Support Bush or Kerry?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Did you support Bush or Kerry in 2004?

Bush
21
78%
Kerry
6
22%
 
Total votes : 27

Support Bush or Kerry?

Postby rman114 » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:29 pm

Just wondering
User avatar
rman114
hunter
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:50 pm
Location: Plainfield, New Jersey


Postby CLUTCHfan » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:57 pm

Even knowing what I know now, if I went back in time, I'd still vote Bush over Kerry. Same with Gore. It's a shame who we end up with for the Republican and Democratic nominees every election. Think I'm voting Libertarian from now on. Might not count for much, but at least my conscience will be clear.
TNAL45 wrote:I like my beer like I like my violence....Domestic.
User avatar
CLUTCHfan
Former DHC Ball Buster
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:50 pm
Location: Behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore.

Postby bluewing77 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:43 am

CLUTCHfan wrote:It's a shame who we end up with for the Republican and Democratic nominees every election. Think I'm voting Libertarian from now on. Might not count for much, but at least my conscience will be clear.

+1

we need a viable third party these days. instead of 3rd party candidates that suck votes away from the "mainstream" nominees.
User avatar
bluewing77
hunter
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: elev. 6820, central NM

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:07 am

The last thing we need is a 3rd party. We need competitive primaries at all levels. We sort of had one at the Presidential level this year on the Republican side. My guy lost, but that's how it goes. The Democrats had a Queen's coronation gone bad.

First thing, we need is term limits from President to local dog catcher. This would really help improve primary competition.

Second thing is getting rid of most of the incumbent protection legislation that has been enacted. McCain/Feingold, limited individual campaign contributions. A new guy cannot break into the field unless he is independently wealth and can finance his own campaign, some sort of celebrity, or spends years working up through the Party machinery created by the incumbents and their power brokers.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby bluewing77 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:17 am

SpinnerMan wrote:The last thing we need is a 3rd party.

why not?

First thing, we need is term limits from President to local dog catcher. This would really help improve primary competition.

Second thing is getting rid of most of the incumbent protection legislation that has been enacted. McCain/Feingold, limited individual campaign contributions. A new guy cannot break into the field unless he is independently wealth and can finance his own campaign, some sort of celebrity, or spends years working up through the Party machinery created by the incumbents and their power brokers.


i agree with first and second "Thing".
User avatar
bluewing77
hunter
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: elev. 6820, central NM

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:33 am

SpinnerMan wrote:The last thing we need is a 3rd party.

bluewing77 wrote:why not?
In general, and there are exceptions, 3rd parties are just excuses for people to be single issue fanatics. There is no reason to compromise which is always necessary to actually accomplish anything. You never get 100% of what you want and nothing is 100% perfect.

In the U.S., we have a winner take all system. I believe this is infinitely better than the parlimentary system and it really pissed me off that we chose the unstable European model over the stable American model when we set up the government in Iraq. Winner take all systems work most efficiently with two parties competing assuming there are actually competitive primaries (the current major flaw).

If you get 3 or 4 parties with significant representation in the legislature, there will be even more behind the seens wheeling and dealing to form the ruling coalition. The coalition will add instability because the coalition can break down. Elections should decide who is in control and not political deals. This is why jumping Jim Jeffords was such a scumbag. You can switch parties, but you should never do it if it switches the balance of power unless voters have the opportunity to choose. This is why I never suggest Leiberman should switch to Republican.

If a 3rd party candidate would somehow win the White House, under the current environment, I believe it would be a disaster. The career politicians (both D & R) would guarantee their Presidency was a disaster. Remember read my lips know new taxes and the Dems did everything to undermine him and succeeded at it. You can guarantee it would be a read my lips no more 3rd party candidates situation.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby bluewing77 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:47 am

so if the incumbent protection legislation can be done away with, would that lead to more competitive primaries?

narrator: political yearling makes public request for insight, for the benefit of all.
User avatar
bluewing77
hunter
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: elev. 6820, central NM

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:25 am

It would help. In my opinion, term limits would be 90% of the benefit and removing all the dumb incumbent protection legislation would be 10%. I can't think of anything else that would help in the short term including 3rd parties in part for the reasons described.

Sound financial and economic education at high school would help. Every American student should graduate high school understanding the concepts of shares, bonds, mutual funds, index funds, insurance, mortgage, supply and demand, etc. Everybody is going to choose a career, manage their household budget, save for retirement, buy insurance, buy a home, etc. They should be given the fundamental knowledge so they can make good decisions based on understanding the pluses and minus of there available choices. This would radically change the system.

Both Obama and McCain have said things about the "economy" that show no understanding of fundamental concepts that every high school graduate should understand, but virtually none do.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby mydogearl » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:42 am

spinner, i totally agree with about financing, etc in high school. my school was an excellent academic school, relatively speaking, but finance and such was never really taught. if it werent for being a business major, i would be in the dark regarding financing, and obviously, not everyone will be business majors either, so they wont learn it in college either.
User avatar
mydogearl
hunter
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:35 pm
Location: southern OHIO

Postby DuckinFool » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:28 am

I don't agree about no need for a 3rd Party. We need a 3rd Party but not necessarily what is out there right now. How about an American Party? :thumbsup:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:03 pm

DuckinFool wrote:We need a 3rd Party but not necessarily what is out there right now.
I think that's all you will ever get.

DuckinFool wrote:How about an American Party?
What is their platform? Unification of all of the Americas?

Names don't mean a Image thing.

We need to debate issues. The more debate the better. The more contested elections, the more debate of issues we will see. This is especially true for contested primaries because generally the ONLY difference between candidates are issues, since they are by definition all from the same party.

There is a very important distinction between political philosophy and political party. Political parties are solely a group of politicians whose sole function is to get as many of their politicians elected to office. These parties attract people based on their platforms, which is supposed to be guiding principles, but ultimately they are a bunch of politicians and we know how trustworthy they are. Political philosophy covers a wide spectrum and this is what is debated. Party is just the way politicians organize themselves to ensure they have the power to accomplish or prevent the things they want.

The competive primaries would allow the voters to hold the politicians feet to the fire in every single district, even if it is 100% Democrat or 100% Republican. That is generally the driving reason behind people wanting 3rd parties. Term limits would be far more effective at achieving this goal than 3rd parties or anything else could be.

Ideally, every U.S. Congressman should have a serious contest in the primaries, but not necessarily the general election. Every Senator should have a serious general election contest as well. However, the Represtantive are supposed to represent their district. Ideally, each district should have a relatively homogeneous set of people with similar driving issues. If a state is 50/50 Democrat/Republican and has 4 congressional seats. Ideal it would have two districts that are 100% Democrat and 2 that are 100% Republican. Now in reality the districts will be Gerimandered such that there will be one district that is 100% one party (the one that does not control the state legislature) and three districts that are 2/3 on party (the one that does control the state legislature) and 1/3 the other. This would lead to a 3/1 ratio in congress, which is not representative of the state. Half of the citizens that side with the party that does not control the state legislature will have no representation in Congress and all 4 of these seats will be uncontested in the primary and general election, except when the seat holder dies or goes to jail.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DuckinFool » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:35 pm

Our entire political process has become corrupt to the core. :mad:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby huntingdude16 » Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:15 pm

The last thing we need is a third party? :huh:

What about the person that doesnt agree with EITHER of the party's general platform, and there is a party that offers a sort of 'hybrid' of ideas? Should they be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in their eyes?
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein
huntingdude16
hunter
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: NoDak

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:36 am

There are two sides to every issue. The right side and the wrong side. Now, my definition of the right side is the one that accomplishes that stated goal. End of story.

However, to a politician, the right side is the one that ensure that get 50% + 1 votes. It doesn't matter if it fails or not.

The more debate there is then the more likely the winning candidate will be the one that chooses the position on the issue that will accomplish the stated goal.

It's easy to propose lofty goals, but achieving them is a different issue. We've had a war on poverty for over half a century. Poverty is still hanging tough. The poor want the easy life and that is why they are poor. You'll never find a politician that will tell them that and as long as too many people believe there is an easy solution, the politicians that promise to fight poverty with policies doomed to failure will continue to win elections.

