Go Back   TeamTalk > Off Topic > Off Topic Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2004, 09:33 AM
Knoxes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I was wrong

to suggest that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting against a candidate. Y'all were right. It's not the same.

But I will stand by my statement that you should vote with the party that best represents your belief system, regardless of their electability (Is that a word?).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
aprgriggs aprgriggs is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Boat: None
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 570
Send a message via AIM to aprgriggs Send a message via Yahoo to aprgriggs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxes
to suggest that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting against a candidate. Y'all were right. It's not the same.

But I will stand by my statement that you should vote with the party that best represents your belief system, regardless of their electability (Is that a word?).
Even if that means putting the wrong man into office?????
__________________
www.houstonmastercraft.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2004, 10:22 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,598
Voting for a third party candidate because it's voting according to conscience is a great thing to be able to do, but in a really close race, trying to send a message by voting this way is like preaching to the choir. It can definitely put the wrong person in office. The hard decision becomes: should I vote for my candidate or for the one who will be less bad for the affected area (since it works this way in local and state-wide elections, too).

I think voting for a third-party candidate makes more of a difference if the race is not very close. I used to think the primaries were for eliminating the candidate(s) who have little chance of elected. Now, I think it's just a way for the major parties to trot out their agenda and change it to fit their perception of what the people have told them that they want or need. Reminds me of the title of a song- TMIU ATGA (They Make It Up As They Go Along)

Remember, Kerry was given little chance of surviving the primaries and look where he is now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2004, 10:29 AM
Knoxes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by aprgriggs
Even if that means putting the wrong man into office?????
I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for someone who doesn't represent at least the majority of my issues. If the wrong man is elected, then I've done what I can and the people have spoken - or at least the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2004, 10:38 AM
Ric's Avatar
Ric Ric is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Boat: 2005 Prostar 197 / MCX
Location: _______Wastebasket_________________________
Posts: 13,209
Tell me I'm wrong Jim, but I think that no matter who the dems put up this year, this race would be just as close. There is a contingent of people out there who plain HATE Bush and they will vote for whoever (D) you put in front of them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX.X-30 fan
Say yes to cheap beer---- no to ethanol.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2004, 10:51 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,598
I don't think it would be as close it they had Dean as their guy, but it was close with Gore, too. The media polls have shown that they aren't accurate anymore and need to be changed. I was watching TV this AM and a guy from Newsweek said the polls didn't work. If someone votes for someone, it's because they agree with the candidate's views and plans. There is a big difference between this and just voting against someone, who may be the lesser of two evils. For this, you don't need to agree with them, you just need to disagree less with them than the other guy.

For a long time, my dad would ask, "Is this the best we have?" I though he was just being a pessimist. I was wrong.

I guess we can be happy with the fact that we aren't ordered to vote a certain way or have to vote anyway, even though there is only one candidate. I'm stilll not too geeked on the fact that the guy with the most money behind him is the one the party sends as their candidate. The Campaign Fund Reform Bill obviously isn't working, since George Soros has fired up for more that $26 Million and another guy more than $20M, all for Kerry. This, the guy who wants to help the middle income families. There are some loopholes that need to be closed. For once, I would like to see a candidate that will help the country, not his/her party.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2004, 10:52 AM
Knoxes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric
Tell me I'm wrong Jim, but I think that no matter who the dems put up this year, this race would be just as close. There is a contingent of people out there who plain HATE Bush and they will vote for whoever (D) you put in front of them.
How ironic. Lemme quote, umm, myself

Quote:
That conservatives are still supporting Bush. He's abandoned the principles of the GOP - fiscal responsibility, small federal government, personal liberties and hands off foreign policy. He seems to have found some ground that neither party would whole-heartedly endorse.

Tax cuts and massive deficits, grossly inflated federal government, the Patriot Act and taking on a humanitarian effort halfway across the world? I don't get it. This is not your father's GOP.

- me, 10/20/2004
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2004, 11:16 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,598
One other thing to consider, the President (the office, not the person) can't send money and troops somewhere just because it wants to. He has to go through Congress for approval. For someone(ie., a senator) who voted in agreement with the President's intention to involve the US in something, then campaign against the President based on the same things he voted for, saying it's wrong to do this, is BS. If it took him a year to come to the "I voted for it, before I voted against it" stage, what will he do if he's President? He can't just change his mind midstream in a position like that. He needs to consider, based on his knowledge and the information from his advisors, any possible future results from the decisions he makes and stick to them, being honest about why and how he came to make them in the first place. If he is definitely wrong in making the decision(s) in question, history will show this and the future administrations will be able to learn from it. I know it sounds like a big, expensive, inhumane experiment, but isn't this what has happened over the centuries?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2004, 11:20 AM
Ric's Avatar
Ric Ric is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Boat: 2005 Prostar 197 / MCX
Location: _______Wastebasket_________________________
Posts: 13,209
I already answered that stuff knoxes.

I'm willing to look back & admit that dole excited nobody, but what's got the left so incensed is that GW is a genuinely good guy. They HATE that. It's sick but funny that an honest guy is portrayed as evil in this day. These people are voting against bush, not FOR his opponent. That's what I'm getting at. They could have put roger clinton up there and gotten the same result (in my humble opinion)

What would you (or your candidate of choice) done given a declining clinton economy........ AND a spineless attack on our economic system killing thousands and costing us millions of jobs and a stock market collapse like nothing we've seen? Have you forgotten?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX.X-30 fan
Say yes to cheap beer---- no to ethanol.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2004, 11:24 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,598
They also used our own stock market to fund their terrorism just before the attacks. When the planes hit, they had already sold their holdings at a great profit, most likely buying again afterward. The few people whose accounts were frozen probably amounted to a small percentage of their total funds.

Roger Clinton, probably not. Tom Arnold, maybe.

(This should not be construed as an endorsement for Tom Arnold in any way, shape or form. If he hadn't married the lovely and talented Rosanne Barr, we would never have heard of him)

(Having stated the above, it should not be necessarily construed as a positive statement in favor of Rosanne Barr. Any perception that it was, is unintentional and purely coincidental. I'm just CMA)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 AM.