NationStates Jolt Archive

If you absolutely had to. If there was no other choice or option and you absolutely had to vote. Who would you vote for to become President of the USA. If you are not an American Conservative, etc., pretend that you are.

Please give your rationale, if possible.

I would pick up the nearest object and commit suicide (with the object, you dummy).

I would pick up the nearest object and commit suicide (with the object, you dummy).

Buzzzzz! Ooo, thanks for playing. Someone didn't read.

If you absolutely had to. If there was no other choice or option and you absolutely had to vote. Who would you vote for to become President of the USA. If you are not an American Conservative, etc., pretend that you are.

Please give your rationale, if possible.
Good God, man! At least put some choices in your poll with a modicum of sense! Sheesh!

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: Please, please, please nominate someone who takes a pragmatic approach to problem resolution, as opposed to an ideological one! :headbang:

All the options in the poll are conservative. :confused:

Good God, man! At least put some choices in your poll with a modicum of sense! Sheesh!

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: Please, please, please nominate someone who takes a pragmatic approach to problem resolution, as opposed to an ideological one! :headbang:

What I'm interested in is the thought process of those who have to make an uncomfortable choice among what they consider a series of evils, as it were. So, which of the three is the lesser evil, from a point of view from across the aisle?

I would eat myself before I voted for anyone of those people.

All the options in the poll are conservative. :confused:
Perhaps from the perspective seen from Sweden, but to many of us here in the US, those are liberal, and in some cases, far left choices. :(

I would eat myself before I voted for anyone of those people.
ROFLMAO!!! Takes a mighty big man to eat himself! :D

All the options in the poll are conservative. :confused:

Not to a conservative they're not. And, as I stated in the poll, if you're not conservative (or whatever,) pretend that you are.

I voted for Kerry, because he seems to be the least loony of them all. And in my opinion, I think he's alot more conservative than he lets on. I think perhaps his "architects" thought being uber left was the only way to beat bush. Man were they wrong. But all in all, I dont think he's too bad as far as politicians go. As long as he keeps his state of the union speech below 19 hours.
BTW~ DAMN YOU for making me choose! I have to go take a long scalding shower now, and scrub my mouse hand with steel wool and bleach.

I voted for Kerry, because he seems to be the least loony of them all. And in my opinion, I think he's alot more conservative than he lets on. I think perhaps his "architects" thought being uber left was the only way to beat bush. Man were they wrong. But all in all, I dont think he's too bad as far as politicians go. As long as he keeps his state of the union speech below 19 hours.
BTW~ DAMN YOU for making me choose! I have to go take a long scalding shower now, and scrub my mouse hand with steel wool and bleach.
"Uber left"? ROFLMFAO!

I would eat myself before I voted for anyone of those people.

You are not helping to dispel the stereotype that conservative-ish [edit, liberal-ish types...I think...ah hell, screw labels.] types aren't good at following directions. :D :eek: (and other good-natured smilies.)

Well, if we were living under a one party liberal Left dictatorship, I would have to pick Al Gore, and only because he was at vice-president once. John Kerry is a hardline liberal extremist. And Howard Dean is too partisan.

Well, if we were living under a one party liberal Left dictatorship, I would have to pick Al Gore, and only because he was at vice-president once. John Kerry is a hardline liberal extremist. And Howard Dean is too partisan.
Hardline extremist my ass. You clearly have never met a Hoxhaist.

"Uber left"? ROFLMFAO!
I may be overstating it, but the second some announces they want the government to pay for EVERYONES healthcare, I consider that far left. The reason I used the word uber? I just like the word. It sounds funny. :D

What I'm interested in is the thought process of those who have to make an uncomfortable choice among what they consider a series of evils, as it were. So, which of the three is the lesser evil, from a point of view from across the aisle?
God help me. [ sobs and braces himself ]

Al Gore

For the sake of this poll, I would vote for Gore, but almost anything would be better than picking Dean ;)

I may be overstating it, but the second some announces they want the government to pay for EVERYONES healthcare, I consider that far left. The reason I used the word uber? I just like the word. It sounds funny. :D
He's not even "center-left" if you want to you that sort of scale.

