Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News For or against?

  1. I will vote for Bush because I like Bush

    5 vote(s)
    17.2%
  2. I will vote for Kerry because I like Kerry

    5 vote(s)
    17.2%
  3. I will vote for Bush because I don't like Kerry

    3 vote(s)
    10.3%
  4. I will vote for Kerry because I don't like Bush

    11 vote(s)
    37.9%
  5. Undecided/Other

    5 vote(s)
    17.2%
  1. Sep 8, 2004 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Something I've been pondering - are people who vote for one candidate doing so because they like that candidate or they don't like the other?

    How will you decide your vote (or would you vote if you were able)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 8, 2004 #2
    Of course voting against is stupid. The last election in France, at second turn, we had to choose between Jacques Chirac (former president and notably dommed to jail if he was not elected) and Jean-Marie le Pen (nazi). No other choice, because left (democrats) were so divided, they lost in the first turn. Jacques won, by 80%. Our president is a thief, a liar, a lazzy person.

    Everybody thinks he his a nice guy though. In your country too, it very easy to indentify with Georges for the majority of the people. Is democratie a bad idea ?
     
  4. Sep 8, 2004 #3
    I'm voting for Kerry just so that the Wicked Witch of the East has to wait eight more years for a Presidential run. I can stomach Kerry for four years. Does that count as a "for" or "against"?
     
  5. Sep 8, 2004 #4

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Check your math? Whose doing the other four years? :uhh:

    I voted as a 'for Kerry'. He falls in the category as one of the acceptable candidates. Not my ideal number one choice, but the best in this election round (including candidates that ran in the primaries).

    My number one almost never even makes it through the primaries (Bush the elder being the only exception, but, even then, had to wait 8 years).
     
  6. Sep 8, 2004 #5
    I would assume Kerry/Edwards. Sitting presidents tend to get selected by their party to run for re-election.
     
  7. Sep 8, 2004 #6
    Who is the last president having only one mandat ? Do not all your presidents have 2 mandats anyway ? It looks like a rule from the outside.
     
  8. Sep 8, 2004 #7
    I will vote for Bush because I like him more than Kerrry- but that's not saying much. I don't prefer either over many notable names in politics.
     
  9. Sep 8, 2004 #8
    That is actually enough to make me want to vote Kerry. If Kerry ran on this platform, I would campaign for him.
     
  10. Sep 8, 2004 #9

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Bush, the First. Before him, Carter. Before him, Ford. Before him, Johnson (actually 1 1/4).

    Three of the last six were one term presidents. Johnson won election as an incumbent, but he took office almost at the start of the election season. He could have run again, but chose not to (thanks to public opinion).

    So, 3 of the last 7 eligible to run for re-election successfully won re-election.
     
  11. Sep 8, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree, but I know a lot of people saying they are voting for Kerry because he's not Bush and I've seen a lot of "anybody but Bush" bumper stickers. And in light of some discussions we've had here, the response so far (2-2-1-1-2) surprises me.
     
  12. Sep 8, 2004 #11
    Ooops.... :uhh:
    Forgive my ignorance. I'm sorry :redface:

    I did have to vote against the nazi at the last election in France. I was saying, of course it is stupid. But sometimes you have to it.

    EDIT : this is my opinion only because I know so few about your politics, and because I can't imagine it would be possible to be worse than Georges. :smile:
     
  13. Sep 8, 2004 #12
    humanino, was the opponent really a member of the Nazi party, or was that just some label someone pinned on him? (That is, did he call himself a Nazi?)
     
  14. Sep 9, 2004 #13

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't.

    You have to make a choice between two people. You pick the better of the two. If that choice is based on picking the lesser of two evils, why does that make it stupid ?
     
  15. Sep 9, 2004 #14

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    In the most literal sense, no he isn't a Nazi, but the party he founded, the Front National, has had prominent members who were Waffen SS, Vichy officials, and convicted war criminals. For most of his career, he was a fairly outspoken anti-Semite and racist (he's apparently quieter about these at this point), and he's a great admirer of the Vichy regime and Pétain. His most notorious quote calls the Nazi gas chambers "a mere detail" of WWII.

    Apparently, it is also well-established that Le Pen participated in torture in Algeria (for which he can not be prosecuted due to the general amnesty that was issued for the conflict he was involved in).

    Calling Le Pen a Nazi may not be 100% accurate, but when applied to him, unlike many cases, it's not just a random term of vilification either.
     
  16. Sep 9, 2004 #15
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Now, how is it possible that in the entire country of France you ended up with only those two? I am not sure how your party system works, but how could this have happened?

    Sure, George W. and Kerry have their detractors. But I think it is clear how they could have risen to become their party's top candidate. For the most part, both are likable guys with no wretched past. One was the former Governor of Texas, the other a Senator from Massachusetts.

