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

News Republicans NOT voting for bush?

  1. Jul 11, 2004 #1
    If you're a hard-core republican, and are not going to vote bush, or even if you're just iffy on it, Would like to know why(ok it's pretty obvious), and if you're voting Kerry, do you think he's a better candidate, or just a better alternative?

    Personally, I'm for anyone BUT Bush. And while I don't feel Kerry is exactly JKF caliber, I KNOW he can do a better job than Bush. Unfortunately, I also think that Kerry is going to loose. I just hope we can make it through another 4 years without going to war.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 11, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, several big name libertarian bloggers who voted for Bush in 2000 have said they are not going to vote for him this time. But that doesn't mean they will vote for Kerry. There is a Libertarian candidate, too.
  4. Jul 11, 2004 #3
    ...who might interfere with this election process.

    I'm an independent, but I'm still voting for Kerry, solely because Bush needs to be out of office before he does even more damage (he's taken over two nations, embarrassed all of us, etc., etc.).

    I feel that a Libertarian or Independent candidate could take some votes away from Kerry, which is why he's been saying that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". This is actually very true, and if all Nader voters voted for Kerry (who is most likely their second choice behind Nader), Bush would definitely lose... again. However, I still think it's important that Independent/Libertarian voters should be able to vote for who they want without being pressured... it was probably wrong for Kerry to pressure them into something that they probably shouldn't be doing.
  5. Jul 11, 2004 #4
    Here's the break-down -

    A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

    A vote for Bush is a vote for Hillary (who hopes to run in 2008)

    A vote for Badnarik (Libertarian) is a vote for Kerry

    A vote for Kerry is a vote for Kerry.

    So --- I'm voting for Nader since I think Bush is doing a good job AND because I don't want to see Hillary in the Oval Office in 2008.
  6. Jul 11, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i am also an independent but voting for Kerry for the same reason. i think many people who are hardcore republicans will always vote for their "team" regardless if the person is qualified to be president-which bush jr is not. but in their reasoning, bush is closer to their ideals then kerry-despite his idiotic decision making-thus they will continue to vote for him.

    i am curious to know which part of the country you are from? i suppose living in Portland OR (super duper left) really had me convinced he has a decent chance! as for war, no hoping about it, we are having a war.
  7. Jul 11, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ummm...this is confusing.

    "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush
    A vote for Bush is a vote for Hillary (who hopes to run in 2008)"

    Doesn't this mean that a vote for Nader is a vote for Hillary (who hopes to run in 2008) ?
  8. Jul 11, 2004 #7
    Got ya ---

    A vote for Nader is in fact two votes --- one for Bush in 2004 and one for Hillary in 2008.

    Thanks for the correction.
  9. Jul 11, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm a moderate republican. I don't like Bush and at this point do not expect to vote for him. I think he's a buffoon - he's got a lot in common with Clinton in that respect. On specific issues, he's latched on to religion too much. I'm not sure if he's actually religious or just wants to appear that way, but either way, I don't like what he's doing with it. I think he's bad for science. His Mars thing and hydrogen thing are flawed economically and scientifically.

    Kerry, I must admit I don't know much about, but I don't get good vibes from him. I saw a commercial tonight where he used that old crack about building firehouses in Iraq while closing them here. Idiocy - stale idiocy at that.

    So who does that leave? I don't know.

    edit: re, odds. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bush's re-election is virtually a foregone conclusion. Clinton was right about one thing: 'its the economy, stupid.'
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2004
  10. Jul 11, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    If you really want to keep Hilary out of office in 2008, the best thing you can do is vote for Kerry. If he is president, he will get the nomination in 2008.

    I seem to echo a fairly common sentiment when I say that I don't particularly like either guy. I've read through a good deal of Kerry's economic platform and it makes no sense to me at all. It reads like nothing but counterproductive pandering designed to get him more votes. Then again, what else is he supposed to do? Any candidate that proposed an honest, non-partisan solution (that wasn't specifically tailored to a particular demographic) to any of this nation's problems would have little to no chance of receiving any votes.

    Still, Bush is an idiot. I can barely stand to look at the guy. When I look into the eyes of most human beings, I can see some shred of intelligent thought clearly going through their mind. Bush's eyes look as vacant as the eyes of a salamander; I see nothing in them beyond basic emotions and gradeschool-level reasoning. He is too simple of a man and has too much conviction to run this country. When a president is always 100% certain that he is correct and will listen to no dissenting opinions, what has happened to democracy? The only think I like about Kerry is that he has changed his stances every now and then. This country needs a president who can admit when he is wrong.
  11. Jul 11, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here we go again...deciding on the lesser of two evils.

    How, with the number of people in this country, can we not come up with a single viable candidate for the office of president??
  12. Jul 12, 2004 #11
    I don't know, but McCain was damned close and Bush somehow beat him, so with that in mind, I'd say stupidity at this point in time.
  13. Jul 13, 2004 #12
    man, this could be so easily solved by representative democrasy...
  14. Jul 13, 2004 #13
    Our government has been stable for over 200 years. If it ain't broke...
  15. Jul 13, 2004 #14
    ... make sure you get the soft- and hardware updates, system fault checks and alterations to keep it going...

    much smarter and better democrasys (democrasywise anyway) have already been established... the fact that it's a 200 year old system actually says everything i need to say...
  16. Jul 14, 2004 #15
    RE: "... make sure you get the soft- and hardware updates, system fault checks and alterations to keep it going..."

    We do. We have this Amendment process where the Constitution can be changed if the need arises. And so far, we have only had 20+ amendments in 200 years. And during that time the United States has become the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world.

    So which country has the better form of government, and what has this country accomplished with this government?

    You can talk all you want, but the American form of government is held in very high esteem.
  17. Jul 14, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought we had a representative democracy? (aka "republic")
  18. Jul 14, 2004 #17
    I guess Balkan must have slept through that course when he attended Electoral College.
  19. Jul 14, 2004 #18

    That is our system.
  20. Jul 15, 2004 #19
    John McCain for president!

    blah, that didn't happen, and will never happen, oh well. He's a good guy. Too honest for his own good though.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook