Do you really know policies about Bush and Kerry?

[OrangeSalsa]

Before you rush to judgement about either one, they both are pretty lame. Read their policies and I'm sure some of you who support one of them won't agree with everything, it's just that Bush has proven it. Let's face it, politics is all about who can lie the most. It's pretty stupid to see all these so called "geniuses" pick a side and stick to it and argue with the opposing platform like little babies (ie by-partisan). Most of you are choosing to belong to the party to which your parents belong and that's not the wisest thing to do because they probably got swept up in all the assinying shit as well.

[Giancarlo]

I know the policies of Bush and I support 80% of them. I know the policies of Kerry and for the most part I don't support him at all. It is very simple. I don't support a guy universally. There is always some form of disagreement. But I do my best in finding the best candidate who fits my views. As should everybody in this forum. Most of us choose to belong to the party our parents belong to? Care to back up that accusation? I certainly do not. I came up with the conclusions myself, and when I first voted I was 6,000 miles away from my parents. They didn't influence my opinion.

[OrangeSalsa]

Most of us choose to belong to the party our parents belong to? Care to back up that accusation? I certainly do not. I came up with the conclusions myself, and when I first voted I was 6,000 miles away from my parents. They didn't influence my opinion.
Well that is your case, did I say everyone? No, and that accusation was based on a statistical survey done throughout the nation with over 4 million participants ages 18-24 across the us, revealed in the 2nd week of april 2004 in a time magazine issue.

[Giancarlo]

Well that is your case, did I say everyone? No, and that accusation was based on a statistical survey done throughout the nation with over 4 million participants ages 18-24 across the us, revealed in the 2nd week of april 2004 in a time magazine issue.
So that counts for an entire voting demographic, which to mention has a very low turn out?

[OrangeSalsa]

So that counts for an entire voting demographic, which to mention has a very low turn out?
Hm, another Bush supporter who feels backed in the corner, even when I didn't put him in a corner...You can be as independent as you'd like to think but the fact is many children are influenced by their parents and that's a known fact. Why you chose to mention "which to mention has a very low turn out?" it beyond me, I am not just talking about that the 18-24. Surveys do have some truth to them and that particular one follows a pattern.

[Giancarlo]

Hm, another Bush supporter who feels backed in the corner, even when I didn't put him in a corner...You can be as independent as you'd like to think but the fact is many children are influenced by their parents and that's a known fact. Why you chose to mention "which to mention has a very low turn out?" it beyond me, I am not just talking about that the 18-24. Surveys do have some truth to them and that particular one follows a pattern.
Please understand I'm not a hardcore Bush supporter (I supported McCain in 2000). But please don't be an idiot. My dad supported Bush in 2000, I supported McCain in 2000.

[OrangeSalsa]

Please understand I'm not a hardcore Bush supporter (I supported McCain in 2000). But please don't be an idiot. My dad supported Bush in 2000, I supported McCain in 2000.
As if I was to know and as if one person's personal experience was to matter...

[BlueDevil]

Come on, Giancarlo, it is a fact that many children while they are forming their political views base them off their parents. It may not be an exact replica, and their views may evolve and change as they get older (mine have), but because your parents are such a central part of your childhood, you tend to mirror their views until you are old and educated enough to form your own.

[Miscellaneous]

You're just about right. In a world without two different parties, Bush and Kerry could just about be running mates.

[Oxford]

Come on, Giancarlo, it is a fact that many children while they are forming their political views base them off their parents. It may not be an exact replica, and their views may evolve and change as they get older (mine have), but because your parents are such a central part of your childhood, you tend to mirror their views until you are old and educated enough to form your own. This is very true. In fact, I'd expand that to religion and morality, too.

And on topic... Bush and Kerry are very similar. They are both average white guys. They support many of the same things, just in different ways. In short, vote for a thrid-party canidate.

[minitrucker84]

Yes vote 3rd party, throw your vote away. A 3rd party will NEVER be elected. You might as well just not vote. Well actually most of you will anyway since your not 18

[Miscellaneous]

When you say that, remember that the Republicans and Democrats both started out as minor parties, branched off from older parties like the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Whigs, and Democratic-Republicans.

And while you're at it, how about remembering that the people who vote for third parties don't answer to you or either of the "big (government) two?" I answer only to myself for my vote. And my conscience just won't let me vote Republican or Democrat.

[minitrucker84]

Im just saying, your throwing your vote away. No matter if he is the best canidate ever, especially in the next 40-50 years, a 3rd party will never be in the whitehouse.

