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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the motivations behind voting behavior, specifically whether individuals vote for a candidate they like or against one they dislike. It explores the implications of voting strategies in the context of political elections, with references to specific candidates and elections in both France and the United States.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants ponder whether voting is primarily motivated by a preference for a candidate or a rejection of the opponent.
  • One participant shares a personal experience of voting against a candidate they found unacceptable, suggesting that this approach is sometimes necessary despite its perceived drawbacks.
  • Another participant expresses a willingness to vote for a candidate they find acceptable, even if not ideal, indicating a pragmatic approach to voting.
  • There are multiple references to specific candidates, such as Kerry and Bush, with participants expressing mixed feelings about their qualifications and past actions.
  • Some participants argue that voting against a candidate is a valid strategy, while others question the wisdom of such an approach.
  • Discussions arise about the political systems in France and the U.S., with participants questioning how certain candidates emerge as the primary options.
  • Several participants engage in a debate about the personal histories of candidates and how these influence public perception and voting behavior.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of information available to make fully informed voting decisions, leading some to feel compelled to simplify their choices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the motivations behind voting, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree that voting against a candidate can be a legitimate strategy, while others challenge this notion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of such voting behavior.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific political contexts and candidates, which may not be universally understood. There is also a recognition of the limitations in available information that affects decision-making in elections.

How and why will you vote?

  • I will vote for Bush because I like Bush

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • I will vote for Kerry because I like Kerry

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • I will vote for Bush because I don't like Kerry

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • I will vote for Kerry because I don't like Bush

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Undecided/Other

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28
  • #31
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
omin said:
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!
 
  • #33
omin said:
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.
 
  • #34
kat said:
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 someone 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?
 
  • #35
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
14K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K