Is voting based on liking a candidate or disliking the other?

[russ_watters]

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)?

 

[humanino]

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 ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

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"?

 

[BobG]

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"?

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).

 

[JohnDubYa]

Check your math? Whose doing the other four years?

I would assume Kerry/Edwards. Sitting presidents tend to get selected by their party to run for re-election.

 

[humanino]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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"?

That is actually enough to make me want to vote Kerry. If Kerry ran on this platform, I would campaign for him.

 

[BobG]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course voting against is stupid.

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.

 

[humanino]

So, 3 of the last 7 eligible to run for re-election successfully won re-election.

Ooops... :uhh:
Forgive my ignorance. I'm sorry

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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?)

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course voting against is stupid.

I agree...

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 ?

 

[plover]

was [Le Pen] really a member of the Nazi party, or was that just some label someone pinned on him?

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the most part, both [George W. and Kerry] are likable guys with no wretched past.

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

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 ?

What's the most wretched thing you've done ? :uhh:

 

[russ_watters]

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 ?

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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

Well, I am not sure 40% of the country hates either guy on any personal level.

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

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

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

Sure, but that hardly compares with torturing Algerians.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

PS : He did get out early, didn't he ? Is that allowed ? The Alabama thingy is a whole different story...

 

[JohnDubYa]

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

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?

PS : He did get out early, didn't he ? Is that allowed ?

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, after a few days, the numbers are shaking out a lot more as I expected.

 

[omin]

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 into 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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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?

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.

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?

For someone who seems to know exactly what Kerry was doing and where on some arbitrary day about thirty odd years ago,

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

you seem to know precious little about the Military duty performed by Bush, the man you hold in such high esteem.

Whatever. What's your point?

Consider this; in a nation of 25 million voters only 5 people actually go to the polls.

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.)

 

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry wouldn't have murdered Iraqis, put to death unnecessarily 1000 of our troops and wasted billions on a Operation:Murder Iraqis.

No, but he might have burned their villages, or shot them in the back, or opened fire on them with fifty caliber weapons. :)

The rest of your post is just illogical ranting.

 

[Gokul43201]

What the #^@* is wrong with you ? Why are you trying to make a stupid brawl out of a harmless non-partisan post ?

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?

Yes, I remember that statement. It was in response to your demand for proof of this and that. All I'm saying is that the people don't need proof.

Harvard?

Yeah, I always get the Harvard and Yale mixed up. That was a slip of the ... brain.

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

Yes...and you possesses an absolute scale for that ? Also you said that Bush and Kerry are likeable people...and I objected to that out of the feeling that the country is much more polarized now than before.

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?

Do you enjoy twisting things like this ? I'm sure nothing Bush does will sound wretched to you. And why do you say "Ivy League Institution" as though that makes him more deserving than someone else who goes to a non-Ivy League Institution ? Everyone knows Bush was a lousy student. I never said his early discharge was by itself a wretched thing.

All I was trying to say is that a large number of people believe that Bush used his father's influence to dodge the draft and the guard. And in their opinions, that might be a wretched thing.

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

Care to read ? I never said you made any such claim !

Why don't you just simmer down eh ? I simply suggested that Kerry and Bush were not very likeable, and compared to say, a McCain or Gephardt, these people had relative more wretched pasts.

The primary system ensures that a nominee will be liked by about half the country. In this case, both nominees are detested by a large fraction of the other half.

<I'm just stating my opinion on this here. Please don't attack me again..or ask for proof...it's too tiresome.>

 

[JohnDubYa]

I will drop the first two matters, as I think we are going nowhere.

Yes...and you possesses an absolute scale for that?

I think we need some understanding about what constitutes wretchedness, especially since I originally compared our two candidates with an apparent Nazi who tortured Algerians. Come on, how can anyone say that ASKING for an early release to attend an Ivy League school compares to anything like that?

Also you said that Bush and Kerry are likeable people...and I objected to that out of the feeling that the country is much more polarized now than before.

I specifically said likeable on a personal level. Both have unpopular politics, but no one that knows either one has ever said (to my knowledge) that they were mean-spirited or nasty. How about "amiable"?

Do you enjoy twisting things like this?

What twist? What is so twisted about my statement that he asked for an early withdrawal to attend an Ivy League institution? As far as torturing Algerians is concerned, read the previous posts -- that is exactly the benchmark that started this argument.

I'm sure nothing Bush does will sound wretched to you.

I think I have been more than fair with John Kerry as well. I specifically stated he did nothing wretched in his past that would compare with the French Nazi.

And why do you say "Ivy League Institution" as though that makes him more deserving than someone else who goes to a non-Ivy League Institution?

It had nothing to do with whether he should have received the early release, but it has everything to do with his motivation to request the early release. Obviously if Abilene Christian University offered him a chance to attend college, he would be less likely to apply for early release than if Harvard offered.

Everyone knows Bush was a lousy student. I never said his early discharge was by itself a wretched thing.

