6432, while still technically a victory, would be something of an embarrassment.

Now, I am tempted to say something to the effect that a candidate must have a positive score in order to be elected, and if no candidate can attain a positive score, then the process must be repeated with new candidates. However, this would place an unsupportable strain upon the relevant political finances, not to mention the time involved, and would probably end up making people even more apathetic towards the voting process. ("Why bother, nobody'll be elected this time either.") So, much as it pains me, I must recommend that the candidate with the highest score be allowed the victory, even if "the highest score" means "the least negative score". However, at least everyone will know where that candidate stands in the public image.

This concludes my proposal.

thirdchildren · Post by **thirdchildren** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:55 am

I've never really understood the American system of elections, in Ireland it's much simpler - the candidate who gets the most votes wins, also in Ireland there are 6 different parties, so you have a much wider choice, and you're more likely to find a candidate that you can throw your support behind, someone who has the same beliefs as yourself.

Having only(virtually) two candidates is probably the biggest problem with the american system, it tends to create this situation of having to vote for the one you think will do least damage, or the canditate for the party you always vote for, or not vote at all, which as someone said is a virtual vote for Bush Thats a concept I just can't understand, even in Ireland where the various parties - mainly Sinn Fein(the political wing of the IRA), Fine Geal(Conservatives/Right wing) and Fianna Fail(The Republican party) are intrinsically tied to the history and trouble of the country, you no longer get people voting for a party just because they favour that party, the people of Ireland seem to have politics in their blood for some reason and tend to be quite well informed with little or no bias in the media(except the tabloids). Even though our only terrestrial channels are state-owned there is little bias in their news reports, I dunno why that is. Maybe we have more pride in our country(800 years of strife and all that)

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:56 am

Eh....there's a slight danger with that kind of voting system. The problem being that the only people who might have large negative votes will be the major candidates. While I am in favor of someone outside the two party system winning, I worry that through such a system we could wind up with a Neo Nazi president.. Of course, we have Bush now, so maybe it's not much different.

fire2ash · Post by **fire2ash** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:53 am

In my case, I would much rather give Kerry an oppurtunity then Bush (or should I say..Cheney) another opportunity, EVER. I think Kerry proved himself capable of some deeper thinking and planning on tonights debate.

Calbrena · Post by **Calbrena** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:03 am

Lord Golbez wrote:Eh....there's a slight danger with that kind of voting system. The problem being that the only people who might have large negative votes will be the major candidates. While I am in favor of someone outside the two party system winning, I worry that through such a system we could wind up with a Neo Nazi president.. Of course, we have Bush now, so maybe it's not much different.

I like Z?'s idea of an anti-ballot vote, but it would need to be a bit more complicated to avoid that kind of thing. + I don't like the idea of having a president elected than less than 50% of the voting population. So maybe it would work with a 2 stages election? The French system is far from perfect, but at least last time the second stage prevented us from ending with nazi in charge of the country... Instead we just ended up with the one we call 'super liar'!

So yeah, with this 2 stages election we still end up having to choose between plague and cholera, as we say here

Kage · Post by **Kage** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:50 pm

On one hand, you have a proven idiot and on the other hand you have a possible idiot. I don't think that decision process is too hard.

saranicole · Post by **saranicole** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:05 pm

Kage wrote:On one hand, you have a proven idiot and on the other hand you have a possible idiot. I don't think that decision process is too hard.

Is there really a reason to make the voting process more complicated than people already make it out to be?

Give me a break. The simple fact that so many people find Bush despicable enough that they would vote against him without thinking twice about who the other candidate is speaks volumes about Bush more than anything. Because of that, I see no reason why 'voting for the lesser evil' is bad. It might knock the other party down a notch or two. Politics is all about voting for the lesser evil anyway.

isildur · Post by **isildur** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:20 pm

I'm writing in my dog.

Lord Golbez · Post by **Lord Golbez** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:26 pm

saranicole wrote:
Kage wrote:On one hand, you have a proven idiot and on the other hand you have a possible idiot. I don't think that decision process is too hard.
Is there really a reason to make the voting process more complicated than people already make it out to be? Give me a break. The simple fact that so many people find Bush despicable enough that they would vote against him without thinking twice about who the other candidate is speaks volumes about Bush more than anything. Because of that, I see no reason why 'voting for the lesser evil' is bad. It might knock the other party down a notch or two. Politics is all about voting for the lesser evil anyway.

