Still vote for Bush?

If I could vote for President again...

  • I would vote for Bush

    Votes: 73 70.9%

  • I would vote for Kerry

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • I would vote for neither

    Votes: 27 26.2%
  • Total voters
    103
Status
Not open for further replies.
Badnarik. I voted for Bush for the wrong reasons and I realize that I made a mistake.


I'll vote third party as soon as someone gets a competent campaign together. But, I fear even with a third party, I'm stil going to be voting the lesser of three evils.
Click to expand...

You can't blame the other parties for that. Badnarik and Cobb were arrested trying to participate in debates. Nader was intentionally kept off ballots in more than one state, iirc. The two major parties each get 70 million of our tax dollars to fund their campaigns (though it's barely a drop in the bucket).

The Green Party and the Libertarians are never going to get the coverage they need as long as major corporations can feed money into the pockets of Democrats and Republicans to fund their campaigns. For the longest time I wondered why "campaign finance reform" was such a big deal...I mean, there's got to be more important things to worry about, right?

Without a major change in the way the parties can get attention and exposure, the third parties will always be forced into the shadows. :(
 
Without a major change in the way the parties can get attention and exposure, the third parties will always be forced into the shadows.
Click to expand...
That is gospel.



There are entirely too many hurdles designed specificly to prevent third parties from gaining a toehold. Even when they do get on the ballot, they are left out of debates and given miniscule amounts of coverage. I can't wait for the day when a third party wins just one state in a Presidential election.
 
I didn't vote for either as I was moving to another state. I won't vote for a democrat, at the same time I'm glad I didn't vote for some half-@$$ed jerk over like Bush now that I know what he is like. Maybe we will get a extremely better republican next election.
 
You can't blame the other parties for that. Badnarik and Cobb were arrested trying to participate in debates. Nader was intentionally kept off ballots in more than one state, iirc. The two major parties each get 70 million of our tax dollars to fund their campaigns (though it's barely a drop in the bucket).
Click to expand...

I'm talking more about getting a sizeable number of people in state and federal legislatures and govenorship and other high ranking jobs, before even considering a serious presidential run. Start at a local level, and get people to know that you are not some crazy extremists. Make your presence known.

I find it hard to believe that they couldn't win a number of House seats, and maybe a few senate seats, if they started putting the effort into that instead of the presidency for now.
 
There are entirely too many hurdles designed specificly to prevent third parties from gaining a toehold. Even when they do get on the ballot, they are left out of debates and given miniscule amounts of coverage. I can't wait for the day when a third party wins just one state in a Presidential election.
Click to expand...
No 3rd party has a toehold, because no 3rd party has ever tried to get a toehold. They all go for the top job - president, but none has made a serious effort at building a base, or running a competent campaign.

The libertarians, for example, have been active for over 30 years. Yet in all that time, they've only got a tiny handful of state reps elected, and not a single state senator or govenor, or any federal level office. Yet they find the wherewithall to waste millions of dollars and the effort of thousands of activists every four years running some no-name nobody in a doomed attempt at president.

If they took all that effort and money to the state level, they could get a dozen or more serious state rep and senate campaigns going, with actual chances of winning some. If they did that for the last 30 years, they'd be a real political factor, with a solid base and experienced competent candidates.

Instead, through sheer incompetence, not only have they been total failures electorially, but the serious people who staffed the party 15-20 years ago have left in frustration, leaving the real wackos in charge. They've had to reduce the annual membership dues to zero, because if they kicked out everyone who has stopped paying, the party would practically vanish.

And the libertarians are the most "successful" of the 3rd parties, the others are even worse off.

A 3rd party can be successful, if they have an appealing message, build a solid local/state level base, and run good candidates with good campaigns. That the current crop of 3rd parties have failed, is due entirely to their own poor planning and sheer incompetence.
 
I voted for Bush because the alternatitive was unthinkable!!!

However, if the Democrat would have been Zell Miller...

The only reason why I would support an impeachment would be because I happen to think Dick Cheney should have been the original candidate and it would be a good way to correct that!!
 
However, if the Democrat would have been Zell Miller...
Click to expand...

Yeesh...I voted for Zel when I lived in Atlanta. Back then he actually kept his religion out of office. Now I'd never consider voting for him. As Jon Stewart said in response to his comments on Justice Sunday:

Zel said:
"Isn't it strange that the government requires a no smoking sign at gas stations to remind us of that danger, but thinks we don't need to be reminded of the danger of living a sinful life?"
Click to expand...
Jon said:
"You know, I gotta say, I think that's the way it should be...no smoking by gas stations, no religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on Earth....and that's pretty much it."
Click to expand...


I have no problem with a politican having faith but I will not vote for someone who's policies are bound by a religion.
 
I haved worked in personnel for DoD handling Officer and Enlisted reports....

I have written a bunch of Enlisted reports for 20+ years and have written some as a civilian supervisor also.

If concientiously wriiten they are worth something....... If I had a $1.00 for all the officers and NCOs I have had to take a rating back to and get them to change something..I could have retired. The rating depends upon the person doing it some see it as a job worth doing right and some see it as a burden to dispense with quickly. I have seen some officer reports that I have had to look at to make sure it was talking about the same person I knew. I have known good officers and bad.... I have seen the bad and good get similar ratings....

personally after being deployed overseas I have found out that paper in the personnel file isnt worth warm spit sometimes.....

some of those I thought I could count on I couldnt..some of the ones I had questions about stepped up to the plate and suprised me and I had to admit I was wrong about them.