    So I guess I don't get it.
     
  17. Sep 9, 2004 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    40% of the country hates the first guy and another 40% hates the second. Likeable ? :bugeye:

    One guys past involves alcohol/drug abuse, and escaping from the draft and the guard.

    The other guy said some really nasty things about the US Military that makes most vets' blood boil.

    No wretched past ? :rolleyes:

    What's the most wretched thing you've done ? :uhh:
     
  18. Sep 9, 2004 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I also didn't say I wouldn't ever do it, but maybe I'm an idealist: I want to like the person I'm voting for.
     
  19. Sep 9, 2004 #18
    Well, I am not sure 40% of the country hates either guy on any personal level.

    The drug abuse is unproven, as is the "escaping from the Guard." The other items are hardly wretched.

    Sure, but that hardly compares with torturing Algerians.
     
  20. Sep 9, 2004 #19

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's not what's proven that matters. It's what the people think (or know :wink:).

    PS : He did get out early, didn't he ? Is that allowed ? The Alabama thingy is a whole different story...
     
  21. Sep 9, 2004 #20
    You can't really "know" unless the truth has been demonstrated. As far as what the people think, do you have any polls backing your claim?

    Not sure if he got out early, as I have never looked into it. And going back to your earlier statement about perception being more important than knowledge, I am not sure the average American thinks he got out early.
     
  22. Sep 10, 2004 #21

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, after a few days, the numbers are shaking out a lot more as I expected.
     
  23. Sep 10, 2004 #22
    I'm embarrassed to have finally joined the crowd indicated by the poll, voting for someone only because I don't like the other guy, but I had to become simplistic on one issue to come to my conclusion, because there just isn't enough information to make a fully informed vote on the the issues each candidate stands for.

    Kerry wouldn't have murdered Iraqis, put to death unnecessarily 1000 of our troops and wasted billions on a Operation:Murder Iraqis. That money would have been better spent on many productive things and we'd still be importing the same amount of energy, but at less the cost and Iraqi infrastructure would have had less entropy, and diplomacy would have been the significant example over the last four years versus murder painted up as patriotism and freedom. I doubt 911 would have occurred on Gore's clock, but that's faithful hindsite of a more potentially competent diplomatic team.

    Recently Cheney accuses Kerry of guaranteeing a terror attack upon America if Kerry makes it in to office, but 911 happened on Bushes clock! Because of the murder and theft Bush is responsible for in Iraq, if he makes it in office next term, it logical Arabs will make it a point to attack again, in defense of the murder Bush is responsible for in Arabia. Any human can understand what it means to defend against murdering thugs who invade and steal from your people. It's a universal understanding among humans, less the brainwasing of Nazism/Bushism religious political dogmatism.

    We need diplomatic competence, and Kerry will insure our safety with humanistic efficiency, without acting in fearful and murderous way.
     
  24. Sep 10, 2004 #23

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Polls ? No, of course not. I was making a general statement that everything need not be proven for it to influence people's decisions. It was not specifically about the drug abuse or people's opinion of it.

    Say, do you have a holster on your belt, by any chance ?

    Of course he got out early. Didn't you watch the Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert ? Bush claimed he "worked it out with the Guard" and they let him go, so he could attend Yale.

    Do ordinary people get to work things out with the Military, to be let off early ?

    For someone who seems to know exactly what Kerry was doing and where on some arbitrary day about thirty odd years ago, you seem to know precious little about the Military duty performed by Bush, the man you hold in such high esteem.
     
  25. Sep 10, 2004 #24
    I do not believe I ever cast a vote for the lesser or two evils, or voted for one candidate because I disliked another. Such degradation, think I. I do not believe it is ‘wasting’ a vote to do this, but then, neither do I think it a wasted vote if one simply abstains. Don’t agree? Consider this; in a nation of 25 million voters only 5 people actually go to the polls. Think this will go unnoticed by the politicians? It can backfire though; perhaps instead of getting in touch with their constituents they’ll simply turn up the volume on their rhetoric at their pappy shows, haha.

    For me, I would always vote my conscious, regardless of consequence.
     
  26. Sep 10, 2004 #25
    Remember this statement? "It's not what's proven that matters. It's what the people think (or know)." Well, what do the people think? And how do you know this? Or was your point (ahem) pointless?


    Harvard?

    You have lost track of the topic. We were talking about wretchedness.

    From what I now understand, he requested early leave so he could attend an Ivy League institution. Doesn't sound so "wretched" to me. Do you consider such a request wretched? How does it compare to torturing Algerians?

    Care to quote me? I don't recall making any such claim.

    Whatever. What's your point?

    Only five out of 25 million? Wow! Now THAT is voter apathy. (And consider that four of those five will be the candidates themselves and their wives.)
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook