turtlespeed 226 #1 May 10, 2004 Would you vote for a candidate that was proven to self inflict wounds to get out of battle? Noone answered the question that I posed in another thread - so I'll ask it directly. I limited the options to disreguard partisanship. It is either yes or no. Vote your concience - not your party.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 #2 May 10, 2004 If it were proven, absolutely NOT. But I wouldn't vote for Bush either. Wrong Way D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451 The wiser wolf prevails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 May 10, 2004 Quote I limited the options to disreguard partisanship. However, you sure do imply partisanship since only one of the two parties is supporting a man that actually went to war and was injured. I have a feeling you think you know something about John Kerry's service record in Vietnam. What do you have?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #4 May 10, 2004 Most people here have already made up their minds, so threads like this don't accomplish much. I'm voting for John Kerry for two reasons. 1. he's not Bush. 2. I think he'll do a better job than Bush. I really don't put much stock in what he did thirty years ago. what I (and most other voters) care about is what he's done recently, and what he'll do in the next four-eight years. And for the record, I don't give a damn about whether or not Bush showed up for guard duty. What matters to me is what he did as gov. of Texas, and what he's doing now in the White House. People change as years pass. I care about who they are NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #5 May 10, 2004 I never mentioned Kerry. It is amusing to me that his name, evidently, is synonomous with something like self inflicted wounds though - odd don't you think?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #6 May 10, 2004 QuoteI never mentioned Kerry. It is amusing to me that his name, evidently, is synonomous with something like self inflicted wounds though - odd don't you think? no... it was that most of your political posts are synonymous with Kerry-bashing. Since, statistically, most of the Kerry supporters are voting for him as a vote against Bush, perhaps you should consentrate your attention on making Bush a more attractive candidate, since he is apparently incapable of doing it for himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #7 May 10, 2004 QuoteSince, statistically, most of the Kerry supporters are voting for him as a vote against Bush, That is such a sad commentary on today's society. So sad. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 May 10, 2004 Yeah, it's sad, but the majority of the country didn't have a vote in the matter. The defacto democratic candidate was chosen by a very small minority of voters.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #9 May 10, 2004 As I've said before, this isn't a two party system. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #10 May 10, 2004 when someone who's not republican or democrat wins an election, I'll start to believe you. you must admit, though, that there's no way that anyone but Bush or Kerry is going to win this election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #11 May 10, 2004 Quotewhen someone who's not republican or democrat wins an election, I'll start to believe you. you must admit, though, that there's no way that anyone but Bush or Kerry is going to win this election. If everyone that said "I'm voting for anyone but X" could decide on a canidate. And they are as numerous as they claim...Then you never know. Besides if more people voted for a 3rd party while it may not win this election, it could start support for it on the next election."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #12 May 10, 2004 Quotewhen someone who's not republican or democrat wins an election, I'll start to believe you. Well, that could happen if people would stop voting simply Democrat or Republican, wouldn't it? Quoteyou must admit, though, that there's no way that anyone but Bush or Kerry is going to win this election. And who is to blame for that? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #13 May 10, 2004 I'd say they are about as unworthy of election as someone that pulled strings to queue jump into a slot in the National Guard, or as someone that got 5 deferments to avoid combat, having "other priorities". Not that I'm saying anyone did that, of course.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #14 May 10, 2004 QuoteI really don't put much stock in what he did thirty years ago. You don't care he murdered unarmed non-combatants. His words not mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 May 10, 2004 QuoteI never mentioned Kerry. It is amusing to me that his name, evidently, is synonomous with something like self inflicted wounds though - odd don't you think? Yes, we're all dolts and couldn't figure out what you were getting at based on your other posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #16 May 10, 2004 >You don't care he murdered unarmed non-combatants. Just as you don't care that this administration presided over the torture, rape and murder of non-combatants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boudy 0 #17 May 10, 2004 I believe that a problem with third parties is that they too often just appeal to protest voters (anti-Bush/anti-Kerry & anti-"republicrat") or articulate limited and/or extreme platforms. Powerful entrenched interests can then further marginalize their influence and standing in the political consciousness. There's only one scenerio I can imagine where a third party could capture the presidency in '04 - and admittedly it's extremely fanciful but maybe still technically possible at this point in time. I'd wager that a McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain 3rd party ticket would steam roll both current presidential candidates. And it would probably cause a sea-change in American politics, cleaning-up the parties & minimalize the screaming self-serving extremists on both ends of the spectrum. Fantasy Politics - the next internet fad? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 May 10, 2004 Quote And for the record, I don't give a damn about whether or not Bush showed up for guard duty. What matters to me is what he did as gov. of Texas, and what he's doing now in the White House. People change as years pass. I care about who they are NOW. Bush passed Right-to-Carry legislation in Texas when he was governor, recognizing your right to defend yourself with a handgun -- when his female predecessor refused. That alone is enough reason to vote for him. He made good on the legislature's efforts to recognize your right to self defense. You know for sure that Kerry doesn't give a damn about your right to keep and bear arms. In fact, he's contemptuous of it. (Not that his ads will say anything but how he's a "gun owner" and "lifelong hunter" and respects the hell out of the 2nd Amendment -- what a joke!). --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 May 10, 2004 I also know that Bush doesn't care much for the environment and women's health, and those issues are more important to me than gun ownership, since I don't own a gun, but I do like to breathe clean air and I am female. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 May 10, 2004 Quote There's only one scenerio I can imagine where a third party could capture the presidency in '04 - and admittedly it's extremely fanciful but maybe still technically possible at this point in time. I'd wager that a McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain 3rd party ticket would steam roll both current presidential candidates. And it would probably cause a sea-change in American politics, cleaning-up the parties & minimalize the screaming self-serving extremists on both ends of the spectrum. Fantasy Politics - the next internet fad? McCain couldn't even win a primary - got steamrolled by a guy that didn't get a majority of votes. Powell - while polls show a great level of respect for the man, voters change their tunes when it's no longer just a answer on the phone, and the GOP in particular doesn't seem likely to vote a black man into the white house. Until he started babbling about PLANS and CUBAN ASSASSINS, Perot looked like a real third party candidacy. As a rule, the two parties will quickly move to coopt the issues presented. And the EC essentially guarantees success for them. No 3rd candidate exists for this election, so there's absolutely no change it will be someone besides Kerry or Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #21 May 10, 2004 McCain got steamrolled by a guy who had a whole lot more "party backing" in terms of machine (not necessarily money). However, if you were to ask Democrats and Independents (who do vote), a large number of them would have voted for McCain. It's not just about getting the largest number of Republicans to vote for you -- when you get a good cross-section of people of several parties, then you have a mandate. And yes, I think McCain would have very possibly won an overall election handily. Especially against Al Gore. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #22 May 10, 2004 I just wonder what asshat the GOP will choose after King George the Younger serves another term...(let's be honest, even a lot of Dems don't really think Kerry will win...Dukakis didn't...) Could anyone be more dogmatic and puritanical? Who's next? President Ashcroft???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #23 May 10, 2004 Wendy, we agree again...twice in one year... ATTENTION ALL: colder weather is on the way. Hell has frozen over. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #24 May 10, 2004 I'm hoping for a Rice/J.C. Watts candidacy myself, just to see $harpton and Je$$e Jack$on spontaneously combust. McCain will be a bit old...perhaps a governor....dunno. TheAnvil will be old enough in '08....but nobody would vote for a JACKASS. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #25 May 10, 2004 QuoteYou don't care he murdered unarmed non-combatants. Just as you don't care that this administration presided over the torture, rape and murder of non-combatants. Bill so you think what Kerry did himself is on the same level as Bush presided over a group of guards up many many levels of the chain of command? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