BTW~ DAMN YOU for making me choose! I have to go take a long scalding shower now, and scrub my mouse hand with steel wool and bleach.
ROFLMAO!!! Let me borrow that steel wool and bleach when you're done! :D

I may be overstating it, but the second some announces they want the government to pay for EVERYONES healthcare, I consider that far left. The reason I used the word uber? I just like the word. It sounds funny. :D
Well, we now know that you are incapable of distinguishing between free healthcare and communism. I'd hate to see what you consider right-wing.

Well, we now know that you are incapable of distinguishing between free healthcare and communism. I'd hate to see what you consider right-wing.
Someone who is in favor of low taxes?

All the options in the poll are conservative. :confused:
This is true, but what can one expect? Americans had a really liberal party in the 19th century - Progressives - who were interested in the common man, in protecting ordinary people from the 'robber barons' (bankers, railroads magnates, etc.), but they were hounded to extinction by the establishment. Since then, the natural wealth of the USA, the relentless propaganda against the left, and the marginalisation of the growing poor classes have resulted in two parties - one is a reactionary 'conservative' party and the other is an ineffective centrist to right of center party. Tweedle-dee-dee and Tweedle-dee-dum!

Let's bring back the Whig Party.

Someone who is in favor of low taxes?
You know what I meant.

I'm a conservative leaning moderate(for most things). I didn't vote for Bush but thought he was better than Kerry. Had Dean gotten the nomination, there's a better than average chance I would have voted for him. I think that if the Dems had continued w/ Dean, they would have the presidency.

Let's bring back the Whig Party.
That'd be oddly appropriate. Probably be too subtle for today's populace, though.

That'd be oddly appropriate. Probably be too subtle for today's populace, though.
It may work if it had some room to grow.

Hardline extremist my ass. You clearly have never met a Hoxhaist. I said liberal extremist, not left-wing extremist. Liberal meaning center-Left, not far Left.

I said liberal extremist, not left-wing extremist. Liberal meaning center-Left, not far Left.
Oh, I thought we were playing with stereotypes, nevermind. ;)

Please give your rationale, if possible.

If I had to choose, I would always vote for the most liberal candidate! Naturally, in the USA no really liberal candidate stands a chance of winning and the reasons are cultural. The majority of Americans really believe that the USA is the 'promised land' - that God has somehow blessed them and their country. They consequently ignore what is wrong with the country because God would never sanction a less than perfect place. The fact that the majority of people on welfare are children, that the majority of poor are children, that 30% to 35% of Americans have no health insurance and therefore no easy access to good medical care, that the so-called minimum wage for a family of four would not support the necessities of life, that schools for the poor are horribly underfunded, etc., these are non-issues since poverty is not a sin. Perhaps one might say that there exists in the USA a mean-spiritedness toward helping the less-fortunate, unless they live far away.

I said liberal extremist, not left-wing extremist. Liberal meaning center-Left, not far Left.

Funnily the Liberal's are considered center-right in Germany, in fact the farest(sp? ;)) right party in the government.... (republicans got < 1% wuhu :D)

btw. as I don't know many of the american politicians, what would a left-center vote for? Something like a Social-Democratical party candidate ^^

Al Gore. He's too much of a wet blanket to do much damage, especially with a republican controlled congress.

What I'm interested in is the thought process of those who have to make an uncomfortable choice among what they consider a series of evils, as it were. So, which of the three is the lesser evil, from a point of view from across the aisle?

As far as I see it, Suicide would be the lesser of the evils. At least I wouldn't have to put up with Liberals anymore up in Heaven.

Well, we now know that you are incapable of distinguishing between free healthcare and communism. I'd hate to see what you consider right-wing.
I know the difference very well, thanks. My problem with free healthcare is that it assumes that all people are equally deserving of it. Single mother working two jobs? Hell yeah, give that woman and her kids all the help they need! Some junky who smokes 2 packs a day, doesn't eat right, contracts A.I.D.S. from a dirty needle, and needs constant (expensive) healthcare because he's too dumb to take care of himself? Screw him, I'm not gonna pay to bail him out of his self induced problems at the expense of my tax refund check ( which I use to save up to supplement for our failed social security).

We all have problems, some self induced, some not. You give me a free healthcare plan that can distinguish between those, and I'll be all for it!

