Topic: Statement of the obvious ITT (Read 15469 times)

Min · « **Reply #50 on:** January 06, 2008, 07:58:00 PM »

Gee, I wonder who I should vote for if I want CHANGE.

BizB · « **Reply #51 on:** January 06, 2008, 08:12:43 PM »

Your local 7-11 clerk?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2008, 01:21:22 PM »

Kodos.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #53 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:11:37 PM »

Here is the answer

Leonidas · « **Reply #54 on:** January 16, 2008, 01:51:59 AM »

My first choice would be Ron Paul. He's the candidate I agree most with (excluding most notably the religious beliefs). It's too bad that Richardson dropped out of the race, because he was my second choice. I guess that honor goes to Obama, despite his lack of political experience. I definitely would not want to see Guiliani or Romney win, because those guys just seem like a couple of idiots, and Huckabee just seems to be riding on his religious values and doesn't seem to offer much substance. McCain and Edwards both seem like such impotent candidates in that they're well-known enough that people recognize them and see them a lot in news coverage, but they just don't seem to make much of a difference in their races, and no one is really listening to them beyond just one of their main issues: anti-torture for McCain and the environment for Edwards. Fred Thompson does not seem to have any sort of ideas of his own, and seems to just be giving vague answers on his positions while molding them to reflect the positions of his opponents. And then there's Hillary Clinton. I find it laughable that she's campaigning for change when by the end of Bush's tenure, there will have been a Clinton or a Bush in the White House for the past 20 years. I don't think another Clinton is the answer, especially a more conservative one.

My call is that a Democrat, probably Obama, is going to get elected, and the pendulum will swing in the Democrats' favour until the country gets tired of that in about eight years and votes a Republican back in. Ah, the illusion of change.

BizB · « **Reply #55 on:** January 16, 2008, 07:31:37 AM »

I'm sorry. I couldn't read your post beyond where you said Obama. How can you possibly go from Paul to Obama? They are completely opposite ends of just about every spectrum.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #56 on:** January 16, 2008, 10:43:58 AM »

I go from Paul to Obama as well.
Paul is the one whom I identify most with - individualism, civil liberties, no plundering, etc... But as I said before, this would have to be a much different country in order for someone like him to actually be elected. So at this point, you're already in a situation where you're not going to wholeheartedly agree with anyone on every issue. And if you've already admitted that you're trying to choose the lesser of several evils, then to me Obama seems much, much less evil.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #57 on:** January 16, 2008, 03:10:04 PM »

I identify most with George Phillies after my preliminary research, but it is still way to early.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #58 on:** January 16, 2008, 05:32:13 PM »

If voting could fix the system they'd make it illegal. Money still rules.

Leonidas · « **Reply #59 on:** January 16, 2008, 05:34:50 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 16, 2008, 07:31:37 AM

I'm sorry. I couldn't read your post beyond where you said Obama. How can you possibly go from Paul to Obama? They are completely opposite ends of just about every spectrum.

It's not easy, but I just sure as hell don't want Guiliani, Romney, Clinton, or Huckabee, and Edwards and McCain seem like impotent candidates. There is a very wide margin, however, between Paul as my first choice and Obama as my second. Though on second thought, my second choice would not be Obama, but probably the Libertarian Party's candidate, which seems like George Phillies. Obama would probably instead be my fourth choice, immediately behind myself.

I probably agree more with Phillies than with Paul, but I'm close enough in agreement with Paul on most of the issues that he'd be my first choice as he stands the better shot of getting elected. Granted, electability is certainly not the largest factor in determining my choice of candidate, but it does carry some weight; just enough to tip favour towards Paul.

12AX7 · « **Reply #60 on:** January 16, 2008, 05:36:41 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 16, 2008, 05:32:13 PM

If voting could fix the system they'd make it illegal. Money still rules.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #61 on:** January 16, 2008, 06:40:54 PM »

Quote from: Leonidas on January 16, 2008, 05:34:50 PM

It's not easy, but I just sure as hell don't want Guiliani, Romney, Clinton, or Huckabee, and Edwards and McCain seem like impotent candidates. There is a very wide margin, however, between Paul as my first choice and Obama as my second. Though on second thought, my second choice would not be Obama, but probably the Libertarian Party's candidate, which seems like George Phillies. Obama would probably instead be my fourth choice, immediately behind myself.

I probably agree more with Phillies than with Paul, but I'm close enough in agreement with Paul on most of the issues that he'd be my first choice as he stands the better shot of getting elected. Granted, electability is certainly not the largest factor in determining my choice of candidate, but it does carry some weight; just enough to tip favour towards Paul.

Which is the problem with the system anymore.

It's not about voting for the best candidate. It's an exercise in placing your bet on who you think has the best chance of winning among the candidates you hate the least.

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

As I always have, I will vote for the person whom I think will do the best job, even if that person has the least chance of getting elected ever.

Because I refuse to be party to electing someone that shouldn't be there.

To be fair, Leo, I'm not bashing you or your logic in your methodology.

I'm bashing the system that makes this the only way for people like us to feel like our vote counts for anything anymore, even if it's just to fool ourselves a little bit.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #62 on:** January 16, 2008, 06:44:01 PM »

I know my vote doesn't count, so I vote my conscience and exercise my right to bitch afterwards.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #63 on:** January 16, 2008, 06:49:01 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on January 16, 2008, 06:44:01 PM

I know my vote doesn't count, so I vote my conscience and exercise my right to bitch afterwards.

Ditto. I will not be part of the problem.

12AX7 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 16, 2008, 06:49:43 PM »

Me either. Which leads us to the 2nd Amendment. . .

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #65 on:** January 16, 2008, 07:03:36 PM »

Voting from the rooftops?

Leonidas · « **Reply #66 on:** January 16, 2008, 07:39:11 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on January 16, 2008, 06:40:54 PM

Which is the problem with the system anymore.

It's not about voting for the best candidate. It's an exercise in placing your bet on who you think has the best chance of winning among the candidates you hate the least.

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

As I always have, I will vote for the person whom I think will do the best job, even if that person has the least chance of getting elected ever.

Because I refuse to be party to electing someone that shouldn't be there.

To be fair, Leo, I'm not bashing you or your logic in your methodology.

I'm bashing the system that makes this the only way for people like us to feel like our vote counts for anything anymore, even if it's just to fool ourselves a little bit.

I do agree with what you're saying, as it's how I feel about voting myself. I tend to always vote according to my ideals, so if no candidate fits them to my satisfaction, I just simply vote for someone I can trust and write myself in. I'm no stranger to what most people would call "wasting my vote", but the opportunity I see with Paul strikes me more than the slightly closer ideological similarities between me and Phillies. I'm ideologically similar enough to Paul (excluding the religious beliefs, which I think with him are pretty much a non-issue) that I'd have to say he fits them to my satisfaction, and I would feel no guilt or shame towards myself for voting for him under any circumstance. Ideology is still unquestionably the main factor in my decision on who to vote for, but if two candidates fit my ideals satisfactorily, then and only then does electability become a factor in my decision.

I know that your post wasn't against me in any way, but I just wanted to clarify the role electability played in my decision, because at first I think I made it seem like it carried weight with the factor of ideology, when in fact it carries weight only after ideology is considered, as a tiebreaker of sorts.

And yeah, the system does suck. That Paul was excluded from the Fox News Republican debates even after he won their poll (which I believe was one of their criteria for being admitted; I believe they later discredited their own poll), shows that any libertarian, socialist, etc. candidate will just be ignored my the media and dismissed as a fringe fluke. This is a severe hindrance in the campaigns of those candidates.

ivan · « **Reply #67 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 16, 2008, 07:03:36 PM

Voting from the rooftops?

Good Lord!

The candidate with the highest rooftops wins.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Statement of the obvious ITT (Read 15469 times)

12AX7

12AX7