Kerry or Bush.....or Nader

[Phat-t]

Pretending everyone is alowed to vote, who would you guys vote for?

My vote's for Kerry. I don't like him, but anything's better than Bush.

 

[gh0st]

id suggest you use the search function, and find one of the 10002307123982 other threads about this. the topics been worn to death.

 

[joule]

id suggest you use the search function, and find one of the 10002307123982 other threads about this. the topics been worn to death.

Yeah. Even I made one about a month ago and was commented on how many threads were made prior to mine.

BTW: John Kerry

 

[Hazar]

There's plenty of thread's like this,

Hello and Welcome!

*courtesy of Erestheux*

 

[Ames]

I wonder what's going to happen to this thread.

Welcome to the forums!

By the way, wheres Mahopac?

 

[OCybrManO]

... are we talking about an ideal situation were every candidate has a chance and I don't have to worry about wasting a vote on a candidate that is almost definately going to lose? If so, I'd pick Nader. If not, I'd pick Kerry.

 

[Asus]

I like some things about Bush while other things I don't. I would vote for others over Bush if there was a better choice in my opinion.
It's just Kerry is not the better choice.

 

[blahblahblah]

I like some things about Bush while other things I don't. I would vote for others over Bush if there was a better choice in my opinion.
It's just Kerry is not the better choice.

whoa. I was going to write the same exact thing.

 

[CptStern]

I've asked the american embassy to grant me an honorary citizenship so I can vote for kerry this coming election ...so far they havent gotten back to me :E

 

[Wraith]

i put kerry only because i want to get rid of bush, but if i could CHOOSE the president, michael badnarik

www.badnarik.com
www.lp.org/issues

 

[SpuD]

Im democrat, so i'd pick kerry.

 

[Apos]

Hmmm, I wonder if I voted for my boss.... er, yes.

Kerry is a really decent guy, world's better than Bush. He'll be a real statesman rather than a partisan hack who puts political gamesmanship above the security of our nation.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Gimme Arnie! He has done wonders in Cali.

political gamesmanship above the security of our nation.

And he shows this how? Ah yes, changing his foreign policy approach every other day. What a wonderous, nonpolitical canidate he is.

 

[blahblahblah]

Hmmm, I wonder if I voted for my boss.... er, yes.

Kerry is a really decent guy, world's better than Bush. He'll be a real statesman rather than a partisan hack who puts political gamesmanship above the security of our nation.

What is that like? When you are finished/have spare time you should make a post on what it was like working for the democratic campaign. I would be interested in reading it.

 

[Neutrino]

What is that like? When you are finished/have spare time you should make a post on what it was like working for the democratic campaign. I would be interested in reading it.

Seconded. It would be really interesting to hear about that.

 

[hasan]

a more interesting poll would be
"why would you vote kerry? (if you are voting him)"
- anyone but bush
- I'm a democrat
- I honestly think he's the best candidate

I bet 60% would be "anyone but bush"

 

[Some_God]

Seen what Bush did...

EDIT: Anyone but Bush!

 

[Neutrino]

a more interesting poll would be
"why would you vote kerry? (if you are voting him)"
- anyone but bush
- I'm a democrat
- I honestly think he's the best candidate

I bet 60% would be "anyone but bush"

"I honestly think he's the best candidate."

 

[Vigilante]

whoa. I was going to write the same exact thing.

as was I! The USA will not go anywhere with kerry. Although, I AHTE HATE HATE Cheney, but I like Bush.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

im not shure i dont like either but if i had to vote ill go for kerry

 

[Yuri]

There's plenty of thread's like this,

Hello and Welcome!

*courtesy of Erestheux*

Congrats, you've earned an "LOL!!!"

I love you, Hazar.

Nader.

Bush sucks.

Kerry sucks.

Nader.

 

[f|uke]

Oh crap, its neck and neck!

Just like the polls, eh?

Kerry all the way. Anybody but Bush, yes, but Kerry does seem like an upstanding guy. I really aproved of his speach at the Democratic Convention.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

a more interesting poll would be
"why would you vote kerry? (if you are voting him)"
- anyone but bush
- I'm a democrat
- I honestly think he's the best candidate

I bet 60% would be "anyone but bush"

Actually, I'd choose "anyone but Bush" AND "I honestly think he's the best candidate"

They mean the same thing, you know. Bush being sucky automatically makes Kerry better.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Congrats, you've earned an "LOL!!!"

I love you, Hazar.

Nader.

Bush sucks.

Kerry sucks.

Nader.

Careful! A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Bush's campaign is actually funding Nader's campaign with the maximum they can legally donate.

Why?

Bush knows, just like we do, that Nader will never win.
But, since Nader leans left like Kerry, it means that people on the left are choosing between Nader and Kerry.

Right now, it's:

49% Kerry
49% Bush
1% Nader

By helping promote Nader, Bush is trying to have this:

10% Nader
40% Kerry
50% Bush

By voting Nader, you're actually being tricked into helping Bush win.

 

[Asus]

Well I take "anyone but Bush" to mean that you would vote against Bush no matter who was on the otherside.
While "I honestly think he's the best candidate" means you truely agree with Kerry's position.

 

[Sai]

the debate kind of swayed my shaky stand on kerry to a full support

 

[seinfeldrules]

By helping promote Nader, Bush is trying to have this:
Bush- 50%
Kerry- 40%
Nader- 10%

Oh there the right wing conspiracy is again. Will we be mugging people into voting for Nader while we are at it. Oh those wascally Wepublicans :upstare:

 

[Apos]

Gimme Arnie! He has done wonders in Cali.

Yeah, by pointlessly tying up the budget so some pork for his friends could get in. What a breath of fresh air!

And he shows this how? Ah yes, changing his foreign policy approach every other day. What a wonderous, nonpolitical canidate he is.

Well, you've demostrated that you can parrot what Bush PR team tells you to think. Want to try explaining how his approach has changed?

The Bush campaign would be saying the same thing about anyone it was running against. It has no record to run on, so it's only hope is to smear the other guy. Nearly 200million dollars of smear later, we get you: exactly what they paid for.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh there the right wing conspiracy is again. Will we be mugging people into voting for Nader while we are at it. Oh those wascally Wepublicans :upstare:

:dozey: It's not a conspiracy at all.

The Bush people financing Nader's campaign openly admit to what they're doing. The problem is that it's not illegal to do it, and not many people know about it. They simply found a loophole.

Can you please give a better explanation for why Bush is giving Nader so much money?

Even without this plan, Nader is still like a vote vacuum, sucking votes away from Kerry. Dividing the leftist vote into two large chunks can be nothing but beneficial to Bush.

 

[OCybrManO]

Maybe Bush likes humor, because that's what Nader's campaign is... a joke.

 

[Yuri]

Careful! A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Bush's campaign is actually funding Nader's campaign with the maximum they can legally donate.

Why?

Bush knows, just like we do, that Nader will never win.
But, since Nader leans left like Kerry, it means that people on the left are choosing between Nader and Kerry.

Right now, it's:

49% Kerry
49% Bush
1% Nader

By helping promote Nader, Bush is trying to have this:

10% Nader
40% Kerry
50% Bush

By voting Nader, you're actually being tricked into helping Bush win.

I hate it when people say that.

It shouldn't be this way. People should vote for who they want to, not between two overpowering canidates. For who they want to. Rawr.

But right now, it seems to be taking a vote away from Bush. Because I think I'd rather vote for Bush and Kerry. I'm not completely sure, though.

 

[Neutrino]

Oh there the right wing conspiracy is again. Will we be mugging people into voting for Nader while we are at it. Oh those wascally Wepublicans :upstare:

It's no "conspiracy" that Nader's Campaign helps the republican candidate and hurts the democratic one. This is nothing new and is a pretty well known fact.

Some links on this issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/nader.reut/

Democrats score win in fight over Nader in Florida

Nader was a candidate in 2000 when Bush won Florida by 537 votes to clinch the White House. Analysts said most of Nader's nearly 98,000 votes in Florida would have gone to Democrat Al Gore had Nader not been on the ballot.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-115206-1877r.htm

Democrats vow to fight Nader

after Ralph Nader announced his decision to run for president as an independent, which could rob thousands of critical votes from their party's nominee.

"We all know that Bush is one happy guy today. The White House has encouraged Nader through back channels. They would not be in the White House were it not for Ralph Nader," said California Democratic spokesman Bob Mulholland.

Even so, some political strategists still think that Mr. Nader can cut into the Democratic vote in the fall, especially in major manufacturing states that have been hit hard by job losses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6083885/site/newsweek/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

Regardless, many analysts believed that Nader supporters would more likely choose Gore over Bush.

Most political analysts and experts believe that Nader's presence caused Bush to win the election.

I hate it when people say that.

It shouldn't be this way.

I agree, it shouldn't be that way. But it's a sad reality of today's political environment.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Want to try explaining how his approach has changed?

If you cannot see how Kerry's approach has changed then you really need to brush up on current events. Google his quotes if you must.

Can you please give a better explanation for why Bush is giving Nader so much money?

Id like to see a link.

Even without this plan, Nader is still like a vote vacuum, sucking votes away from Kerry. Dividing the leftist vote into two large chunks can be nothing but beneficial to Bush.

True, but still a vote is a vote. Telling someone to not vote for a canidate of their choice is ridiculous. I wouldnt tell you not to vote for Kerry if you truly felt it was right, and I hope it would be the same for me and Bush.