As for the swifboat propagandists.....they were bankrolled by Republican friends of Bush.

I read a letter to the editor that put it all in context for me in a Boston Newspaper.... The guy said that the folks who had given him those awards and stuff should be ashamed.....he was glad the swiftboat veterans had exposed this....

LOL..some of the folks he was talking about were members of the swiftboat veterans...who had given him awards and ratings...now years later were singing a song of hate and opening wounds once again..

The swiftboat veterans were nothing but mercenaries for a smear campaign.....
 
No 3rd party has a toehold, because no 3rd party has ever tried to get a toehold. They all go for the top job - president, but none has made a serious effort at building a base, or running a competent campaign.

The libertarians, for example, have been active for over 30 years. Yet in all that time, they've only got a tiny handful of state reps elected, and not a single state senator or govenor, or any federal level office. Yet they find the wherewithall to waste millions of dollars and the effort of thousands of activists every four years running some no-name nobody in a doomed attempt at president.

If they took all that effort and money to the state level, they could get a dozen or more serious state rep and senate campaigns going, with actual chances of winning some. If they did that for the last 30 years, they'd be a real political factor, with a solid base and experienced competent candidates.

Instead, through sheer incompetence, not only have they been total failures electorially, but the serious people who staffed the party 15-20 years ago have left in frustration, leaving the real wackos in charge. They've had to reduce the annual membership dues to zero, because if they kicked out everyone who has stopped paying, the party would practically vanish.

And the libertarians are the most "successful" of the 3rd parties, the others are even worse off.

A 3rd party can be successful, if they have an appealing message, build a solid local/state level base, and run good candidates with good campaigns. That the current crop of 3rd parties have failed, is due entirely to their own poor planning and sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...

It's not their incompetence. From your posts I can pretty much gather that you probably look at the ticket, pick the "(R) FOR EVERYTHING" box and then turn it in. Don't know where you live but around here there are Libertarians running for almost every spot. The problem is that the voters are incompetent. They are the ones who only care about the "big seat" and who vote straight-ticket. As long as people say "Well they aren't viable yet so I won't vote for them", they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. They are the voters that allow Republicans and Democrats to convince the sheeple that they only have two choices and any other choice is 'throwing your vote away'. Well a bunch of people 'threw their vote away' on Iraq and a host of other issues.
 
It's Ironic

It amazes me, people will damn there government as inefficient yet they will stubbornly hold on to the leadership responsible for the inefficiency. Image is everything, performance...who cares?
 
Yes, I'd still vote for Bush. Of course times are bad. We're still recovering from the Clinton Bubble and we're seeing the results of 20 years of Democrat effort to shut down the energy industry and make this a welfare state.
 
Who cares about the ad campaigns. Look at Kerry's record.

Anti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gunAnti-gun Anti-gun Anti-gun

Do you think that Kerry would have let the AWB slide?

This IS the firing line isn't it?
 
From your posts I can pretty much gather that you probably look at the ticket, pick the "(R) FOR EVERYTHING" box and then turn it in.
Click to expand...
I was a Reagan Republican, then a libertarian activist for a long time, until their sheer incompetency drove me away. Now I work within the republican party to move it towards a libertarian/conservative direction.
The problem is that the voters are incompetent.
Click to expand...
That's like blaming people for buying Japanese cars instead of American, even though they're better and cheaper. It's not up to the voter to validate the incompetence of a political party by voting for them regardless, it's up to the party to convince people to vote for them. In the free market of ideas, you got to bring your best game, and the 3rd parties are still playing "Chutes and Ladders".

For example, the libertarians had a convention, and picked the nuttiest guy there to be the nominee. I can't think of a more abrasive, unqualified, and frankly smelly candidate then Badnarik. He couldn't get elected dog catcher, yet I'm supposed to vote for him, why exactly? Because you say so? Sorry, I met the man, I wouldn't let him sweep my sidewalk, never mind be president. Love or hate Bush, he did get elected governor, which is a lot more than all the libertarian candidates over 30 years ever acheived, put together.

A 3rd party has to earn the right to be taken seriously, and earn their votes. So far, none have stepped up and done anything even remotely serious. All they do is pick some nut to run for president, then complain how unfair it is when they lose. Blaming the voters for not voting for an obvious loser is rediculous and counterproductive.

As for the libertarians, well, for a party that claims "personal responsibility" as their founding philosophy, they do an awful lot of whining and finger-pointing as to why they're utter political failures. "The problem is that the voters are incompetent" is about the least libertarian, least personal responsibility statement I've ever heard.
 
Didn't vote for Bush this last time, wouldn't vote for him this time.

I'm afraid we're doomed forever to a two-party system. No third party is ever going to make much of a showing in any election. A lot of people on this forum tend to lean libertarian, but they're afraid to vote their conscience.
No third party is going to win if you don't vote for them. If the candidate does not represent your views, fine, don't vote for them. But not voting for them because they're a third-party candidate dosen't make any sense. :confused:
 
If I had it to do over again, I would do the same: I didn't vote for either republicrat apparatchik, not only in 2004, but in 2000, 1996, 1992 etc. What this means from a strictly personal point of view is, things aren't getting better.
 
Meet The Press 9/04

Secretary of Homeland Security (on NO) "the American people should be prepared for the tragic pictures during the next few weeks".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top