The W
Views: 97869751
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.8.14 0504
The W - Current Events & Politics - Poll: Unnamed Democrat leads Bush
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2246 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1346 days
Last activity: 254 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
Click Here (salon.com)

Of course.... they'll eventually have to name someone. And he'll lose.



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Shit this is ridiculous. How can you support an unnamed candidate? Voting for either party affiliation or just to oppose a particular person is the stupidest thing you can do, and I'd estimate 80-90% of the country is guilty of it. This includes the many people on this board who can be seen making statements like "I pray the (party) never gets control of the (governing body)". Damn, are people this retarded? Can they not see past the blanket statement of "(Candidate) is a member of the (political party)" and judge the person by their merits? Voting for a democrat because he's not Bush or just because he's a democrat is SO FUCKING STUPID. It's so frustrating to share a culture with such idiots.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1186 days
Last activity: 983 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I voted for my incumbent state senator(A Democrat) because the GOP candidate was a fucking tool...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2747 days
Last activity: 2589 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
This was a Quinnipiac poll, widely regarded as utterly meaningless.



"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 222 days
Last activity: 3 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
Most Canadians voted for Jean Chretien due to hatred for old PM Brian Mulroney, the guy who screwed over the country's economy. Remember the GST? HIS IDEA. But no, Chretien hasn't done a darned thing since coming into power...just because people cared about NOT voting Mulroney's party back in.



The Chase Is On:
8th: Oilers [27-23-8-8] 70pts; 16 games left
14th: Flames [21-31-10-4] 56pts; 16 games left
Flames must win 7 more games than the Oilers do to make playoffs
Any combination of 9 Oilers wins or Flames losses eliminates them from the playoffs
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 11 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
I freely admit that while my political leanings fell closer to the latter, I voted for Gore over Nader because I didn't want Bush to win. I still think it was the more sensible vote.



"It's like you lost your keys in the garage, but you look for them in the living room because the light is better."
-Bill Maher, on the impending war in Iraq
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Any time your vote comes down to a "lesser-of-two-evils" situation, your system has already failed.

Of course, that is bound to happen when most of the country sees anything as just a two person race.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2904 days
Last activity: 2901 days
#8 Posted on
The American system cannot support anymore than a two person race. A winner take all system can only support two candidates, who both storm for the middle road, and you have to end up voting for the one you dislike the least. The system hasn't failed, it's working the only way it knows how.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    This was a Quinnipiac poll, widely regarded as utterly meaningless.


AHEM. That's MY line!

...

Man, would the PR director love to see this...

(edited by drjayphd on 6.3.03 2347)


Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Bullitt:

"NOTHING'S funnier than midget porn."
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    The American system cannot support anymore than a two person race. A winner take all system can only support two candidates, who both storm for the middle road, and you have to end up voting for the one you dislike the least. The system hasn't failed, it's working the only way it knows how.


But then why would you vote to be represented by someone who doesn't really represent you, which is obviously the case if you have to make your decision this way?

You're basically saying "Here, go make my decisions regarding my life and my future for me" to a person whom you just admitted isn't as qualified as you think he should be to make such decisions. Unless, in determining which one you "dislike the least" you take into account anything OTHER than their decision making and political views.

I've never voted for public office. I hopefully never will. It's nothing more than a decleration that I don't care. Obviously there are going to be a lot of things I disagree on with any candidate, so they are not represntative of me and I don't want them making decisoons on my behalf for that reason. I vote for things I have a direct say in (for example, the public, not the state congress, voted last year to ban smoking in most public places here in Florida; I voted in that poll) and nothing else.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.3.03 0318)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2904 days
Last activity: 2901 days
#11 Posted on
I'm can't really argue for a system I don't agree with, but in choosing which one you dislike the least, you side with the one closer to your views. Or, maybe one of them actually represents your views completely, in which case you are a lucky man.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
astrobstrd
Bockwurst








Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2497 days
Last activity: 2464 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on
I think the basic logic behind a two-party system (and two-person race) is that if you spread the vote too thin, there is the chance that someone that no one really wants to become president. Say that instead of the Republican and Democrat and several small fringe groups, the big two each split into 5 parties: a moderate, conservative, liberal, very liberal, and very conservative version of each. If some of these fringe groups keep up their numbers, we could end up with a Natural Law or Socialist president, which only a small percentage of people actually voted for.

Off topic, but I recently saw the greatest bumper sticker EVAR. Vote Cthulu: Why settle for the lesser evil?



Ph-nglui mgwl'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1346 days
Last activity: 254 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
I don't like this poll because basically it's saying, "Would you vote for someone other than the president?" And there are always gonna be people who agree to that, no matter who the president is. He doesn't necessarily have to be an evil fucker like Bush.



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#14 Posted on

    But then why would you vote to be represented by someone who doesn't really represent you, which is obviously the case if you have to make your decision this way?

    You're basically saying "Here, go make my decisions regarding my life and my future for me" to a person whom you just admitted isn't as qualified as you think he should be to make such decisions.

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 7.3.03 0318)



You're going to be represented by someone anyway. The alternative is essentially saying, "Here, have anyone make those decisions for me, I don't care who. And be sure to let them know that they don't have to worry about what I think to keep their job."
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2950 days
Last activity: 164 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I've never voted for public office. I hopefully never will. It's nothing more than a decleration that I don't care.