[Oxford]

That doesn't mean he's throwing his vote away. You should vote for you feel is the best person to run this country and he's doing just that.

[Miscellaneous]

The only way my vote would count on a national scale would be if I voted for Bush, and then I'd be A.) denying my good sense, and B.) just another voice yelling "DAM U LIB'RALS" in a Southern drawl (even more ignorant when you examine Bush's own liberality). As far as I'm concerned, my vote is between me, my conscience, and God. Why? Because no one else is listening anymore.

[minitrucker84]

Yea except he IS throwing his vote away because that person will never be elected. O wow nader got what 6% in the last election? He knows he wont get elected, the people boting for him know he wont get elected, they are throwing the vote away. When you can vote in an election, come talk about how someone should vote.

[Miscellaneous]

You don't vote for someone because they can win. That's like fighting for a king because you don't see anyone else running for the dictatorship. You vote for someone because you think they should win. You vote for someone because you think they're right for the job. That's what free democratic voting is about: doing what you think is right no matter who does or doesn't like it.

Voting for someone you don't believe in is throwing your vote away.

[minitrucker84]

I totally understand what ur saying, but you do know he wont win right?

[Miscellaneous]

I totally understand what ur saying, but you do know he wont win right?
A longshot, but not an impossibility (nothing is, after all). He actually has a real-world strategy. I'll let you look at it and decide:

1.) Raise enough money for several prime-time TV spots.

2.) Keep airing until Badnarik polls at least 10% in one of the major polls, at which time he will automatically be invited to the national debates.

3.) Badnarik, an incredibly skilled debator (you can find the vids from the Libertarian National Convention online), smokes Kerry and Bush in the debate.

4.) Profit.

Like I said, a longshot, but at least he's got a strategy.

[minitrucker84]

what is his plan for securing our nation from terrorists? About our army? About the economy?

[Miscellaneous]

what is his plan for securing our nation from terrorists? About our army? About the economy?
I can tell you that he's economically very free-market and militarily conservative. If you visit my diary, you'll find a thread with links to Badnarik's website and the official LP website. You can also check out the link in my sig for more info.

Is this genuine curiousity or "debate" curiousity?

[thesweetlycool]

It's so totally true...NO ONE cares about what is really the issue...politics aint about the "policies" anymore! Its all about, "what party you on" and "who didnt stumble or mis-pronounce a word during his speech"....if you're gonna vote...than darnit...VOTE and know whats going on!

[OrangeSalsa]

I'd just like to mention something to the person who said "you vote for who you think should win, not who you think can win." I completely disagree with that, it is completely unrealistic. Sure, Republicans and Democrats did derive from the old parties such as the Federalists and anti-Feds, however, the new parties sprung about with big names. It is something we will never see again and if we do, it will have to involve a president switching political parties after a first term, which is highly unlikely. Those new parties rose when the leading figures in politics sought a change, the government was still fairly new and they were looking to go into a completely different direction. You cannot compare the progression of that age to this age when you put it into perspective that when political parties started, it was just about having a strong or weak central government. It goes far beyond that now, we've already established the fact that states have barely any rights compared to the federal government nowadays. Now you have people branching off on different political ideas, economic policies and even moral issues, but they all similar, just different approaches. We've come to far and people have accepted it so much that a radical change will not happen, at least I don't see one coming. I personally both dislike Bush and Kerry, not because of their policies so much as for the fact they have nothing positive to say about America's future, rather criticizing the other candidate's programs. When that becomes the focus of your campaign, you just have nothing good to offer to the people. Can you benefit the nation? Yes. Does it necessary send the message you want to? No. People pretty much already know the consequences of what Bush has done and different people view it in different lights, Kerry's bashing of Bush is doing absolutely nothing. The republicans recognize his arguments as exaggeration or complete fiction and the democrats feed off of it. It is really changing minds? The fact is you should vote for Bush or Kerry in the upcoming election based on who you think will better serve your nation. Nader has no shot at winning, and even if you do want to show America has a voice, don't sacrifice a statistic for America's near future. I for one relate to Ralph Nadar the most, it is my wish he would win the election but that's just not going to happen. Now I'm in a position to see either Bush or Kerry win it, and it's such a close election that a difference can be made. I know it's cliche to say your vote can make a difference, but it truly can. A vote for Nadar is a vote for indifference and that's surely something Americans do not have.

