It continues to amaze me the reports of people either deciding to vote for a particular candidate or recommending to others to vote for a particular candidate "because he has the best chance of winning". I had this argument with a friend a couple of years ago because he was not going to vote for Al Gore (who he despised) instead of Ralph Nader (whose ideas, as nauseating as I may find them, my friend seemed to agree with) "because Gore has a better chance of winning." I realize that there are reasons to compromise, and that many (reasonably) believe that one candidate may be the lesser of two evils, but is there any hope that America can become a country where candidates stress ideas, not hate for the other candidate, and voters vote for ideas and concrete policies rather than sex appeal, momentum and "likeliness to win"?
That'd be great, Padg. And I hope it happens too one day. But first we've got to get rid of the worst president of our lifetimes.
Thanks for providing such a blatant example of my point. I realize that almost every one who posts in this forum hates Bush, and I don't attmept to convert any of you over to my side. I see no problem with disagreement, although I do see problems with people who can't' rationally find compromises when they're available and can't listen or have a rational discussion. I have my issues with Bush as well, but your inability (and it's not just you, of course) to have a discussion without involving your deep-seeded emotions vs. GWB really isn't helping the "cause" of which I wrote.
My "deep seeded" [sic] emotions didn't develop in a vacuum. They are a direct result of the way Bush has governed. Your 'cause' is an honorable one. But it pales next to stopping the bleeding on the most destructive administration in our modern era. Sorry. I care more about the millions of lost jobs, the largest deficit in our nation's history being passed on to future generations and thousands of innocent people being, well, murdered for what I sincerely believe is a political war than about the relative sin of voting for the lesser of evils. Too much of a patriot to be that selfish. This isn't blind partisan behavior on my part. I never voted for Clinton and I didn't vote for Gore. And if Kerry got the nomination and was running against Daddy Bush, Dole, Kemp, McCain or a few other Republicans I wouldn't vote for him either. But this time it is too ******* important.
Once again, your post belongs in another thread. Your emotions have prevented you from participating an apolitical discussion. I didn't ask you for any reasons why you hated Bush. There are infinite other threads that I can go to if I want to read that crap. I am asking a broader question, one which your emotions apparently refuse to allow you to see, looms even larger than this next election since it considers the long-term future of our nation's leadership.
padgett, the inability of some of the Bush supporters here to think rationally about their guy is as big a problem of any of the Democratic, Independent and Moderate Republicans on this board who want Bush to be defeated in November. Anytime a prominent Republican comes out against Bush's foreign policy, or his massive deficits or aspects of the Patriot Act or any number of things they disagree with, well, they are ignored. They may well never have existed. Because, golly!! They don't care for Bush and his policies.
OK, my efforts are futile. I try to enjoy reading the posts of those people with whose views I don't always agree, actually rarely ever agree, because I find it entertaining and I'm open to learning something new. But you people cannot have a rational discussion of anything even semi-political without turning into a Bush-must-go thread, and that's really a shame. The big picture is forever lost here, I guess.
padget: An apolitical discussion of the thread you started, especially in a political season when the nation has not been so divided since Viet Nam at least is virtually impossible. It's even less likely when started by someone who's started two blatantly homophobic threads in the last week during a time when gays are fighting for equal rights. And after an initial post in which you said you were nauseated by Nader's ideas it's pretty funny that you're now soliciting non-partisan posts in a forum called Debate and Discussion. Elections are contests and they are choices. No one ever, EVER votes purely for someone with no thoughts of also voting against the other someone. My "emotions" in this case are entirely based on the "ideas and concrete policies" that you cited above. They have nothing to do with "sex appeal, momentum or likeliness to win" in a Bush-Kerry race and if Nader enters they'll still have nothing to do with sex appeal or momentum. I wouldn't vote for Kerry in a primary, but if he's the nominee I'll happily vote for him against Bush. Based on ideas and policy. p.s. Careful not to fall off that fifty story high horse. You could get hurt.
