Page 1 of 1
poll just for giggles
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:42 am
by Narrock
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.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:46 am
by brinstar
where's the barack obama option :P
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:53 am
by Ginzburgh
where's the barack obama option :P
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:59 am
by Spazz
Why isnt there a neither nor option. I dont agree with either of them in the slightest and i think were just in for more suffering if either one of those clowns gets into office.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:10 pm
by araby
corrupt poll
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:20 pm
by Bodin
My Picks would have to be Juli -> barack obama -> Minrott -> Garfield -> Clinton.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:51 pm
by Lueyen
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.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:53 pm
by Jay
Did you see him on SNL? Was one of their better episodes.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:59 pm
by Lueyen
Nope, which is kind of a bummer. Was it on par with the night Gore was on, I thought that skit was great.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:00 pm
by Tikker
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?
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:10 pm
by Jay
The war on grafitti skit made me laugh.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:18 pm
by Lueyen
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.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:20 pm
by Tikker
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
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:47 pm
by Lueyen
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".
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:13 pm
by Arlos
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
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:58 pm
by Jay
I voted for Rudy because he's a man and he'd run the country much better than a woman.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:20 pm
by Dylan
Rudi Giuliani, he was a good mayor for New York, and he doesn't have a vagina.
Also, who is this Obama fellow? I've never heard of him. Sounds like one of them damn a-rabs.