[Giancarlo]

The libertarians won't ever get 10% in the polls. Rather, the closest third party, will be Ralph Nader (who is independent). He will eat away at Kerry's popularity and is doing that now. Bush is now pulling ahead.

[OrangeSalsa]

Can you honestly say that though? I do believe a third party will eventually reach the 10% plateau but that's not necessary so good for Bush. Yes he is benefitting, but that just goes to show people that all those Nadar voters would probably be voting for Kerry and that would give Kerry a definite edge. Bush is edging out Kerry by default.

[Miscellaneous]

Two quick thoughts:

1.) Why does the third party discussion keep going back to Nader, when his party is behind the Libertarian and Constitution parties in size, and the LP holds about four times as many offices?

2.) Why does everyone assume that third parties only exist on the left? Keep in mind that in some counties, Bush, despite running unopposed, lost as much as 10% of the primary vote to write-ins, including a Constitution candidate.

[Oxford]

Two quick thoughts:

1.) Why does the third party discussion keep going back to Nader, when his party is behind the Libertarian and Constitution parties in size, and the LP holds about four times as many offices? I think because Nader usually gets the most votes of the third parties.


2.) Why does everyone assume that third parties only exist on the left? Keep in mind that in some counties, Bush, despite running unopposed, lost as much as 10% of the primary vote to write-ins, including a Constitution candidate. Hah, I have no idea. People should keep in mind that there is a communist party, which is extremely right (in an authoriatrian sense at least).

[Miscellaneous]

I think because Nader usually gets the most votes of the third parties.
No he doesn't, not even close. Ross Perot holds that record for actual "third" parties, and there have been elections where four parties have garnered significant support. The LP was the first third party to ever crack 1 million votes.


Hah, I have no idea. People should keep in mind that there is a communist party, which is extremely right (in an authoriatrian sense at least).
It's actually the Socialist Party in America (the American Communist Party doesn't do nearly as much politickin').

[OrangeSalsa]

Two quick thoughts:

1.) Why does the third party discussion keep going back to Nader, when his party is behind the Libertarian and Constitution parties in size, and the LP holds about four times as many offices?

2.) Why does everyone assume that third parties only exist on the left? Keep in mind that in some counties, Bush, despite running unopposed, lost as much as 10% of the primary vote to write-ins, including a Constitution candidate.
1) The size of parties and qualities of representation they have to offer differ. Right now, the LP may old more offices, but has a clear-cut candidate arose?

2) We don't assume third parties only exist on the left, we are basing this all on Nadar in the upcoming election, and in that case, the Independent party leans to the left.

[Miscellaneous]

1) The size of parties and qualities of representation they have to offer differ. Right now, the LP may old more offices, but has a clear-cut candidate arose?
Michael Badnarik's probably the "clearest-cut" candidate the LP's had in years. If you want to go to the LP website, you can find out how he won the candidacy (almost entirely based on the presidential debate).


2) We don't assume third parties only exist on the left, we are basing this all on Nadar in the upcoming election, and in that case, the Independent party leans to the left.
Nader's a member of the Green party. There is no "Indepedant Party." Nader was just listed as an Independant until he was officially declared the candidate for the Greens. There is an Independance Party, which is an offshoot of the Reform Party (which split after the '96 election).

[Giancarlo]

Nader didn't receive support from the greens this time around, therefore he's running as an independent.

[Miscellaneous]

Nader didn't receive support from the greens this time around, therefore he's running as an independent.
You're right, I forget about Cobb and Lamarche. Thanks for correcting me.

But there still isn't an "Independant Party."

[Giancarlo]

Independents run on their own ticket and usually their own expense (or that of people who fund them).

[OrangeSalsa]

You're right, I forget about Cobb and Lamarche. Thanks for correcting me.

But there still isn't an "Independant Party."
Ah you are correct, but he is leading representitive among Independents.

[Giancarlo]

Ah you are correct, but he is leading representitive among Independents.
That's not correct. Independents are by no means unified as a "party". Many go to the left, right, or center.

[Miscellaneous]

Yeah, seriously. I'm registered as an Independant, and I'd move to New Zealand before I'd vote for Nader.

[OrangeSalsa]

That's not correct. Independents are by no means unified as a "party". Many go to the left, right, or center.
I established the fact that miscellaneous was correct in their being no Independent party, but if you see what I typed, I never hinted at a party, as I was corrected in the previous post. A leading candidate among Independents doesn't suggest a unification in the form of a party, it merely means one who stands out from many, the Independents.