You would be wrong though, if you assume that there aren't people that feel the same way about Kerry. Do we then also argue that this speaks volumes about Kerry? I think it's a false premise as many people can be vehemently against good things (in fact I feel this is so frequently the case that I abhor democracy), nevertheless in this circumstance I would certainly be willing to admit that there's volumes to say about the evil inherent in either of them coming to office. Nope, I don't think knocking one party down for what they're doing wrong is worth lifting the other party up to consent to its wrong.

saranicole · Post by **saranicole** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:52 pm

You would be wrong though, if you assume that there aren't people that feel the same way about Kerry. Do we then also argue that this speaks volumes about Kerry?

Actually, yeah, it does, and I'm not assuming that it doesn't. I believe that people on both sides share extreme passions for both candidates. But I think in this election, it is obvious how upset many people are and it shows in how many people say they are willing to vote for candidate blah just to keep the other from office. It shows that something isn't quite right to make people feel such extremes...at least, in my opinion it does.

I think it's a false premise as many people can be vehemently against good things (in fact I feel this is so frequently the case that I abhor democracy)

Why is that?

Nope, I don't think knocking one party down for what they're doing wrong is worth lifting the other party up to consent to its wrong.

I see what you're saying but I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is if the Democrats win, they will have more influence and the Republican power base is going to decrease a little, thus, knock them down a notch or two. I said nothing about consenting to being wrong or right.

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:49 am

First off, Farenheit 9/11 =

Farenhype 9/11=

Anyone who bases opinions from and buys into what Moore tries to say an asshat, plain and simple.

We're not in a position to let a liberal democrat puppet rule us right now. I don't like rooting for Bush anymore than most of you, but I believe that he needs to ride out another term. Albiet innarticulate and far from eloquent, Bush is doing the shit that needs to be done and people don't give him any of the credit he deserves. It's easy to label someone a backwards, redneck, texan who takes it in the ass from jesus when he says something ignorant and narrow-minded like banning gay marriage. He is far from intelligent, yet he does seem to have some sort of morbid wisdom about. He would be nothing without his staff, but the man has some huge testicles for taking action and actually getting shit done. If I hear one more person bitch about how he attacked Iraq UNPROVOKED, I will scream.

Limp wrists have no place in politics

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:00 am

So a hyper-conservative Republican puppet is better?

That makes sense.

Since most of your post made little to no sense and seems to have been written while you were intoxicated, I'll not bother responding to it.

Hope this response wasn't too "limp-wristed" for you.

Last One · Post by **Last One** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:12 am

I just hate how some people decided to take a vote against Bush just because they watched a movie which calls itself a documentary (which is far from it).

Have a nice day

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:24 am

Fortunately, I don't know anybody who has based his vote on a documentary, including Farenheit 9/11. However, I know a fair number of people basing their votes on what one or the other candidate tells them to believe, regardless of facts, or what they hear on O'Reiley or Crossfire as if they are facts.

So, I agree with you, though I would expand it to include people who don't actually think about the two candidates and do some real research to cut through the bullshit, and instead pick based on what someone else tells them to do.

WaWard · Post by **WaWard** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:03 pm

I can't vote next week. Help me.

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:31 pm

wait patch, what exactly about my post did you not understand?

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 am

I understood it, but most of that large paragraph in it doesn't make sense.

If you believe Bush should ride out another term, go ahead and give some reasons.

What you did instead was go off on some weird tangent in mock-defense of Bush, and then finished it by saying you'll vote for Bush because he's got big nuts and "can get shit done". Some examples?

I can give you some counterpoints: He didn't catch Bin Laden. The US is bogged down in a seemingly hopeless war in Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Our foreign relations are shot to hell. Our domestic situation is terrible. Ashlee Simpson isn't even good at lip syncing.

I don't feel like I'm in a better country than I was 4 years ago.

j0hn Ayanami · Post by **j0hn Ayanami** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:45 am

The US Dollar is 81 fucking cents to the Canadian dollar. That means for every 81 US cents, I get one Canadian dollar.

When Clinton left office, the rate was 62 US cents to the Canadian dollar.

Fucking Bush.

Thanks to Andrew, I have corrected my shitty math.

isildur · Post by **isildur** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:26 am

http://www.wanderingflame.com

Go back where you belong, Bushie!!!!

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:29 pm

Patchingko wrote:
He didn't catch Bin Laden.

how would you propose catching someone who has been hiding in a vast terrorist network for years?

The US is bogged down in a seemingly hopeless war in Iraq.

may seem hopeless, but wouldn't you agree that it is better than letting an extremist group take control again?

North Korea has nuclear weapons.

and you think kerry bowing down to their wishes would be good in the long run?

