Question: Is anyone else DEPRESSED about our voting choices this year?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Michael Badnarik would be the ideal choice, if only because he has actually read the Constitution once or twice in his lifetime.

Personally, I am voting against Bush because of the impending budget crisis he has created.

While I'd be voting Badnarik, I seriously would not want him as President. Even though I like his ideas, he's a little too unstable for me. I wish the LP had someone better to offer this season.

I disagree. The only thing "unstable" about Badnarik is that he would cut off the federal money gravy train, both personal and corporate, as quickly as he could, which (to be as blunt as possible) would probably result in his rapid assassination.

Yeah, that kinda what I mean. We do need radical, wholesale changes in our Federal government, but you can't really implement them all at once and overnight without creating chaos. I'd like to think Badnarik understands this, but his comments about disbanding the IRS, freeing all drug-related criminals, and bombing the UN on his first day on the job makes me a little uneasy.

Heh. At least he's true to his party ideology.

And I see nothing wrong with disbanding the IRS or freeing all drug-related criminals. Once drugs are legalized, they won't be criminals anymore. We might want to let the UN people evacuate first before we bomb their building though

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Yeah, that kinda what I mean. We do need radical, wholesale changes in our Federal government, but you can't really implement them all at once and overnight without creating chaos. I'd like to think Badnarik understands this, but his comments about disbanding the IRS, freeing all drug-related criminals, and bombing the UN on his first day on the job makes me a little uneasy.

Heh. At least he's true to his party ideology.

And I see nothing wrong with disbanding the IRS or freeing all drug-related criminals. Once drugs are legalized, they won't be criminals anymore. We might want to let the UN people evacuate first before we bomb their building though

Yeah, he did say he'd give the UN a few hours to evacuate first. :laugh:

And like I said, I agree with almost all of the Libertarian platform, but not necessarily Badnarik's timeline. If he does these radical things right off the bat, things are going to go downhill before they eventually get better. If the people don't recognize this, they may oust him and elect someone else, who will simply restore the status quo and say "See children, you don't want change - never stray from the 2-party system again, ok?" And they won't.

I say he comes in, says "Ok folks - this is going to be a long road, but we're gonna come out on the other side for the better. Stick with me a bit. Here we go.." Then legalize marajuana at first and free those criminals. Then limit the power of the IRS severely. And so forth..

 

[StageLeft]

I'm depressed reading P&N and seeing that 70% of the people here don't deserve to breath, much less vote on anything that can really affect other people's lives

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm depressed reading P&N and seeing that 70% of the people here don't deserve to breath, much less vote on anything that can really affect other people's lives

Be sweet. That isn't sweet. Where is Ross Perot when we need him? I don't know why Gore doesn't run again since he obviously won last election. This election would be a breeze for the guy.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm TOTALLY with you on 3rd parties, I just find it depressing that they have no chance because the Democratic and Republican parties are UNITED in making sure they keep the power to themselves.

I'm fond of the Libertarian party, though I truly wish there were a simple "Capitalist" party. The Libertarians are *close* to Classical Liberalism, but they are still not consistent, and some of their most vocal members are idiots like Howard Stern.

Thanks for the link, though!

Jason

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Well, I'm not voting for either of the major party candidates but I'm not going to stump for the guy I'm voting for either. I will, however, suggest you read up on the "independent" parties.

Here's one to start with.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Waffles don't flip-flop - you pull them out of the iron and they're ready for butter and syrup!

I can't agree that the choices in this election are depressing. I definitely find one of them depressing (1 1/2, if you count Nader), but I think one is a perfectly viable, adequately appealing candidate.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I will amend this to say that a Vote for Bush OR a vote for Kerry is a vote for More of the Same. There are VERY few differences of substance between the two, and I'm quite frankly appalled at the vicious and unprofessional campaigns that both have wagered.

Makes me miss Ronald Reagan. Even though I disagreed with probably 90% of his policy, the man was a *consistent* gentleman and professional.

Jason

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Jason,

You're not voting for one Man anymore. It is a Club, the guy at the top is just a puppet.

A vote for The Fearless Liar is a vote for more of the same.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for a new set of Club members to play at the Poker table.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Waffles don't flip-flop - you pull them out of the iron and they're ready for butter and syrup!

I can't agree that the choices in this election are depressing. I definitely find one of them depressing (1 1/2, if you count Nader), but I think one is a perfectly viable, adequately appealing candidate.

Finding one candidate to be adequately appealing doesn't depress you?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

That's very good advice, and believe me, it's what I always do

I'm very worried that Kerry will try to make this an even more "Sensitive" war than it already is, and that, I think, would be a mistake. I find it VERY difficult to assess the current TRUE status of Iraq, because what I get from the news is VERY different than what I get from friends who are actually IN Iraq. We seem to get every bad news bit that happens but we don't hear about the good stuff. I have friends working on rebuilding infrastructure (mostly contruction and repair of roads, power, water and other utilities and facilities) who report good progress and general cheer among the people they are helping, but I see very little of that in the news.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

Jason

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
And Kerry...jeez, I'm so frazzled by his endless flip-flopping that there's no way I can trust him with the war on terror. SO I feel stuck between choosing an ignorant brick wall for president or a man who flip-flops so much you'd think he was a waffle just waiting for syrup.

