TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Not sure I'm gonna vote this year...

Not sure I'm gonna vote this year...

I don't want to vote for Bush, although his heart is in the right place, he just isn't a good leader and is keeping us involved in a conflict without an end.

Kerry, although he would get us out of Iraq seems to be a little shady and might end up just like Clinton where there were so many backdoor deals and private wars that even China ended up with our Nuclear secrets.

So should I just not vote? Maybe I'll just vote libertarian again like I did last election.

http://votenader.org

http://votenader.org/why_ralph/?cid=14

A.B.B.!
(anyone but Bush)

If you can�t decide who to vote for, spoil the ballot paper.

Vote for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX A.B.B.! (anyone but Bush)

What he said.

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX A.B.B.! (anyone but Bush)

This is the kind of attitude which ends up electing the wrong person into office. Research is what I can suggest. Research which each individual is offering, and make sure you check it out completely and think, "what will need to happen for this to occur?". Actually put some thought into who you check off on your ballot other than "A.B.B.".

Vote Nader

Vote Gore!...oh wait nevermind.

If Gore ran, he would probably win

Kucinich was yalls boy! (dead serious)

Why did ya let him go!

Kerry is a turd with nice hair.

What were the democrats in this country thinking, DAYUM!

Research on ABB!!

+1 for Nader. Fuck the two party mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade This is the kind of attitude which ends up electing the wrong person into office. Research is what I can suggest. Research which each individual is offering, and make sure you check it out completely and think, "what will need to happen for this to occur?". Actually put some thought into who you check off on your ballot other than "A.B.B.".

whatever u come up with as far as what each is offering..turns out to be bullshit later on sadly.

We know you want Bush!

i think i would have voted the same

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Fuck the two party mentality.

I'm sure in your country you're probably more able to have a greater variety of choices, but right now the US is a one-party state.

We need to restore the balance of powers, and Nader cannot do that.


Kerry has actually been going to soldiers' funerals, while Bush has been going to fundraisers. He's also more liberal than Clinton and Gore, so he has my support. I don't think he'll be as corrupt as Clinton was, and certainly will be much less corrupt than BUsh.


P.S. Even Nader has said that the troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq or it will collapse into civil war.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade +1 for Nader. Fuck the two party mentality.

So if we group the two parties together into one party and vote against them because "fuck the two party mentality" do we not arrive at a two party mentality once again?

Bush probably has as many backdoors as Clinton had There's no one perfect, however vote for the less eviler of the canidates and that has a chance of winning. VOTE DEA... KERRY

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX A.B.B.! (anyone but Bush)

I would like to see a no party solution. Where you simply vote for a candidate you agree with instead of the party that you're faithful to. Kind of like a party primary. Without parties people would be forced to think about what's best for the country and not be consumed with the desire to seek revenge against the incumbent party.

i think you should implant trancaholics idea, that every candidate decide someone they will "give away" their votes to if they don't win. so you can for example vote nader and if he doesn't win, he "gives" his vote to kerry and none lost anything

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i think you should implant trancaholics idea, that every candidate decide someone they will "give away" their votes to if they don't win. so you can for example vote nader and if he doesn't win, he "gives" his vote to kerry and none lost anything

That's the system in place here in Australia (and so I can only presume in many parts of Europe too). It encourages people to vote for smaller parties and independents as, like you say, even if the candidate doesn't get anywhere near winning, the votes cast still count in some way.

DaveSZ:

quote:

I'm sure in your country you're probably more able to have a greater variety of choices, but right now the US is a one-party state. We need to restore the balance of powers, and Nader cannot do that.

Yeah, it's a quandry. I would like to see Bush ousted as much as the next man, but at the same time it's undemocratic to vote for someone just because you don't like the other candidate. You should (ideally) vote for whoever has the best policies. If you keep on voting for the lesser of two evils, you're always going to be left with just that. The same problems will just keep resurfacing.

On the other hand, given the ineptness of the Bush admin, is it worth going down this path just to make sure he doesn't get a second term? It's a difficult question and one that isn't answered easily. However, given the uncertainties I still have about Kerry, if I were an American voter (and many of you can be glad that I am not ) I'd probably vote for Nader.

quote:

P.S. Even Nader has said that the troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq or it will collapse into civil war.

And I agree with him! I don't understand leftists when they say it's in the best interests of everyone for the coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq. If Iraq is a humanitarian disaster now, it will become 20 times worse should the troops withdraw prematurely. The occupying forces (which includes Australia) have a responsibility to the Iraqi people under the Geneva convention and I don't think it would be right for the troops to be withdrawn before a stable handover can be conducted.

quote:

So if we group the two parties together into one party and vote against them because "fuck the two party mentality" do we not arrive at a two party mentality once again?

Alright.... you got me.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Vote Nader

Nader will not win anyway. US is dominated by Democratic and Republican party. By voting for independent candidate you lose the vote.

Although Nader would be a better choice than these two.

VOTE BUSH!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze VOTE BUSH!!!

Are you a fan of theocracies by any chance?

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze VOTE BUSH!!!

I hope u were sarcastic, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's the system in place here in Australia (and so I can only presume in many parts of Europe too). It encourages people to vote for smaller parties and independents as, like you say, even if the candidate doesn't get anywhere near winning, the votes cast still count in some way. DaveSZ: Yeah, it's a quandry. I would like to see Bush ousted as much as the next man, but at the same time it's undemocratic to vote for someone just because you don't like the other candidate. You should (ideally) vote for whoever has the best policies. If you keep on voting for the lesser of two evils, you're always going to be left with just that. The same problems will just keep resurfacing. On the other hand, given the ineptness of the Bush admin, is it worth going down this path just to make sure he doesn't get a second term? It's a difficult question and one that isn't answered easily. However, given the uncertainties I still have about Kerry, if I were an American voter (and many of you can be glad that I am not ) I'd probably vote for Nader. And I agree with him! I don't understand leftists when they say it's in the best interests of everyone for the coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq. If Iraq is a humanitarian disaster now, it will become 20 times worse should the troops withdraw prematurely. The occupying forces (which includes Australia) have a responsibility to the Iraqi people under the Geneva convention and I don't think it would be right for the troops to be withdrawn before a stable handover can be conducted. Alright.... you got me.

While many of my beliefs are probably closer to Nader's, I'm taking into consideration all the millions of human beings who are being harmed by Bush's policies (and who would suffer more if he won another 4 years).

When I think of them, the choice of Kerry is easy.

America as we've known it will probably cease to exist if Bush is reelected.

quote:

The Last Word W.'s Second Term: If you think the first is bad ... By Robert B. Reich Issue Date: 04.01.04 Print Friendly | Email Article Musings about a second Bush term typically assume another four years of the same right-wing policies we've had to date. But it'd likely be far worse. So far, the Bush administration has had to govern with the expectation of facing American voters again in 2004. But suppose George W. Bush wins a second term. The constraint of a re-election contest will be gone. Knowing that voters can no longer turn them out, and that this will be their last shot at remaking America, the radical conservatives will be unleashed. A friend who specializes in foreign policy and hobnobs with subcabinet officials in the Defense and State departments told me that the only thing that's stopped the Bushies from storming into Iran and North Korea is the upcoming election. If Bush is re-elected, "[Dick] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld are out of the box," he said. "They'll take Bush's re-election as a mandate to wage the 'war on terror' everywhere and anywhere." The second term's defense team will be even harder line than the current one. Colin Powell will go. Condoleezza Rice will take over at the State Department. Rumsfeld will consolidate power as the president's national-security adviser. Paul Wolfowitz will run the Defense Department. Domestic policy will swing further right. A re-election would strengthen the White House's hand on issues that even many congressional Republicans have a hard time accepting, such as the assault on civil liberties. Bush will seek to push "Patriot II" through Congress, giving the Justice Department and the FBI powers to inspect mail, eavesdrop on phone conversations and e-mail, and examine personal medical records, insurance claims, and bank accounts. Right-wing evangelicals will solidify their control over the departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services -- curtailing abortions, putting federal funds into the hands of private religious groups, pushing prayer in the public schools, and promoting creationism. Economic policy, meanwhile, will be tilted even more brazenly toward the rich. Republican strategist Grover Norquist smugly predicts larger tax benefits for high earners in a second Bush administration. The goal will be to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, dividends, and other forms of unearned income and move toward a "flat tax." The plan will be for deficits to continue to balloon until Wall Street demands large spending cuts as a condition for holding down long-term interest rates. Homeowners, facing potential losses on their major nest eggs as mortgage rates move upward, might be persuaded to join the chorus. In consequence, Bush will slash all domestic spending outside of defense. He will also argue that Social Security cannot be maintained in its present form, and will push for legislation to transform it into private accounts. Meanwhile, the few shards of regulation still protecting the environment and the safety of American workers will be eliminated. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will surely step down from the Supreme Court, possibly joined by at least one other jurist, opening the way for the White House to nominate a series of right-wing justices, a list that could easily include Charles Pickering Sr. and William Pryor Jr. After Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns, Bush may well nominate Antonin Scalia for the top slot -- opening the way for Scalia and Clarence Thomas to dominate the Court. Such a court will curtail abortion rights, whittle down the Fourth and Fifth amendments, end all affirmative action, and eliminate much of what's left of the barrier between church and state. Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, meanwhile, will have four more years to fulfill their goal of transforming American democracy into a one-party state. Congressional redistricting across the nation will make Texas' recent antics seem a model of democratic deliberation. Automated voting machines will be easily rigged, with no paper trails to document abuses. Changes in campaign-finance laws will permit larger "hard money" donations by corporate executives and federal contractors who have benefited by Republican policies. Finally, the Federal Communications Commission will allow three or four giant media empires -- all tightly connected to the Republican Party -- to consolidate their ownership over all television and radio broadcasting. Nothing is more dangerous to a republic than fanatics unconstrained by democratic politics. Yet in a second term of this administration, that's exactly what we'll have.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.