And being a lousy student has what to do with this issue? Or is that another example of how wretched he was?

Care to read ? I never said you made any such claim !

Oh really? "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."

Just who is that someone?

The problem is that you have completely lost track of the topic. Originally someone voiced an opinion that one of their candidates was a professed Nazi (or something to that effect) that had killed Algerians. The other had broken laws that would land him in jail if he didn't stay elected. Those are pretty bad apples. I asked how that was possible, and offered Bush and Kerry as two people who did not have particularly wretched pasts. And in return you post every pecadillo that Bush was ever accused of commiting as an example of wretchedness, as if any of them could hope to compare to the acts committed by the French politicians.

So keep the topic in focus, will ya'?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not going to argue this...but in my opinion, among the field of possibilities, Bush and Kerry were likely the pair that raise the strongest negative emotions from the people. I'm not comparing them to the choices the French made. I'm only comparing them to the other choices America could have made. Americans really didn't have any terrible nasties among the possible choices.

I said "For someone who seems to know..."

 

[JohnDubYa]

I guess we agreed more than we originally thought.

Americans really didn't have any terrible nasties among the possible choices.

That is all I was trying to say.

 

[omin]

No, but he might have burned their villages, or shot them in the back, or opened fire on them with fifty caliber weapons. :)

The rest of your post is just illogical ranting.

Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies during these last few years. It's not perfect, but it isn't promoting an against the world opinion in a murderous go it alone theiving attitude.

Sorry, you're words are being used like Bushes propaganda artists. There main signature is to try to rerepresent the physics of a situation with a antithesis theory (BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PHYSICS OF BUSHES ACTIONS!), which confuses everything and drains the meaning common understanding has established. Freedom is not freedom to murder and steal. Patriotism is not an offensive lifestyle. Defense is not offensive. Intentional collateral damage that is this whole war is TERRORISM! Diplomacy is superior leadership not killing!

Bush doesn't call it like it is and can't handle the truth. The world doesn't want his physically terrorizing obvious example. We want a physicaly diplomatic example running the presidency, not a hotheaded murderer! That alone instills fear in the population! That's his leadership! But that isn't what people want! Guaranteed human instict, human will and superior intelligence will remove him, with diplomacy not by his murdering style. WATCH! You'll see sane Americans in action. We are good people, not stupid and murderous like Bush wants to represent us in Arabia, as well as the fanatics that do exist in Arabia.

In principle in reaction to 911, Bush is nothing but a petty Hitler and his followers are like the people we just didn't understand in Germany, why did those Germans alow it we ask today? THEY ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT BUSH! Petty Nazis for a petty Hitler who both took advantage of situations that needed action, but not murderous action. Diplomacy was our answer, not murder. They don't want you to think diplomacy works, that's why they're answer is murder cloaked as defense!

Bush is a coward who acts out in fear. That's why his plan is murder and theft. His terror is a physical example of fear, murder and cowardice and insures a defensive payback (Bush want's you to think Arabs don't have a defensive nature of love for their people and nation. He wants you to think there defense is lunacy and terrorism!)

We of intelligence know humans defends themselves and it's honorable, not a form of insanity (like Bush want's you to think!), so we promote the superior theory which is far more efficient, cooperative and progressive: Diplomacy. This trait is far more prevalent in Kerry's theory and attitude.

Diplomacy will set a superior example, which is a different insurance plan for America. And that's what I see in Kerry. He's the better man for president. You can tell this man will talk to people rather than pull out a gun and kill anybody he don't like. We need a man who has intelligence and knows how to talk, not a proven coward with fear who murders the childlen, mothers and defenders of Iraq for billionaire chump change.

 

[kat]

Recently Cheney accuses Kerry of guaranteeing a terror attack upon America if Kerry makes it into office.

Really..."guaranteeing"?? Oh MY, could you please give me the in context quote of this...I'm just Duhyyying to read it!

 

[kat]

Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies.

Oh, I must have missed both Kerry's theory and what it implies...could you please fill us in. Oh, and leave out the hyperbole this time, it makes for a far better reading.

 

[omin]

Oh, I must have missed both Kerry's theory and what it implies...could you please fill us in. Oh, and leave out the hyperbole this time, it makes for a far better reading.

It's in the first paragraph. It's diplomatic vs. go it alone. It's general tone which is a natural tone for a leader. That's all I'm looking at. The specifics will condense from that.

Do I want somone who's general tone is murder or or whos general tone is diplomatic? I trust the intelligent one.

Leave out the hyperbole? Come on, that personality, that's vigor, that's spice! It's fitting for this forum, right?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies during these last few years. It's not perfect, but it isn't promoting an against the world opinion in a murderous go it alone theiving attitude.

Sorry, you're words are being used like Bushes propaganda artists. There main signature is to try to rerepresent the physics of a situation with a antithesis theory (BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PHYSICS OF BUSHES ACTIONS!),

Again, as long as you just rant I am not going to bother responding to your posts. Physics? Sheeesh!