As soon as some politician can tell me how they are going to get a drug addict or an alcoholic to show up, I mean just show up, to work for 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year, then I will listen to them.

3rd parties are another solution that won't solve anything. They do sound good though.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby huntingdude16 » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:56 pm

There are two sides to every issue. The right side and the wrong side. Now, my definition of the right side is the one that accomplishes that stated goal. End of story.

And there are many issues. It's not like theres only one issue that there can only be two sides to. Rather, it is the fact that there ARE many issues that makes a 3rd party a not-so-bad idea...



"We need to debate issues. The more debate the better. The more contested elections, the more debate of issues we will see."

Wouldnt there be more debate with 3 peoples different opinions and viewpoints, than two?


Interesting poster I found...
Image
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein
huntingdude16
hunter
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: NoDak

Postby pennsyltucky » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:33 pm

great!! why not make it a 6 party system? thats gotta be great, huh? :no: a modicum of intelligence tells us that with more than 2 parties, only a small percentage of the vote is needed to win. do you seriously want a president that got in office with the support of only 35% of americans or even less?

why dont we just start having more than 2 teams play in the superbowl? wouldnt that be awesome? :rolleyes: c'mon...
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby semo88 » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:45 pm

I agree with you guys who think a legit 3rd party candidate would be nice sometimes…it would great this year…as it would have been in 2004….or in 2000. But I tend to side with you guys who say it wouldn’t work. pennsyltucky made a good point that someone could get elected with significantly less than half of the country’s support. Look at the countries in Europe who have several “major” parties running things. It can be a big mess at times. It’d kind of be like if we gave every special interest group in the US a vote in Congress…you’d have nothing but arguing and nothing would get done (sounds a lot like our current state of affairs, but it could get a LITTLE worse I guess).
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby rmh » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:50 pm

We had a 3rd party candidate in 1992 and the result was that Bill Clinton got elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, happened again in 1996. Then that 3rd party just disappeared.
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby pennsyltucky » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:59 pm

rmh wrote:We had a 3rd party candidate in 1992 and the result was that Bill Clinton got elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, happened again in 1996. Then that 3rd party just disappeared.
this is the type of "hit and run" politics that will take place with 3 parties. then you have the pay-off of third parties to absorb some of the opponents voting base. kinda like if obama was able to pay ron paul to stay in the race.... paul would almost guarantee the win for obama if he was officially on the ballot. the superbowl analogy fits almost perfectly. we play thru all the rounds of the playoffs, to get the 2 best teams for the big game. if we added another team or 2, it just wouldnt work.
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby huntingdude16 » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:39 pm

great!! why not make it a 6 party system? thats gotta be great, huh? a modicum of intelligence tells us that with more than 2 parties, only a small percentage of the vote is needed to win. do you seriously want a president that got in office with the support of only 35% of americans or even less?

You know why he/she would only win with 35% of the vote? Because some people chose another candidate they liked better!

Not, it's not the physical majority of the people, and? Does that really matter?

Instead of having to choose between two different candidates they don't agree with, they can instead choose another person they share more of their values with.

Your hyperbole of a 6-party system is obviously too much, but there is room for a 3rd option!!
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein
huntingdude16
hunter
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: NoDak

Postby pennsyltucky » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:07 pm

huntingdude16 wrote:Instead of having to choose between two different candidates they don't agree with, they can instead choose another person they share more of their values with.

Your hyperbole of a 6-party system is obviously too much, but there is room for a 3rd option!!
so you think that shoe-horning a nut job into office with 70% of the american public against him is a good idea? spare me the stupid bush comments... actually think about what you are proposing here.... try to think about how our government would work with 3 parties. especially if the far left broke off and put some real socialists in office.... there are retards who will vote for them...and with 3 or more parties about even with each other, it wouldnt take a big leap to get enuf votes to do it.

also, a candidate for president needs 270 electoral votes to get in. with a viable 3rd party taking a few states, and a close election, there arent enuf to put anyone in office. then what?
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby huntingdude16 » Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:02 pm

so you think that shoe-horning a nut job into office with 70% of the american public against him is a good idea? spare me the stupid bush comments... actually think about what you are proposing here.... try to think about how our government would work with 3 parties. especially if the far left broke off and put some real socialists in office.... there are retards who will vote for them...and with 3 or more parties about even with each other, it wouldnt take a big leap to get enuf votes to do it.