Our foreign relations are shot to hell.

it would help if the UN weren't pussies who could be bought out by private interests

Our domestic situation is terrible

nobodys perfect

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:19 am

You didn't come up with a single reason to vote for Bush, though I'm not surprised because I can't come up with one either.

Trevelyan wrote:
Patchingko wrote:
He didn't catch Bin Laden.
how would you propose catching someone who has been hiding in a vast terrorist network for years?

Actually, he was in the mountains of Afghanistan, trapped... until Bush took out the US troops in preperation for invading Iraq and gave the job of finding him to former Afghan warlords.

The US is bogged down in a seemingly hopeless war in Iraq.
may seem hopeless, but wouldn't you agree that it is better than letting an extremist group take control again?

From the looks of things, an extremist group of terrorists already does control the situation there. For example, the 350 metric tons of sealed explosives they stole earlier this month, or the over 40-odd Iraqi soldiers executed and left for dead by them yesterday.

North Korea has nuclear weapons.
and you think kerry bowing down to their wishes would be good in the long run?

Kerry bowing to their wishes? If anyone bowed to their wishes, it was Bush when he allowed them to remove the huge amounts of surveilance we had on North Korean nuclear facilities, such as interior cameras. You don't even know what Kerry would do about it, but you should at least know that Bush has loosened our grip on North Korea a great deal, despite calling it 'evil.'

Our foreign relations are shot to hell.
it would help if the UN weren't pussies who could be bought out by private interests

As if Bush and his crew aren't bought out by private interests? Haliburton, anyone? The US could do what it wants internationally without spitting in the faces of the other members of the UN.

Our domestic situation is terrible
nobodys perfect

But the president should be pretty damn close... or at least a lot closer than Bush is.

I'd put in more effort to convince you of the error in your thinking, but then again, you're a Californian, so even if you vote for Bush it won't matter, not to mention that if you're anything like so many other Bushies, I could show you pictures of Bush raping young girls and you'd still vote for him.

Magus416 · Post by **Magus416** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:19 am

isildur wrote:http://www.wanderingflame.com

Go back where you belong, Bushie!!!!

The politics threads are oh so fun to read!

Mitsurugi CP · Post by **Mitsurugi CP** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:39 am

Why are so many Americans angry and distraught at Bush winning the election?

Because Bush goes against virtually every virtue and principle our nation was founded upon. Anyone who would say otherwise is one of the following:

- A filthy, backhanded liar
- An ignorant fool who needs to be re-educated.

If you want evidence of this, I would be happy to supply some resources. But a quick Google search will give you most of the information you need.

Bush has taken all of the values our country was founded on and drove them into the dirt, with little competition. He has used the name of America, my country, in vain. It wasn't bad enough that he decided to try to hang the 10 commandments in public schools, it wasn't bad enough that he had to start an unjust war in a (coincidentally?) Muslim nation, it wasn't bad enough that he tried to create a social injustice based on his faulty interpretation of his own religion, he did all of these things with the blind support of quite possibly the STUPIDEST collective nation in the world.

That's why we're upset. We're being represented by an individual who defies all American virtues and it is because the majority of Americans are ignorant fools.

AMERICA IS THE DUMBEST FUCKING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND I AM EMBARRASSED TO CALL MYSELF AMERICAN.

And the fact that I really mean that hurts even more. America ceases to exist with Bush in office. He is nothing more than a dispicable tyrant hiding under the institution of democracy.

Patchingko · Post by **Patchingko** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

It's not the dumbest country in the world, it's just got a lot of people who would rather believe what TV, the president, and their priest tell them to than figure things out for themselves. Fattest country... laziest country. It's a natural progression.

.DLP. Willy Wonka · Post by **.DLP. Willy Wonka** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:24 am

I'm proud to say that I voted for Kerry and shudder at the thought at what Bush may do with 4 more years that he doesn't have to worry about his approval rating.

Spazzz · Post by **Spazzz** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:52 pm

Election time is always a difficult time for me. I believe that something should be done about the middle east, yes. But i dont think it should have been carried as far as it has. We cought the man we should have cought years ago and didnt, but what of our real target Ben laden. Nothing. From the news clips I have seen it looks more like we are invading and taking over the middle east rather than helping them. Its all so difficult because theres always someone with a counter point of view. So far though if there is a right solution and a wrong solution u can bet that Bush will make the wrong one. My thing is if were their to help them then make ur choices based on that, not on how good it makes u in the eyes of history or the TV cameras.

Square Gamer

Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?

Re: Topic 001: Vote against Bush or Vote for Kerry?