poll just for giggles
Moderator: Dictators in Training
poll just for giggles
I'm just curious as to how the results would look from the NT community. Also, a brief explanation for your decision would be appreciated. Canadian NT members are welcome to participate... just use the mindset that you're a U.S. citizen in 2008.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Giuliani would have my vote in that scenario. He doesn't take positions that I would like on all issues, and even some key ones, however neither does Clinton. Clinton has made an effort to portray herself as more of a moderate, and I don't buy it. What would be nice in the scenario you propose however is that I would be voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone. Despite not agreeing with Giuliani's stance on some issues, I think he would make and excellent president, I believe him to be someone I could really get behind. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate for the next election I would really like to see the Republicans nominate this man.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Nope, which is kind of a bummer. Was it on par with the night Gore was on, I thought that skit was great.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Tikker wrote:Lueyen wrote: What would be nice in the scenario you propose however is that I would be voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone.
isn't this how your 2 party system forces you to vote most of the time anyway?
No not really. Every vote I've ever cast in a presidential election was a choice made not to support the person I voted for, but to prevent the election of their opponent. Since I was of age to be able to vote, there has not been a major party candidate that I would say I supported on their merits and principals, rather I was actively trying to prevent their opponent. Where Guliani is concerned I believe I would find myself actually supporting him. The difference would be that should he be elected I wouldn't be sighing a relief that we didn't elect his opponent, but instead would be generally happy because I would feel that we had elected someone who was going to be good for the country.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Lueyen wrote:Tikker wrote:Lueyen wrote: What would be nice in the scenario you propose however is that I would be voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone.
isn't this how your 2 party system forces you to vote most of the time anyway?
No not really. Every vote I've ever cast in a presidential election was a choice made not to support the person I voted for, but to prevent the election of their opponent. Since I was of age to be able to vote, there has not been a major party candidate that I would say I supported on their merits and principals, rather I was actively trying to prevent their opponent. Where Guliani is concerned I believe I would find myself actually supporting him. The difference would be that should he be elected I wouldn't be sighing a relief that we didn't elect his opponent, but instead would be generally happy because I would feel that we had elected someone who was going to be good for the country.
I think I worded that poorly
What I meant was that 2 party system generally forces you to vote for lesser of 2 evils
Tikker wrote:I think I worded that poorly
What I meant was that 2 party system generally forces you to vote for lesser of 2 evils
Yes that is true of the 2 party system. I think perhaps what you are getting at is that I would still be voting for one of the 2 major party candidates even though I didn't like every stance they stood for. The reality is that in virtually any case I will not find a candidate that I would agree with 100 percent on everything, even if we had fifty different candidates that had a viable chance of winning. The difference where Guliani is concerned vs past candidates is that issues I would take with his positions on certain subjects would be outweighed by what I would consider to be his positive aspects.
In short if Guliani ran as an independent or third party candidate I would be tempted to vote for him although it is likely that in that situation it would help to facilitate election of a candidate that I did not want at all, due to a "split vote".
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I could quyite easily and happily vote for Al Gore were he to run. Hillary, I'd have to think about. Obama too, much as I like the man, as I dunno if he has enough experience at the national level.
It would NOT surprise me, however, to see the Demos combine their most popular 2 options, and have a Clinton/Obama pair running for Pres/VP.
-Arlos
It would NOT surprise me, however, to see the Demos combine their most popular 2 options, and have a Clinton/Obama pair running for Pres/VP.
-Arlos