First, quit with the talking down BS. Do you talk like this with everyone you don't agree with? :no:

Second, 70% of the American public? I think you mean the 70% of 60% of voting-age people that actually vote. Ever consider that the ones that DIDNT vote, did not vote because they did not like either of the candidates?

An interesting point to make with that arguement is the highest % of the american public that was registered to vote was in 1992, and also the highest voter turnout also highest in this year. Also the best a third party candidate ever did, excluding T.R. and the Bull Moose party.
Granted the difference to make it the highest was by only about 5%, but it's still something to note.


also, a candidate for president needs 270 electoral votes to get in. with a viable 3rd party taking a few states, and a close election, there arent enuf to put anyone in office. then what?

What was the final count in the '92 election?
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein
huntingdude16
hunter
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: NoDak

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:41 pm

I like very low voter turnout. If the government would leave me alone, I would leave them alone. I want the decisions made by the government, especially the Federal Government, to have so little impact on the average person's life that they don't really care. Voter turnout is high because the stakes are high. That is not good.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16425
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:47 pm

huntingdude16 wrote:First, quit with the talking down BS. Do you talk like this with everyone you don't agree with? :no:
i wasnt trying to talk down to you or anyone else. should i add more smileys? i try to speak as plainly as possible so everyone reading my post can understand my position. i try to use descriptive words and phrases to help convey the tone of my "voice" when typing. sometimes it works, sometimes it seems like sarcasm. its hard to type seriously without sounding condescending...but i dont mean to...

Second, 70% of the American public? I think you mean the 70% of 60% of voting-age people that actually vote. Ever consider that the ones that DIDNT vote, did not vote because they did not like either of the candidates?
i know lots of non-voters....none of them refuse to vote because they didnt like the candidates. all of them refuse to vote because they are lazy. that sounds harsh, but its true. they all have reasons for this or that, but boil it down, and its laziness. they dont care, or they dont feel like it, or they just dont have the time, or "my vote dont count anyway" even tho they have no clue how the system works. its a front for laziness. many of them are hardworking people who dont think they can find the time, and they make excuses to feel better about it... its still laziness. the ones who claim to know better than everyone else and not vote because they feel they are above either candidate....just lazy :biggrin: there are probably exceptions to this, but generally, people lie to themselves in order to allow themselves to do what they want, or not do what they dont. same thing with party affiliations. for ex: a guy like pacific fisher is probably incapable of changing his views because he has entrenched himself deep enuf, and believes his own views strongly enuf, that even if he were to be faced with an obvious contradiction, he would refuse to believe it because it would tear down all he has built up in defense of his own beliefs.... not that he is any different from the rest of us...he is just my example :smile: ill quit with the mental stuff.....:oops:

An interesting point to make with that arguement is the highest % of the american public that was registered to vote was in 1992, and also the highest voter turnout also highest in this year. Also the best a third party candidate ever did, excluding T.R. and the Bull Moose party.
Granted the difference to make it the highest was by only about 5%, but it's still something to note.
and we got a fairly lame president who had less than 50% of america's support. he didnt do much good or bad himself, but the appointments and bits of legislation he passed are still around our necks today... its the chip-chip-chiping away at our rights that im concerned with, and having a democrat in a position of authority allows this to take place much more so than a republican. this country is best served with a strong conservative republican in the white house, and a moderate/democrat (NOT LIBERAL) congress. even better with a conservative speaker over the democrat congress. dems try to pass lots of legislation, and they do good things for our social ills like mental patients and veteran care, but when they try to push too much pork and fiscal irresponsibility onto the taxpayers, we need a strong VETO in the white house :thumbsup:


What was the final count in the '92 election?
dont know...the public vote was fairly close i believe, but the college has a democrat lean because of the city vote... id have to look it up, but dont care enuf to
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby semo88 » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:01 pm

Very good post.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], ScaupHunter and 8 guests

cron