Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Who would you vote for?

Election 2004

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Poll: Who would you vote for? (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Candidate A (6 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

  2. Candidate B (17 votes [73.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.91%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Gvambat

Gvambat
  • Islander
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:22 AM

Candidate A is someone who you believe is truly honest and a good person, qualified, up front and dedicated to their views and principles--a person who really wants to do the right thing. However, this person holds completely opposite views from you. You disagree on every issue of importance, and if elected, this person would have both the determination and ability to push the country in directions you firmly believe are immoral or wrong.

Candidate B is your average politician who happens to agree with you on most issues when you can figure out what their position actually is.
Electrons behave like waves on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; like particles on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and like nothing at all on Sundays.

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:25 AM

Give me more on Candidate B. Am I convinced that he does, in fact, agree with me, or is he just saying he does to win votes?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Gvambat

Gvambat
  • Islander
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:30 AM

Split the difference and say a bit of both. You think he probably does agree with you, but it may not be particularly important to him, and he's more interested in winning votes.
Electrons behave like waves on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; like particles on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and like nothing at all on Sundays.

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:35 AM

Hrm. Well, unless the direction is *extremely* wrong or immoral-- and I'm talking cartoonish LaRouche wrong, not everyday mainstream wrong-- I'd have to go with Candidate A. Somebody with a set of values is, at the very least, predictiable. Somebody who abandons his principles-- if any-- as soon as they become inconvenient would probably be far more dangerous in office. Give me honest disagreements over pandering any day. :).
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#5 RommieSG

RommieSG

    Heir to the Empire

  • Islander
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:39 AM

Where's 'None of the Above'? :eh:

Rommie :cylon:
Posted Image

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:39 AM

RommieSG, on Apr 5 2004, 11:37 PM, said:

Where's 'None of the Above'? :eh:

Rommie :cylon:
I ask myself that every November. :cool:.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 RommieSG

RommieSG

    Heir to the Empire

  • Islander
  • 17,194 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:50 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 5 2004, 11:37 PM, said:

RommieSG, on Apr 5 2004, 11:37 PM, said:

Where's 'None of the Above'? :eh:

Rommie :cylon:
I ask myself that every November. :cool:.
That's the last time I take my politics from a Richard Pryor movie. :p

Rommie :cylon:
Posted Image

#8 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 09:09 AM

Well, if I can't trust B's integrity, then I won't vote for him/her, but I'm in Canada, so we have more than 2 options! :)

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#9 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 09:22 AM

Definitely A

The devil you know is better and all that - a Man of integrity and morals, a man of his word? Obviously such a thing cannot happen but he would get my vote, even if I do disagree with his views - Change is better than more of the same.
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#10 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 09:23 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 6 2004, 01:33 AM, said:

Somebody who abandons his principles-- if any-- as soon as they become inconvenient would probably be far more dangerous in office.
If I may be partisan, I think you just described Mr. Kerry.  :whistle:   (Emphasis on the "if any" part.)  ;)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#11 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 10:50 AM

I don't know, I'd like to say Candidate A, but it seems to me that in the modern political system, the only candidates who are really willing to say what they think are those on the fringe.  Serious candidates from the big parties-- those with a real chance to win, in other words-- basically have to be willing to play the game, which means they've all got a little Candidate B in them.

I null voted, but I'm a little closer to B than A, I think.  It's an interesting question...

#12 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:36 PM

So, either I vote for Hitler or Stalin?

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#13 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 01:51 PM

I probably shouldn't be laughing...but 'Hawk! ROTFLMAO!!!!!  doing an Ambrose Bierce are we?
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#14 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 02:34 PM

Forgive me, but I can't help wonder why ANYONE would vote for a nice-guy candidate who stands for everything you DON'T believe in.  :eek2:  :eek:  :eek2:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 03:40 PM

I'm for B...
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 05:07 PM

Shalamar, on Apr 6 2004, 01:49 PM, said:

doing an Ambrose Bierce are we?
Oh, yeah.

There was an exercise something like this years ago--- Candidate A was a cripple who could barely talk, from a rich family and a patrician background, and Candidate B was a strapping young war vet with all kinds of good ideas, a man of the people and a real love of his country. And then it turns out that Candidate A was FDR, and Candidate B was Hitler, and you're supposed to be all "oh my god! I voted for the handsome young go-getter and now I'm going to be in a concentration camp!".

Yeah. So I'm presuming there's a similar catch. Either I vote for the guy who honestly will purge everyone, or I vote for the guy who fumbles around acting nice and quietly ships off all my best friends to Siberia.... boy, what options.

Although I sense the dichotomy is a thinly-veiled Bush/Kerry type of dealie, life's a hit for the eternal fatalist....

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#17 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 05:42 PM

^ This one


Who would you vote for?

--Candidate A - He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. He is a cripple from a rich family and a patrician background.

--Candidate B - He was kicked out of public offices twice.  He sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.  In addition he is a poltical outcast who directed a disastrous campaign last war.  

--Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero, dedicated to the growth of his country, and loved by the people. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.

.
.
.
.
.
.

A is FDR, B is Churchill, and C is Hitler. ;)
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#18 Gvambat

Gvambat
  • Islander
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 06:28 PM

Quote

Where's 'None of the Above'?

Deliberately absent.

Quote

So, either I vote for Hitler or Stalin?

Huh. Difficult question, where one really wants a "neither" choice and a good way out of the country.

But no, there's no catch here that I'm aware of, definitely no real people behind the choices.
Electrons behave like waves on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; like particles on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and like nothing at all on Sundays.

#19 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 06 April 2004 - 07:51 PM

Here's how I reasoned through this one--Candidate A I *know* will go against everything I believe policy-wise . . . whereas Candidate B at least *says* he'll do what I want him to, so he very well may do some of it.

So, I voted for B.

I despise pandering--but if he or she's gunna pander to me . . . well, he or she's gotta make me happy at least a little bit or there will be no re-election.

Actually--can I just write-in McCain or Edwards???? ;)

-Nick

#20 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 08 April 2004 - 04:31 PM

Gvambat, on Apr 5 2004, 11:20 PM, said:

Candidate B is your average politician who happens to agree with you on most issues when you can figure out what their position actually is.
Objective analysis has, in fact, proven that wanting to be re-elected does not mean candidates lie to voters. In fact, almost all elected officials work hard at implementing campaign promises because they realize that's how you get re-elected.

The poll is a no-brainer.

Just because someone is firm and unwavering in holding beliefs I find immoral is hardly a reason to vote for them.  Psychotics can be firm and unwavering in believing their particular psychosis. That doesn't make them good candidates for public office.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users