I regret to inform you that it is quite possible to have views different than yours on homosexuality without being a "homophobe", though I realize namecalling is what requires the least cranial activity, so it's expected. As at least one poster finally recognized in the thread which you cleverly insert to again derail this thread, maybe it's actually possible that I am simply being honest, and I'll let you know that in the obviously irrelevant world outside the D&D forum, I am not alone. March onward with your insults and jokes, as I know you will. I am simply expressing my ideas and thoughts, and I realize how productive you feel it is to ridicule them since they differ from yours. Yes, I am. You see, I am beckoning the return (or birth) of a grandiose fantasmic notion of 'non-partisan debate', where in lieu of name-calling, smearing and incessant rhetoric, people read and consider different points of view. How unrealistic of me. Thanks for the well wishes. And I realize that people who spend significant time in forums such as this one likely are voting on more than sex appeal, momentum, and likelihood to win, but I regret to inform you that we are in the minority, and that I is what I was soliciting opinions about.
We just disagree I guess. I don't consider calling people who consider homosexuality wrong homophobic any different than calling people who think interracial marriages are wrong racist. It's not meant as an insult. Homophobes are homophobic, that's all. I agree with your broader point and my answer in my first post was a sincere one (just as I'm sure you were being sincere and not inflammatory when you said Nader's ideas nauseated you). I'm guessing, based on your previous posts regarding morality, that if Gary Bauer launches a third party bid you'll be voting for him even if it costs Bush the election, no?
Not sure about Bauer. I'd have to read more. My age renders me somewhat ignorant of GB. But I typically test out as almost dead-center between conservative and libertarian, and I like to consider myself something of a moralistic libertarian. By the way, I tend to define "homophobe" as "one who fears gays", which I absolutely do not. Nor do I dislike them. I simply have opinions and beliefs about their lifestyle, which I tried to express.
Don't get so hung up on the extreme connontations of labels. I was just trying to give him a broad notion of what I tend to believe.
I've voted in every election since I was 20, and I've always voted for who most closely aligned with my values. For example, I voted for Nader in 2000 because he was the one candidate who touted the same ideals I have. Same with Bernie Sanders in 2002. In 2004, my reason for voting is much different. I'm not voting FOR someone. I'm voting AGAINST someone.
padge, if you acted less like an elitist and respected others more, maybe you would get better responses. that said, there are people who vote for the issues and the issues are far and wide. Keep in mind, some people vote for "sex" appeal because they want their representative to the outside world to be a strong person in their eyes. The positive and negative component of democracy is it allows the people to make their own decision to vote for whomever they want. Idealistically, people will vote on issues and ideologies, but a majority of California questions whether that is really the main criteria. People are people, and I think you are disregarding a very common trait in human beings and their draw towards aesthetics. Don't tell me for a second that you make every decision in your life based on a purely logical and intellectual basis. also, because of the "horserace" of the election, people sometimes feel inclined to vote for who they think will win, so they can boast about it later. this defeats the purpose, but if you don't understand this mentality, then you've probably never gone to a school where there are elections.
even i'm confused now... i think batman is saying that job 1 to him..the most important thing to him...is that any one of the potential candidates whose name is not George W. Bush is who he would support. that gets down exactly to your question of why people vote how they vote. i think you just don't like his answer.
i have felt for the past 4 presidential elections that people rarely like their choices, they simply vote for the lesser of two evils. this is a reaon that turnout is an embarrassment and why primary voters tend to be on the extremes of the american spectrum. I say american spectrum because in the political grand scheme of things, democrats and republicans are VERY close together.
Padget...let me give you an example of why your example is wrong; it dismisses the possibility that the criticism of bush is legitimate, that the extremism used when describing him is directly related to his actions. Put it this way: I voted for Bush in this past election. I supported the Republican Presidential candidate in all but one of the elections of my adulthood. The only Democratic candidate I supported, Bill Clinton ( 2nd term) was the same man I later came to believe,and say, should have been booted out of office. I am anti abortion. Anti affirmitave action. etc. SUpported the first Gulf War. Are you getting the idea? If I have leaned in any party's direction up till now, it's been Republican. And I have no doubt that Bush is the worst President I have ever heard of. He is a danger to this country, and has made this country a danger to the world. I honestly cannot believe how incompetent he is, and how extreme. I am ashamed I voted for him. If you want to chalk me, and many like me up to just automatic pro-Democrat Bush haters, go ahead, but it would be just another head hole in the sand. There is a reason why people feel this way. Consider the possibility that it's well merited.