Maybe Bush likes humor, because that's what Nader's campaign is... a joke.

hahahaha bravo!

 

[willyd]

i put kerry only because i want to get rid of bush, but if i could CHOOSE the president, michael badnarik

www.badnarik.com
www.lp.org/issues

hahaha i just did a research paper on him.... hes umm kinda crazy. Actually i agree with him on a lot of little things but uhh cutting welfare and education...... i dont really think that would help america.... at all.

 

[Neutrino]

If you cannot see how Kerry's approach has changed then you really need to brush up on current events. Google his quotes if you must.

Uh, you do realize that Apos is probably the most politically informed member here at halflife2.net don't you?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Uh, you do realize that Apos is probably the most politically informed member here at halflife2.net don't you?

If he cannot see how Kerry has switched positions then you may wish to change that attitude.

 

[Apos]

If you cannot see how Kerry's approach has changed then you really need to brush up on current events. Google his quotes if you must.

You are the one making the claim, you back it up. but I assure you, it's all bullplop taking quotes out of context and lying about what his actual stances have been. As usual.

He was for giving Bush the authority to threaten war on Saddam. For it because it would pressure Saddam into bowing to the UN. And it worked! But then, before the inspectors could finish the job that was the whole point of that threat (they were two weeks away from declaring, correctly as it turns out, that there were no more active WMD stocks and significant programs), Bush rushed into war in EXACTLY the way he promised he would not when he asked for the original authority. And Kerry throughout opposed that sort of move. Now that we are in the mess we're in, Kerry knows we can't get out he knows we need to win, but that doesn't change how big a screwup Bush has been both in rushing to war before we were ready and mismanaging it in process. When it came time to allocate the funds for the war, Bush and Kerry favored two different bills: Kerry's was the one without lots of Haliburton pork, and it paid for itself by a small reduction in the huge tax slash for the wealthy. Bush threatened to veto that bill. In protest for this ridiculous subterfuge (spending money without taxing for it is just a shell game: all it means is that we borrow more money that we have to pay back in the exact same amount of taxes later on), Kerry voted against Bush's version of the bill.

Where's the flip-flop? Oh yeah, it's bullshit.

 

[seinfeldrules]

One, quick example before bed.

http://interactive.zogby.com/fuse/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=1091

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

* President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: "He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."

Kerry on Meet The Press 8/31/03

MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate…
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t-I don’t know whether we were lied to, I don’t know whether they had the most colossal intelligence failure in history, I don’t know if the politics of the White House drove them to exaggerate. The bottom line is that we voted on the basis of information that was given to us, that has since then been proven to be incorrect. The bottom line is also, Tim, the president had an obligation to put the United States in the strongest position possible. I warned the president in January, “Mr. President, do not rush to war. Take the time to build the coalition. Take the time to exhaust the remedies.” And when he made the decision, I said, “I would have preferred that we took further time to do further diplomacy.” I think we should have.

In Explaining His Vote, Kerry Cited Saddam Hussein's Links To Terrorists As Justification For Military Action. "[Saddam Hussein] has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. … We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

'It would be naïve to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world,' end quote,"

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040910-023811-7208r.htm

Of course all of those quotes were taken out of conext . Especially the one directly above.

 

[hasan]

I too hate it when people say "a vote for nader is a vote for bush", you know why? it's pretty simple.
look, think about saying"
"OMG People!! don't vote bush! he will get another 4 years! are you stupid?"
that would be totaly stupid, because these people WANT bush in office for 4 more years.
same for nader, people who vote nader DON'T WANT kerry in office (most likely). so thre is no point in telling them that, they would just say "how is kerry better than bush?"
There is also a possibility just want to register thier opposition to both kerry and bush.
The only way to convince them vote kerry is give them an "anybody but bush" mentality.

 

[Apos]

It shouldn't be this way. People should vote for who they want to, not between two overpowering canidates. For who they want to. Rawr.

But it has to be this way: it's inevitable. You just don't understand majoritarian politics. No matter what, it is ALWAYS going to come down to basically two sides. Even if there are multiple candidates, it's still always going to come down to a majority faction facing off against minority factions that can only win by combining into a new majority. The only difference between the political systems is when this becomes apparent. In the American system, it's the general election. In other multiparty systems, it isn't apparent until after the election. But the only real difference is that in multiparty systems, there is more uncertainty about exactly what a vote for this or that party will accomplish. I hardly see how that's much better, or even that it's less a case where two overpowering candidates ultimately rule the day.

Politicians are always going to have to fight over the center. That's the whole POINT of having a democracy: to force politicians to battle it out over majoritarian values. Third parties only create confusion, not moral clarity.