• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The GAF Poll - Bush or Kerry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

xsarien

daedsiluap
efralope said:
Wow, former New York mayor Ed Koch disagrees with Bush on everything but thinks he'll keep NYC safer than Kerry will, what a "contradictory statement"...

If the streets of Manhattan were any indication during the RNC, Koch isn't exactly representing the popular opinion.
 

rs7k

Member
+1 Kerry, only because Bush needs to go and there's no one else to vote for. But it won't be up to me or any other Canadians.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
efralope: I think you've got that backwards to a degree, unless you're making some "GOP aren't real conservatives" statement. It was the Republican party trying to uphold the sodomy laws, and they're certainly not worried about corporate tax loopholes. Meanwhile, Nader's not too keen on immigration, which I think puts him more to the right on that issue.
it's really the only way that his statements could be considered non-contradictory
Zeus' balls, does anyone actually pay attention to what Nader says these days?
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Mandark said:
Zeus' balls, does anyone actually pay attention to what Nader says these days?

I dunno-- I know I certainly don't. I was just posing an explanation as to what he may have meant by those contradictory statements. He already responded to xsarien, so at least we know why he said it now (even if it still doesn't make sense :p).
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Now, maybe this is just how I'm interpeting it, but ElyrionX posting a poll in which Kerry is leading is against the poll rules. ;)
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Kerry +1

US Citizen


Of course, this is New Jersey, so the chances of Bush winning in this state are pretty low anyway.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Kerry +1, although in a better world where a vote for a third-party actually mattered, I'd probably be voting Libertarian.

US citizen.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Hito: My take is that the posting of poll *results* are banned, so he's only liable if he counts the answers and edits his original post to include them.

Also, I'm banning both of us for discussing rules on the forum instead of by email.
 

Alcibiades

Member
I explained the vote for Nader from my first sentence: PROTEST VOTE!

Locally and State I'm more of a Democrat (Republican's don't exist where I come from, but it's mostly local issues anyway, although some support Bush probably cause he was our governer and tended to immigration and Mexicans more than you'd expect from a Republican)

BTW, just because something is a "fundamentalist Christian" point of view, doesn't mean it's a conservative point of view, nor is a conservative view necessarily a "Republican" view.

The conservative position would be to leave the Ten Commandments off the Courthouse, but that's not the Republican position. It's pretty silly how a lot of people on these boards like to put specific labels on everything and everyone without consideration for having varied and broad opinions.

In nation-wide politics, I've become of fan of Bush, McCain, and even Clinton (fiscally more conservative, split on social issues).

In state politics I'll usually split the ticket, or just vote Green if I don't know the candidates (more protest voting).

In local politics, it's 100% Democrats. One of my best friend's dad is always running for County Commissioner, and another friend wanted to keep a Sheriff in office so his dad had a secure job at the jail.

Sometimes I just like an exciting candidate. Ron Kirk is exciting, John Cornyn is boring as heck.

Even after 9-11, I was pretty upset at Bush. That said, it's pretty much the abortion issue (which I weigh heavily) keeping me from voting for a Democrat nationally. His leadership is part of the reason I support him now, but especially is the fact that John McCain (who is probably my favorite politician out there) is supporting him strongly now. I'm always hoping for the "negative enough" doctor's bill for Cheney so McCain or Powell had a shot at joining the ticket.

BTW Loki, are you disagreeing that reduction in corporate giveaways by Congress is a TRUE conservative position, and not just happening because of influence by PAC and party contributions.

How about tax-escapes and loopholes. Just because greedy CEO's support it, doesn't mean it's a conservative position.

If you think Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat are synonymous, you probably don't understand what I'm saying...
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Mandark said:
Hito: My take is that the posting of poll *results* are banned, so he's only liable if he counts the answers and edits his original post to include them.

Also, I'm banning both of us for discussing rules on the forum instead of by email.
Ah, but that rule is only for users. How else can mods give reasons for a ban or lock in a thread. ;)
 

Alcibiades

Member
Mandark said:
efralope: I think you've got that backwards to a degree, unless you're making some "GOP aren't real conservatives" statement.

OK, see how you're just jumping GOP with conservative.

I would say, GOP aren't real conservatives on A PARTICULAR or SOME issues.

I would say, GOP are real conservatives on many issues.

To me, those two hold true, I don't see why that is hard to see.

It was the Republican party trying to uphold the sodomy laws
and while I disagree, the only candidate that has even taken a strong stance on the other side is Howard Dean. Same with talking about how Democrats shouldn't be afraid of attracting poor Southern whites to the party, and how White people need to talk to White people about race. It was refreshing to see him be so blunt on the issues. I was somewhat of a Deaniac and he was a phenomenal candidate IMO. Bush and Kerry haven't even talked about these issues, Dean was not afraid to talk about it, how awesome is that (too bad he was so anti-war). Heck, if Dean was a flip-flopper on the war, considering his support on these social issues, I'd be all excited about him. In fact, part of the reason I hate Kerry is because he TOTALLY ripped off Dean speeches and catch-phrases word-for-word. Totally lame that he couldn't even come up with anything so he had to go stealing around.

and they're certainly not worried about corporate tax loopholes.
the GOP isn't worried about loopholes, I think that's what I said in my first statement. Conservatives (libertartian side of the spectrum) disagree with loopholes and blanket incentives for corporations

Nader's not too keen on immigration
I guess in a way that's true, but he want to speed up the process, which in it's own way is good. The candidate who's got my most favored position on this is actually Harry Browne, the Libertarian Presidential candidate from the 2000 election. In an inteview with John Kasich (filling in for O'Reilly) back in '00, he totally bought me on the issue when he was going on about "bring us your needy" "we have open arms". It wasn't that simple, but he generally got across that message. Of course, there must be restrictions and control, but in general, I like his attitude that's at least positive toward increasing the US population through immigration.

Either way, the only Democrat I might have voted for (who I actually contributed money to because I was supporting him early on, maybe even over Bush) was Joe Lieberman. His abortion position bothered me, but on the off chance he would pull a "no litmus test on judges" and I saw that the Senate races were going good for Republicans (so they could hold up definite pro-choice judge candidates), there's a chance I'd have voted for him.

I fail to see why every party or "ideology" would have to have a line of issues, and unless you're 100% behind them all, that person "doesn't make sense"
 

Dilbert

Member
efralope said:
If you think Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat are synonymous, you probably don't understand what I'm saying...
I don't understand what you're saying, period.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
efralope said:
so what you're saying is that you'd like a simple, padded-down answer where I subscribe one label.
Or to just explain yourself better, because I also don't know what exactly you're trying to say.

evil solrac v3.0 said:
not u.s citizen, still live in the USA.
*gasp*
 

Loki

Count of Concision
efralope said:
BTW Loki, are you disagreeing that reduction in corporate giveaways by Congress is a TRUE conservative position, and not just happening because of influence by PAC and party contributions.

How about tax-escapes and loopholes. Just because greedy CEO's support it, doesn't mean it's a conservative position.

If you think Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat are synonymous, you probably don't understand what I'm saying...

No, like Mandark said before, I can understand what you're saying about the difference between classical "conservatism" (which is closer to libertarianism than the current, dominant strain of conservatism is) versus the party line of our Republican party. Yes, reduction of corporate welfare is a conservative position in the strictest sense-- it's just that that view (along with the others you mention) is given short shrift in the conservative media and in the party's platform. I don't condone any of those actions, for what it's worth (referring to corporate welfare, offshore tax havens and questionable accounting practices).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom