In light of the botched war on terror, the botched response to katrina and various other things that have been hung on the Bush presidency, how at this point do you see yourself voting in the next presidential election?
Republicans who would vote Democrat in the next election
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
Xequat
Black Belt
terryl965 said:
I'll second that. It's way too early to tell, though. If it's Lieberman or some moderate Democrat versus some extremist Republican, then I won't think twice about it; I'll go with a moderate Democrat over an extreme Republican anyday, but that's nothing new due to the allusions in the loaded question above that started this poll...I've pretty much always held that same opinion. No change here.
mrhnau
Senior Master
w/out getting into specifics I'll vote for the candidate I deem best. It normally winds up being the lesser or two (or three) evils, since noone ever seems to align themselves with me completely 
Party to me seems a bit irrelevant, but more often than not the Repubs are more closely aligned. I could see myself voting for a Lieberman if my Repub choices were quite poor though.
Party to me seems a bit irrelevant, but more often than not the Repubs are more closely aligned. I could see myself voting for a Lieberman if my Repub choices were quite poor though.
I do not know who I would vote for in the next election. I reserve judegement until I know who is running, and what they stand for.
As things stand, I probably will vote for whoever gives the least to the seasoned citizens of this country. It is too much to hope that anyone would actually make a serious attempt at reforming all the entitlement programs we have in this country- so I will have to settle with the one that slows the slide as much as possible. Maybe someday sanity will arrive and I fight for time with my vote.
It is a one button issue for me since I have gotten use to the idea of paying into the system and not getting much, if anything back....but I resent the idea of my children being made slaves to the program when I have no reason to think it will be around if they ever need it.
So unless there is a serious flaw in the candidate otherwise, I will probably vote for my kids future.
And that usually is the Republican party.
As things stand, I probably will vote for whoever gives the least to the seasoned citizens of this country. It is too much to hope that anyone would actually make a serious attempt at reforming all the entitlement programs we have in this country- so I will have to settle with the one that slows the slide as much as possible. Maybe someday sanity will arrive and I fight for time with my vote.
It is a one button issue for me since I have gotten use to the idea of paying into the system and not getting much, if anything back....but I resent the idea of my children being made slaves to the program when I have no reason to think it will be around if they ever need it.
So unless there is a serious flaw in the candidate otherwise, I will probably vote for my kids future.
And that usually is the Republican party.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
These discussions, and questions, I think seldom get at reality, unfortuneately, because we don't have real names associated with the terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat'.
I have given money, in past elections cycles, to the political campaigns of John McCain and Orrin Hatch. I did so because these men appeared to speak truthfully to those in power; something I greatly respect.
Too often, political parties ... despite what people claim ... are like the hometown football team ... you vote for them because they are the locals, because you've always voted for them, and you want to see them beat the other guy.
When I see a candidate that supports the idea of a republic, I vote for them. If there is a Democrat and Republican that both espouse that position, I will vote for the Democrat.
I have given money, in past elections cycles, to the political campaigns of John McCain and Orrin Hatch. I did so because these men appeared to speak truthfully to those in power; something I greatly respect.
Too often, political parties ... despite what people claim ... are like the hometown football team ... you vote for them because they are the locals, because you've always voted for them, and you want to see them beat the other guy.
When I see a candidate that supports the idea of a republic, I vote for them. If there is a Democrat and Republican that both espouse that position, I will vote for the Democrat.
bdparsons
Black Belt
Anyone who votes a certain way "regardless" is naive. You must base your vote on the candidate (irrespective of party) you feel best represents your take on the way you think our government should function in today's world. Hopefully this person, if elected, will fulfill at least a portion of your expectations.
Don't throw away your vote. Research the issues and learn as much as you can about the candidates. This will insure you are casting at least a halfway intelligent vote. It also means that you most likely would be voting "for" something (candidate, ideology, agenda) rather than just voting "against" something (or someone). If you don't at least try to vote intelligently, then please, don't vote.
Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute
Don't throw away your vote. Research the issues and learn as much as you can about the candidates. This will insure you are casting at least a halfway intelligent vote. It also means that you most likely would be voting "for" something (candidate, ideology, agenda) rather than just voting "against" something (or someone). If you don't at least try to vote intelligently, then please, don't vote.
Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Actually, one way I'm tending to lean more and more is to not care about parties or even 'issues'. Reason being is that most issues are quite honestly more involved than I *really* have time to fully investigate properly. Moreso, if all I do is pick a set of issues and have certain opinions on them and then vote for the person who matches up most closely withmy list, then I'm essenitaly inviing the candidates to pick their positions based on their calculated assement of what positions will win them the most favor with the largest number of voters.
I'm starting rather to think that a better approach is to vote for someone based on their character; their honesty and integrity. I think I feel more comfortable about putting a person in power that I can trust that even if he makes decisions I would disagree, I would at least know he had made that decision based on honestly looking at all the information involved and coming to a conclusion based on conviction and moral strength that it was truly the right decision.
Sometimes puttng someone in power based ontheir positionson the issues sounds like a game that could backfire. I don't know *why* they reached those conclusions so they could just be a unscrupulus character who happened to push alll the right buttons but who, given power, will be far more dangerous in all those exercises of power that have nothing to do with the issues I voted them in for, and I also never know when their posistions will change for political expediency...and what happens when something new comes up that I hadn't thought of?
I think I'd rather vote for someone who will make decisions driven from moral, ethical and principled character, even if I would disagree with the results.
Who would you trust to teach you Martial Arts, someone who believes what they are doing is right, or someone who uses the buzzwords and terminology calcuated to attract the most students? Who would you trust to date your daughter, someone who promises to have her home by ten because he knows that's what you want to hear, or someone who you saw growing up as a boy whom you know is a good, honest kid.
Who would you vote for; someone who says what you want to hear on the 'issues', or someone who you know says what he truly believes on the issues?
I'm starting rather to think that a better approach is to vote for someone based on their character; their honesty and integrity. I think I feel more comfortable about putting a person in power that I can trust that even if he makes decisions I would disagree, I would at least know he had made that decision based on honestly looking at all the information involved and coming to a conclusion based on conviction and moral strength that it was truly the right decision.
Sometimes puttng someone in power based ontheir positionson the issues sounds like a game that could backfire. I don't know *why* they reached those conclusions so they could just be a unscrupulus character who happened to push alll the right buttons but who, given power, will be far more dangerous in all those exercises of power that have nothing to do with the issues I voted them in for, and I also never know when their posistions will change for political expediency...and what happens when something new comes up that I hadn't thought of?
I think I'd rather vote for someone who will make decisions driven from moral, ethical and principled character, even if I would disagree with the results.
Who would you trust to teach you Martial Arts, someone who believes what they are doing is right, or someone who uses the buzzwords and terminology calcuated to attract the most students? Who would you trust to date your daughter, someone who promises to have her home by ten because he knows that's what you want to hear, or someone who you saw growing up as a boy whom you know is a good, honest kid.
Who would you vote for; someone who says what you want to hear on the 'issues', or someone who you know says what he truly believes on the issues?
tsdclaflin
Green Belt
mrhnau said:
If you are conservative and you have ever lived in Connecticut, you would not vote for Lieberman. Before 9 months ago, I lived in CT for almost 8 years. When Lieberman was on the ticket, his "character" changed. Like too many polititians, he stand on issues depends on what he thinks others want it to be.
I will vote for a the strongest candidate that holds views most closely to mine. I will not vote for (if I can help it) for a candidate that has no direction.
tsdclaflin
Green Belt
shesulsa said:
I would have to disagree that the war on terror is "botched" or that the federal government was responsible for the slow response to "katrina".
The Katrina issue was a "local" disaster that should have been handled better by the local leadership. As I recall, more complaints about response came from Louisiana than from Alabama.
Hmmmm....
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
not a member of either party -- i'm embarassed by the behavior of both over the past 20 years.
i'd join up with the populists or the green party if either of them got their acts together. as it is, i tend to vote republican in matters of economics and foreign policy, but democrat on social issues and matters of state security.
i'd join up with the populists or the green party if either of them got their acts together. as it is, i tend to vote republican in matters of economics and foreign policy, but democrat on social issues and matters of state security.
Yeah, your poll is flawed, where is the "Neo-Anarchist Voting for whoever the hell is willing to try and fix the system" choice?
OP
OP
Technopunk said:
Well, I suppose I could put up a thread like that, but ... did you say you WANTED to be visited by brownshirts?? :mp5:
Actually, I will post another poll in a moment for those who are not bi ... partisan, that is.