Ok that seems to be your biggest sticking point. Answer these three questions (post the answers if you wish, or keep them private):
[*]What do you truely think Kerry would do in regard to terrorists and related issues?
[*]What do you truely think Bush would do in regard to terrorists and related issues?
[*]Which result do you like better? Then vote that way.

As it is, your post reads more like a sound byte from political ads. TV ads certainly aren't a very good source of information. Instead, rely on what you yourself think will happen. Follow your heart and vote that way.

 

[Tom]

I think Kerry might be an excellent president. I think the "flip-flopping" issue is just political rhetoric with no real merit, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Bush has made several disastrous decisions, and I expect he will make more if he is given the chance.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'm TOTALLY with you on 3rd parties, I just find it depressing that they have no chance because the Democratic and Republican parties are UNITED in making sure they keep the power to themselves.

I'm fond of the Libertarian party, though I truly wish there were a simple "Capitalist" party. The Libertarians are *close* to Classical Liberalism, but they are still not consistent, and some of their most vocal members are idiots like Howard Stern.

Thanks for the link, though!

Jason

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Well, I'm not voting for either of the major party candidates but I'm not going to stump for the guy I'm voting for either. I will, however, suggest you read up on the "independent" parties.

Here's one to start with.

Yeah, they're the closest to Classic Liberalism I can find too. Makes me want to start my own political party and run for President when I turn 35. My campaign's focus would be "Self Responsibility" and I would lose horribly.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Finding one candidate to be adequately appealing doesn't depress you?

Not at all. I'm not looking for a love affair, I'm looking for a person who is bright, principled, and savvy in diplomacy to lead my nation. I don't have to love him.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I will amend this to say that a Vote for Bush OR a vote for Kerry is a vote for More of the Same. There are VERY few differences of substance between the two, and I'm quite frankly appalled at the vicious and unprofessional campaigns that both have wagered.

No offense, but I think this is the same kind of misguided sentiment that led enough people to vote for Nader to tilt the 2000 election in favor of President Bush. IMO this has had dire consequences, and to imply that Bush and Kerry would run the nation in a fundamentally fungible way ignores their vast differences in principles and policies.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

LOL, good call. I have some friends who don't vote because "you're vote doesn't count" (they don't understand how or why the Electorate works). I always tell them it's worth voting so that, if nothing else, you have a right to bitch. If you don't bother to make your opinion a matter of public record by casting a ballot, how can you complain when any president does anything?

I agree that last election was similar, though not as bad. I voted for Brown, though, because Bush and Gore were SO similar I didn't see any point in tossing it their direction

Jason

Originally posted by: bamacre

Is anyone else DEPRESSED about our voting choices this year?

Yes.

I thought the same way last election (Bush and Gore), but I think this year is MUCH worse. I'm still undecided. I am leaning toward a write in, just so I can still complain about whomever wins.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well personally, my only beef with the current crop of Libertarians is their policy of never getting involved in international matters. The issue is best summed up by those Libertarians who believe that the South had "every right" to secede and maintain slavery if they wanted to, which is *entirely* inconsistent with Lockean political philosophy.

They would have had a right to secede *IF* the government had sought to oppress them, but that wasn't the case. The government sought to liberate some men from others, which is perfectly proper, moral and within our government's right to do.

Jason

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Michael Badnarik would be the ideal choice, if only because he has actually read the Constitution once or twice in his lifetime.

Personally, I am voting against Bush because of the impending budget crisis he has created.

While I'd be voting Badnarik, I seriously would not want him as President. Even though I like his ideas, he's a little too unstable for me. I wish the LP had someone better to offer this season.

I disagree. The only thing "unstable" about Badnarik is that he would cut off the federal money gravy train, both personal and corporate, as quickly as he could, which (to be as blunt as possible) would probably result in his rapid assassination.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

I am not depressed. I am hopefull that we will get the piece of sh1t and his cronies out of the white house and hopefully on trial for the crimes against humanity that were commited under their watch.

...oh, and I already voted.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

You, in turn, sound increasingly like a neoconservative in libertarian's clothing.

FYI, Howard Stern isn't a libertarian. He ran for governor of NY on a libertarian ticket because they agreed to nominate him, and he could handle their platform. He is registered independent, and has supported a number of Republicans (including Christie Todd Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, and Mike Bloomberg), as well as Democrats (he is presently an enthusiastic Kerry supporter).

 

[b0mbrman]

Question: Is anyone else DEPRESSED about our voting choices this year?