"On election day, I stay home and masturbate. That's a VOTE FOR MYSELF!" - George, the world's filthiest ventriloquist puppet



"...Also, living in NYC, to stop any terrorists from braking into my home I've crammed pickles in the gap between the front door and the floor - try and brake past my juicy green wall of defense." -- commenter on FARK
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I've never voted for public office. I hopefully never will. It's nothing more than a decleration that I don't care. Obviously there are going to be a lot of things I disagree on with any candidate, so they are not represntative of me and I don't want them making decisoons on my behalf for that reason. I vote for things I have a direct say in (for example, the public, not the state congress, voted last year to ban smoking in most public places here in Florida; I voted in that poll) and nothing else.

Shit this is ridiculous. How can you support an unnamed candidate? Voting for either party affiliation or just to oppose a particular person is the stupidest thing you can do, and I'd estimate 80-90% of the country is guilty of it. This includes the many people on this board who can be seen making statements like "I pray the (party) never gets control of the (governing body)". Damn, are people this retarded? Can they not see past the blanket statement of "(Candidate) is a member of the (political party)" and judge the person by their merits? Voting for a democrat because he's not Bush or just because he's a democrat is SO FUCKING STUPID. It's so frustrating to share a culture with such idiots.

If you don't care, why do you get all pissy at the people who do vote?

Look, the Republican and Democratic parties reflect certain values and beliefs, and people are going to vote for candidates that reflect these values and beliefs. I, for one, can't think of a single Democrat that reflects my values and beliefs less than George W. Bush does, so I have no problem saying that you could White Out the "D" line at the election and I'd still check it.

Yes, there are some candidates of both parties that have divergent views. And yes, sometimes the candidate that reflects your values and beliefs is going to be such a tool, idiot, or just plain old rubs you the wrong way, that you'll vote for the other guy. For instance, I voted for Mike Bloomberg instead of Mark Green for Mayor for precisely this reason. But rally, I don't apologize for not ignoring party labels. If they were assigned at random, then I would. But they aren't. Democrats are 99% of the time going to be more in line with my values and beliefs, so it's not a huge stretch of the imagination that that is who my vote is going to.

Not voting because you don't like the voting system is ridiculous. It's not like everyone who votes then isn't allowed to criticize our voting system, or the guy they voted for, or anything else. Every kind of democratic representational voting system has its drawbacks and advantages.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by astrobstrd
    I think the basic logic behind a two-party system (and two-person race) is that if you spread the vote too thin, there is the chance that someone that no one really wants to become president. Say that instead of the Republican and Democrat and several small fringe groups, the big two each split into 5 parties: a moderate, conservative, liberal, very liberal, and very conservative version of each. If some of these fringe groups keep up their numbers, we could end up with a Natural Law or Socialist president, which only a small percentage of people actually voted for.


Or you could have a system like France, where the top 2 parties get their candidate on the Presidential ballot...

(looks at the most recent results, sees LePen's (sp?) name in the runoff results)

Okay, bad example.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Bullitt:

"NOTHING'S funnier than midget porn."
ManiacalClown
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Houston, TX

Since last post: 462 days
Last activity: 462 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
I would say that any single party having control of all branches of government like we have now isn't a good thing.

As for voting, when that time comes (soon, yay!) I'll probably vote Libertarian most of the time as that's closest to my political leanings. Of course, if the candidates a fucking tool, I won't vote for him. Presidential elections are trouble as well. If I like either of the major party candidates I'll vote that way, but if I think both of them won't be able to do anything beneficial to the country, I'll find a third-party candidate, again, probably Libertarian unless I don't like that guy either.

But voting for someone simply because of their party without examining if they're really who you feel is the best for the job is just plain stupid.



Pearl Jam - Live in Little Rock: 93 Days & Counting

In This Very Ring - We Also [heart] Puff Mario
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
As for voting, when that time comes (soon, yay!) I'll probably vote Libertarian most of the time as that's closest to my political leanings. Of course, if the candidates a fucking tool, I won't vote for him.

Well then, you aren't voting for any Libertarians.

I actually find the party to have some pretty good and logical arguments on paper. But it seems like everyone who's presenting the arguments is this empty-headed college kid who just got done reading Atlas Shrugged and now thinks that they now know everything there is to know about the nature of humanity.





It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    As for voting, when that time comes (soon, yay!) I'll probably vote Libertarian most of the time as that's closest to my political leanings. Of course, if the candidates a fucking tool, I won't vote for him.

    Well then, you aren't voting for any Libertarians.

    I actually find the party to have some pretty good and logical arguments on paper. But it seems like everyone who's presenting the arguments is this empty-headed college kid who just got done reading Atlas Shrugged and now thinks that they now know everything there is to know about the nature of humanity.




Then, why are you talking to empty-headed college kids, when there are a host of Libertarian or Libertarian leaning organizations or free market economists who can make more substantial arguments? Some notable examples include the American Enterprise Institute, Reason, National Center for Policy Analysis, Cato, etc. Also, I wouldn't describe Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises as empty-headed college kids.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Using Kazaa makes you a terrorist!
Next thread: Is this what you want?
Previous thread: Hot Robert Reich Nude Pics
(2246 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?012907/012907_hc_griff&Hannity_Colmes&Anti-War%20Protest&acc&Hannity%26Colmes&-1&Shows&520&&&new Did this really do any good?? Looks like the FoxNews truck got something thrown on the windshield.
- CajunMan, Anti- War protests, (2007)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Poll: Unnamed Democrat leads BushRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.264 seconds.