Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


The first debate

Parking Lot


View Poll Results: Round one of the debates goes to...
Bush 4 16.00%
Kerry 18 72.00%
draw 3 12.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-01-2004, 09:59 AM   #16
The Starter
 
EEich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bristol, CT
Age: 50
Posts: 1,001
People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.
EEich is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 10-01-2004, 11:07 AM   #17
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEich
People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.
How ridiculous. Voting your principles is "throwing you vote away"? I see.

So voting for the lesser of two evils isn't? I don't know what political ideology you come from EEich, but I know neither candidate holds true to the beliefs and principles I hold dear. So why should I vote for them?

It's people like you who perpetuate the crap that politics really is. Stubborn, lazy voters who could care less about how this country is going down the tubes, and don't take the time to search for someone who truly stands for what they believe -- and participating in this mindless popularity contest when both parties are only in it to stay in power, give in to the lobbyists, and could care less about what the Constitution says. Oh yeah, that's a really effective vote.

As to your analogy about football and Super Bowl champions, that is seriously flawed. Voting for only the candidate who has the best chance to win is like bandwagon, frontrunner fans who choose different teams to root for every year based on who is playing at their best and has the better chance to win the Super Bowl.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you an evil.

Vote your principles.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 11:18 AM   #18
The Starter
 
EEich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bristol, CT
Age: 50
Posts: 1,001
Voting principles is fine...
But voting for your ideal candidate is more likely to get the greater of two evils elected.

My analogy of betting on the Cardinals is not flawed... The Cardinals have no reasonable chance to win the Superbowl... betting on them is throwing your money/vote away. It's not a matter of jumping on a bandwagon.
To prove my point, I will bet you $5 on the election and give you ten million to one odds.

Voting with your heart is fine... voting with your head makes more sense to me.
EEich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 11:44 AM   #19
The Starter
 
EEich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bristol, CT
Age: 50
Posts: 1,001
By the way... My political idealogy is this... I'm a registered Democrat, but my ideal candidate this year was McLean. Sadly, I couldn't vote for him in the primary. I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration and would give my principles up to get that guy out of the White House. Are things clearer now?
EEich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 11:57 AM   #20
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
Who's McLean?

Incidentally, today's Republican party was once considered a "third party". It was created in the 1850s by anti-slavery activists. At the time the major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln is technically the first modern Republican president ever.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 12:02 PM   #21
The Starter
 
EEich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bristol, CT
Age: 50
Posts: 1,001
Sorry... McCain.
I'm hungry... thinking about the McDonald's hamburger.
EEich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 12:15 PM   #22
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
McCain's great. I wish he had won in 2000
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 12:17 PM   #23
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,436
anybody but Bush...

I actually feel stronger about Kerry after last night, I'm still not thrilled about him but he's the lesser of the two evils.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:10 PM   #24
The Starter
 
SUNRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,680
Kerry is the lesser of two evils, so I'd say he won hands down. I would have liked to have seen Kerry drill Bush on his relationship with the Bin Laden Family and why Osama Bin Laden's name was not mentioned one time by Bush in his Republican Convention speech. I think Bin Laden is off limits if youv'e seen Farenheit 911.
__________________
Redskins Member since 1970
SUNRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:15 PM   #25
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72
anybody but Bush...

I actually feel stronger about Kerry after last night, I'm still not thrilled about him but he's the lesser of the two evils.

To me, a life long republican, this seems to be the prevailing sentiment in the Democratic camp. Quite frankly, I am no huge fan of Bush (Dammit - the word is nu- clee -er), and if the Dems had a viable candidate I could be tempted to vote for him/her. This, however, does not appear to be the case to me.

Obviously, Kerry was the more polished debater and, I think, made his points more clearly. I agree that, when Bush was "on message", he sounded like a broken record ("Okay - they told me to say 'no mixed messages' whenever I can't think of anything to say"). I also think that when he actually was talking about his beliefs and "speaking from the heart", as it were, he was smoother and very clearly communicated his underlying convictions. However, these moments were fewer than I would have hoped.

While more polished, Kerry's entire Iraq position seems to be - "I would have disarmed Hussein but just in a better fashion. I also would have a better post-Iraq plan." As for foreign policy, it's the old global approval thing.

I started to write out my full response to Kerry's statements but realized it would take most of the day and just be waaaaaaaaay to long. So - as concisely as possible - why (as to foreign policy) I will not vote for Kerry: the USA can not and should not base it's actions on approval from the "global community". That is not to say we should act selfishly or with complete disregard to other nations, but that, ultimately, the decision as to what is in the best interests of the US must reside solely with the President. Our best interests should not be subject to a popularity contest, run up the flagpole or in any other way be determined by their approval by other nations. Despite his protestations that he will reserve the right to act preemptively - Kerry is clearly of the "only if you think its okay" school of foreign policy.

Well I could have gone on (in fact I did, I deleted 10 inches of text which was intended to be a more complete statement but which probably needed about another 10-20 inches to close all the loose ends. lol).
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:19 PM   #26
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,472
by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:22 PM   #27
Fight for old DC!
 
Redskins_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Falls Church, VA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here.
Amen JoeRedskin!
Redskins_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:41 PM   #28
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
abstractly: isn't democracy essentially a popularity contest?

people>populace>popularity
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:50 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 3,708
I don't think either candidate "won" the debate last night but instead the undecided voters did. We finally got to see the 2 main candidates for the presidency argue over some of the key topics we've wanted to hear them talk about. sure some of each of their responses were just repeats from what they've been saying for the past few monthes but that's to be expected from politicians. Kerry had some good moments as did Bush but neither could or should be declared the winner when most of the questions asked have been asked and answered pretty much the same ways for quite a while. I think each candidates main weaknesses or mistakes were brought to the forefront a little more and now those voters who r undecided have a better understanding of the two major candidates but hopefully this won't be the last debate and the next one will involve more telling questions as well as a few more loaded questions.

As far as 3rd party candidates, I'd love for there to be a solid candidate with a reasonable chance for success because I think this country needs a leader who can think outside of his/her party's box and is honestly out for the nations best interest and not just part of it for money or popularity. I just don't really know if I'll see that in my lifetime.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2004, 01:51 PM   #30
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here.
PREACH ON!!!

skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29277 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25