Totally. I cry myself to sleep every night

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well personally, my only beef with the current crop of Libertarians is their policy of never getting involved in international matters. The issue is best summed up by those Libertarians who believe that the South had "every right" to secede and maintain slavery if they wanted to, which is *entirely* inconsistent with Lockean political philosophy.

They would have had a right to secede *IF* the government had sought to oppress them, but that wasn't the case. The government sought to liberate some men from others, which is perfectly proper, moral and within our government's right to do.

Jason

Would you accuse all Democrats of thinking exactly the same? Or all Republicans of thinking exactly the same and then try them on the views of what is actually a minority opinion?

I personally don't know any Libertarians who feel the South had "every right" to secede. Their statehouses ratified the Constitution and entered the Union. They were bound to abide by it. And as the South fired the first shots of the Civil War, they lost right there any claim to legitimacy they could ever had hoped to have.

I see the Jefferson quote in your sig. I'm quite the fan of Jefferson and Classical Liberalism myself. When the US sets out to police the world against its will by military force, is not the US then putting on the boots and spurs, ready to ride the backs of the world for its own moralistic satisfaction?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

I am not depressed. I am hopefull that we will get the piece of sh1t and his cronies out of the white house and hopefully on trial for the crimes against humanity that were commited under their watch.

...oh, and I already voted.

Maybe you should do a little more searching to see my rants before bush's excelent adventure in iraq. You will see that i ranted against sadam, but that I also ranted against the continuing retarded US folicy that put people like Sadam in power in the first place, supplied him with new weapons, technology and inteligence.

So, now care to discuss why Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of them should be charged with war crimes for what happened at Abu Gharid and other prisons as well as for what happens at Guantanamo?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DonVito
You, in turn, sound increasingly like a neoconservative in libertarian's clothing.

FYI, Howard Stern isn't a libertarian. He ran for governor of NY on a libertarian ticket because they agreed to nominate him, and he could handle their platform. He is registered independent, and has supported a number of Republicans (including Christie Todd Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, George Patakim, and Mike Bloomberg), as well as Democrats (he is presently an enthusiastic Kerry supporter).

Yeah, Stern is about as libertarian as Playboy magazine. Meaning only when he thinks it makes him look cool.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

You, in turn, sound increasingly like a neoconservative in libertarian's clothing.

FYI, Howard Stern isn't a libertarian. He ran for governor of NY on a libertarian ticket because they agreed to nominate him, and he could handle their platform. He is registered independent, and has supported a number of Republicans (including Christie Todd Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, George Patakim, and Mike Bloomberg), as well as Democrats (he is presently an enthusiastic Kerry supporter).

Actually, I think DragonMaster has a valid point. There is a fair bit of hypocrisy there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Actually, I think DragonMaster has a valid point. There is a fair bit of hypocrisy there.

You could be right. He would do well to express himself better. I don't think GW should be tried for crimes against humanity. Just not re-elected.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

And that may in fact be true, however, Kerry is without any question, a flip-flopper. It's not political rhetoric, listen to the man's speeches from a year ago, listen to them today, observe the difference for yourself. It's all a matter of public record

Jason

PS: I hate Bush, too, so no partisan flames, please

Originally posted by: Tom
I think Kerry might be an excellent president. I think the "flip-flopping" issue is just political rhetoric with no real merit, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Bush has made several disastrous decisions, and I expect he will make more if he is given the chance.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Actually, I think DragonMaster has a valid point. There is a fair bit of hypocrisy there.

I don't agree at all. Being against the war does not equate to being pro-oppressive dictatorship, and though I don't share IM's desire to see President Bush tried for war crimes, I don't see it as incongruous or hypocritical to call for one's own leader to be brought to justice, over another nation's leader (particularly since we are all collectively financing the OIF flight of fancy through hundreds of billions of tax dollars).

In any case, if, as DM is implying, the war was justified as a way of protecting the Iraqi people, that strikes me as a hollow rationale considering the number of Iraqi civilians we've killed in the process, and the way we are even now sitting idly by during the Darfour genocide.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Haha, that's really humorous, but no, I'm so far from being a conservative, much less a "NeoCon", it's almost silly. I rather consider myself to be a Classical Liberal in the tradition of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.

Suffice to say, a "Classical Liberal" holds very, VERY little in common with either of today's political "philosophies", if you can call them that

Jason

PS: Howard Stern is a crass imbecile whether he endorses candidates in a non-partison manner or not!

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I find it laughable at best that people like you want to punish Bush for "Crimes against humanity" when you didn't say a WORD while Saddam was feeding people into the plastic chipper, nor do you rant and rave against Kim Jong Il's slave labor camps in North Korea.

You're a hypocrite and have no credibility whatsoever.

You, in turn, sound increasingly like a neoconservative in libertarian's clothing.

FYI, Howard Stern isn't a libertarian. He ran for governor of NY on a libertarian ticket because they agreed to nominate him, and he could handle their platform. He is registered independent, and has supported a number of Republicans (including Christie Todd Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, and Mike Bloomberg), as well as Democrats (he is presently an enthusiastic Kerry supporter).