NationStates Jolt Archive

vote...wisely

WTF do you want us to do?

sorry, messed up the poll initially

√ other - for evolution/overthrow of the state, replacement with voluntary federations

and for the 7.1 Billion people who do not live in the USA what do you offer?

and for the 7.1 Billion people who do not live in the USA what do you offer?


I offer you friendship and ask for your input. Does every post have to be international? I'm interested in this particular correlation, and there's simply no way I could construct a global-style poll with a maximum of 10 poll positions.

I'd love to see a similar poll from your perspective, to see how scientific/faith-based thought affects politics.

I thought I was voting for evolution, but I accentally selected Ralph Nader! ;)

Seriously, that's a really long poll. And how come you can't vote for a mixture of both Bush and Kerry? Genetic engineering would make that possible, surely? ;)

I thought I was voting for evolution, but I accentally selected Ralph Nader! ;)

Seriously, that's a really long poll. And how come you can't vote for a mixture of both Bush and Kerry? Genetic engineering would make that possible, surely? ;)

shudders violently

I'm not from the states, but I'm a "pinko liberal", whatever that means, so I guess if you are trying to match my political persuasions to my belief in evolution/creation then I'd vote Kerry were I in the States, as would the rest of Europe, who are also overwhelmingly evolutionist.

I think the true correlation is not between political views:

If you are a dumbass redneck hick, ignorant and uneducated then you will have never been taught that evolution occurs over a longer period than four years, so electing a monkey to be your leader isn't very good.

(Alternatively you could be mega-wealthy and want a big juicy tax cut, so you elect the monkey because his keepers are also mega-wealthy and lusting after a tax cut.)

If however you are well educated you realise that the theory of evolution is somewhat more sound and based on considerably more evidence than a 3000 year old mystic text; then you are also likely to realise that an equally well educated gentleman who can form cogent arguments and appreciate the diversity of conditions and opinions, will produce a leader respected throughout the world. To some extent you hope that this outward apperance of a respectable leader may save you and your country from the rest of the worlds hate, brought about by the ignorant redneck-hicks.

How about: 'For Evolution - hates both candidates'

How about: 'For Evolution - hates both candidates'

Just vote the closest you can. Sheesh!

Evolution/Undecided (they both suck)

Interesting. Not seeing many Bush supporters here. Maybe the big words confuse them.

I really don't have much of an opinion on evolution or creationism since neither really fit well with my metaphysical views.

Undecided/Badnarik

well if you had said left/right instead of the candidates that might have helped :-) (but then much of the world has inverted candidate positions from America (what you call left we call right and visversa) (i think)

liberal = left
conservative = right

yess....

here (australia) it is liberal = conservative= right, labour = unions = left. (simplistically)

I'm not sure if I should vote "Evolution" or "Other"...

Here's what I assume the poll options mean...

"Evolution" = strict evolution, no guidance whatsoever from deity

"Creationism" = exactly according to Biblical/religious accounts

Would "other" be required for believing that the scientific processes did occur as documented, but were guided by God?

creatonism...its funny because its so not true.

How about: 'For Evolution - hates both candidates'

OOOh!!! mememememememememememememememe! although I do hate bush more... still...

Would "other" be required for believing that the scientific processes did occur as documented, but were guided by God?

That's something called "Evolutionary Creationism", which, despite its name, has nothing to do with Creationism. Your beliefs would be considered Evolution.

Would "other" be required for believing that the scientific processes did occur as documented, but were guided by God?

sounds like evolution to me. in so far as that position is scientifically testable, it is identical to evolution.

For Evolution(makes logical sense(a lot more than creationism does (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8929.htm#INTRINSICPURPOSE)), has yet to be disproved)/Kerry(anybody BUT Bush should be in office)

I'm not sure if I should vote "Evolution" or "Other"...

Here's what I assume the poll options mean...

"Evolution" = strict evolution, no guidance whatsoever from deity

"Creationism" = exactly according to Biblical/religious accounts

Would "other" be required for believing that the scientific processes did occur as documented, but were guided by God?

I'm with this guy ^

That's something called "Evolutionary Creationism", which, despite its name, has nothing to do with Creationism. Your beliefs would be considered Evolution.

That's always been a source of confusion to me...when I first heard the term "Creationism" I was sure it was describing my own beliefs. Was I ever in for a surprise!