Which would you vote for? 63 replies

Please wait...

Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#31 12 years ago

Mccain 3rd, Cliton second, Obama First.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#32 12 years ago

Relander;3548996You should know this better as a member of a party yourself masked_marsoe. There's nothing legitimate in not voting: you're not voicing your opinion and you're not even trying to affect on things in the society, it's like complaining about the smoke that comes from fire in neighbour's house but still you don't lend a hose to put the fire down. It's like voting the one you like the least and if no people or just very few would vote in the elections, in the end all you would get would be a bloody dictatorship or oligarchy. Exception reinforces the rule.

What not voting tells is that people don't like the government, but it doesn't tell the most important: why they don't like it, what they think and what they want from it. There's always at least the most suitable canditate/party for everyone to vote for. I know very well that the US election system is corrupt and undemocratic but not voting won't change it but voting for third party canditates, starting & keeping up public discussion about the issue and getting other people involved, does affect.

Even if third party canditate wouldn't pass, it still tells your dissatisfaction at proper way for the power elite, strenghtens the morale of the small party, you make your duty as a citizen and especially, shows other people that there are other alternatives. People see that the change is possible and start voting again or for the one they truly support. If people just think "oh well, the third party canditate won't pass anyways", nothing will never change. Without faith and will there's not even a shadow of progress

If you don't support (even somewhat) democratic decision-making system at all, then the issue with no voting is different though I don't think there are many people who actually support some form of autocracy either.

You didn't mention anything about legitimacy or even morality when it comes to (not) voting, merely that it was not an option. Not voting is an option, and you should never be forced to vote. I think you should vote, but whether you do or not is up to you.

And after all, if enough people don't vote, then the government has no legitimacy. By not voting, you are showing you want no part in any of it, you don't want any candidate to win.

P.S. Implication that presidential canditates don't have any differences than a smile is very narrow-minded and unthoughtful to put it straight.

Remember that we have this woman as PM 4154-HelenClark.gif

Would she have a chance in hell at winning the US presidency, or even a primary if she was a candidate? Of course not. It doesn't matter that she's a brilliant politician who has kept bizarre coalitions together, and fought off tough opponents while embroiled in corruption scandles, and brought some of the most controversial social changes into law. She just ain't pretty enough.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#33 12 years ago
masked_marsoe;3550767You didn't mention anything about legitimacy or even morality when it comes to (not) voting, merely that it was not an option. Not voting is an option, and you should never be forced to vote. I think you should vote, but whether you do or not is up to you.

By legitimacy I meant "acceptable" and the case with morality is the same as whether not voting is acceptable or not. The reason why not voting is never acceptable, a real option (I didn't mean that people should be forced to vote) is that people aren't voicing their opinions & concerns and not even trying to affect on things but they still complain about all kind of issues: how major enterprises fire employees & the wages are low, how a country takes part in some peacekeeping operation and risks soldiers' lives or how some food products are so expensive and so on. The politics affect into a vast amount of things in people's lives every day: how much you pay for your food, how much you pay or not at all for your health care, what kind of transportation system your municipality has, how much crimes happen around, and so on.

Defending not voting by saying that a person don't want any canditate to win is a same thing as saying that a person doesn't support democratic system but prefers some form of anarchy or autocracy which I don't think is a major case why people don't vote: some people are just so indifferent and overly demanding, even stupid in this case. If people want change, then vote for some other canditate: there definately is a most suitable canditate/party for everyone if people would just bother to acquire factual, versatile information, not just thinking some single issues/persons and take a multilateral view on politics in general. It seems that people expect how all politicians should be some supermen who should agree with them 100% and couldn't do or say "wrong". This is like painting a horizon, seeing a day dream. We need moderacy and pragmatism.

If the elections would fail all over again as enough people wouldn't vote, all that would follow is political chaos which would reflect into a society as a whole by negative way. Where the passivity & pessimism of people starts, there working democracy ends and where it ends, there starts an autocracy or anarchy. Would these options be better? I think not and I would say that even most of the people who don't vote think the same way.

Would she have a chance in hell at winning the US presidency, or even a primary if she was a candidate? Of course not. It doesn't matter that she's a brilliant politician who has kept bizarre coalitions together, and fought off tough opponents while embroiled in corruption scandles, and brought some of the most controversial social changes into law. She just ain't pretty enough.

So you're seriously implying that all it takes is charisma to win presidential elections in the United States? That's ridiculous, it takes a lot more than that and we both know it.

Besides, how do you know if she would succeed in the US presidential race or not? Hillary Clinton lacks quite a lot of charisma but she still gets high ratings at the polls. I dare to say that John Kerry was at least little more charismatic than George W. Bush with his clear flaws which I think we all know but Kerry still suffered a major defeat for him. Political issues, visible way to represent them and other personal attributes are still in decisive role in the US presidential elections, there's no single thing that makes the difference.

People can choose not to vote, it's their right as a citizen but by doing so they can't or don't want to see the serious consequences of it and they don't really care what happens in a society, thus giving an almost open warrant for politicians to do as they wish. Moreover if people don't vote or take any other significant part in a society, they shouldn't complain about how the things are in a society as they haven't even tried to affect on things.

P.S. Obama is not a muslim and I have no reason not to trust on Obama in this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Family_and_religious_life

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp




Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#34 12 years ago

I would vote for Obama, easily.

To me, Obama seems like someone who has enough of a community background to be a president. You don't have to be a senator for 25 years just to be a good president, basically you get your name through what your policies are and what you have done in the past. Obama is more than qualified if people can look past his brief senatorial career and vote for him because of his values.

As much as I would like to vote a woman into the presidency, Hillary Clinton seems a bit too radical in her ideology. Yes, she has the money to win, the background to win, and the name to win, she is still a woman, and for that reason alone she won't win. The same could be said for Obama, but I'd bet my money on a black man beating a woman into the head office.

The only candidate for the democrats that has an easy chance of winning is John Edwards. I liked him from the '04 elections, but because he was out of politics for 4 years, it has hurt his stock. Now, if it was Edwards for president with Obama or Clinton as his VP, then the democrats would have a chance of winning.

Right now, if he runs, Chuck Hagel would be a very intriguing candidate for the Republicans. As for now, Giuliani is my favorite, but I would never vote a mayor of a city into the White House. Especially when he gained his fame from a terrorist attack (therein, someone caused his name to come up, he didn't make a name for himself).




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

566,404 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,175 Posts

1,337 Threads

#35 12 years ago

I would go with either Duncan Hunter or Rudy if it came to it


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#36 12 years ago

Can I say it?

*Looks around*

AL GORE!




BladeV2

Twisted God

50 XP

7th April 2004

0 Uploads

534 Posts

0 Threads

#37 12 years ago

I'd vote for him... Which reminds me... Nader's not on the poll... damn... Between Obama, McCain, Hilary, and Guiliani, I don't think any of them is incredibly electable. I get the feeling Guiliani and McCain are a bit too moderate to get a strong conservative backing, but with the current political climate, it might be good. As for Obama and Clinton, I think a significant percentage (say 5-15%) would find them objectionable based on prejudice. I think Edwards and Biden have the best shots for Democrats, and McCain for the GOP.




Koehler

BF2142 rank in Avatar

50 XP

7th August 2006

0 Uploads

593 Posts

0 Threads

#38 12 years ago

im sorry but if hilary is elected president im just going to have to move out of the country and Mexico is definetly not where im going, so Canada get ready. My reason? ill be straight forward. i really dont want to have a woman president. it will only make us look even worse this is my pick right here..... deangoesmad2xh2.th.jpg YEAAAAAAAAA!




GOD111

I Am Teh God

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,967 Posts

0 Threads

#39 12 years ago
Saquist;3546668 Obama is a smoker...Theres something about the weakness of a smoker that doesn't sit with me.

Wow, talk about judging people:lol:




DarkstuareZ

KRS ONE - Promise Land

50 XP

29th January 2004

0 Uploads

1,469 Posts

0 Threads

#40 12 years ago

I don't think we're quite ready for a woman, and she hates video games, screw her.

I'm gonna vote for Obama.

It'd be funny if Jon Stewart ran.

Delta Force AL GORE!

Can he run? I'd vote for him if he did.