~EDIT~ BTW, do you see the Red Cross link in my sig? THATS how you help the needy! You ask them. You don't force it upon them through taxes. As sad as it sounds, I have my own problems. Once I pay the rent, and the utilities, and feed myself and my family, I'll see whats left, and give to the needy.

Funnily the Liberal's are considered center-right in Germany, in fact the farest(sp? ;)) right party in the government.... (republicans got < 1% wuhu :D)

btw. as I don't know many of the american politicians, what would a left-center vote for? Something like a Social-Democratical party candidate ^^
Social Democratic party sounds about right.

Also, for the last time, it's not FREE healthcare.

All the options in the poll are conservative. :confused:
That's what I'm thinking.

How about you guys actually get some liberal people.

Man, getting people to follow directions is like herding epileptic cats.

If left with no other option, and having to choose between a raving lunatic, a tree and John Kerry (who seems to be reasonably sane and decent), I'd vote for Kerry. In fact, I nearly voted for Kerry in the last election. But I didn't, and I've been having repeated second thoughts.

Man, getting people to follow directions is like herding epileptic cats.

You can't expect Busheviks to follow common sense now can you?

You can't expect Busheviks to follow common sense now can you?

To be fair, it seems the self-proclaimed liberals are as much at fault.

What I'm interested in is the thought process of those who have to make an uncomfortable choice among what they consider a series of evils, as it were. So, which of the three is the lesser evil, from a point of view from across the aisle?
Voting for the lesser of multiple evils is still voting for evil. If more people had the cojones to vote for someone who really represented them instead of pigeonholing themselves into voting for either Republicrats or Demicans, this country would be much better off. Cobb, Brown, Badnarik, Peroutka -- these are names that should have had major headlines, not footnotes in the annals of history.

I know the difference very well, thanks.
Then why do you call free healthcare 'far left'? Communism is far left. Free healthcare is center-left at the most.

If I had to choose, I would always vote for the most liberal candidate! Naturally, in the USA no really liberal candidate stands a chance of winning and the reasons are cultural. The majority of Americans really believe that the USA is the 'promised land' - that God has somehow blessed them and their country. They consequently ignore what is wrong with the country because God would never sanction a less than perfect place. The fact that the majority of people on welfare are children, that the majority of poor are children, that 30% to 35% of Americans have no health insurance and therefore no easy access to good medical care, that the so-called minimum wage for a family of four would not support the necessities of life, that schools for the poor are horribly underfunded, etc., these are non-issues since poverty is not a sin. Perhaps one might say that there exists in the USA a mean-spiritedness toward helping the less-fortunate, unless they live far away.
There are so many things wrong with this post that I scarce know where to begin! :(

* Most hospitals are required to provide health services whether the individual can afford to pay or not. There are also many, many health care providers available to children in particular at no charge. This is, in fact, the primary reason for the high cost of healthcare in the US.

* Many of those who provide free services for the poor are affiliated with religious organizations.

* The last I heard, total funding for all kinds of assistance to the poor in the US, public and private, was in the neighborhood of $100 billion per year. This does not indicate a "mean-spiritedness toward helping the less-fortunate," IMHO.

Howard Dean.. Sure, he's the liberal George Bush, but that's the point. "RAWWWR!".. That'd scare the crap outta Al Qaeda.. I mean, who would mess with "Mean Dean"?

As sad as it sounds, I have my own problems. Once I pay the rent, and the utilities, and feed myself and my family, I'll see whats left, and give to the needy.
Join the frakkin' club! :(

Then why do you call free healthcare 'far left'? Communism is far left. Free healthcare is center-left at the most.
Well, I guess it depends on the scale you use. One thing Ive learned on NS is that everyones idea of liberal and conservative, left and right, are different. I consider my views on some issues to be "left", so when I see a view so far ahead of me on the left scale, I consider it "far left". I certainly don't think far left = communism. I would never call a liberal a communist.

In fact, I don't hate far left as much as some people would think. Its just another view to me. I personally think my views are more logical, as opposed to the liberal emotional views of things, but I don't fault them for it. The only liberals I truly hate are the ones who are outspoken in condemning me for my views.

To sum it up, communism isn't left or right, in my opinion. Nor is racism. In my opinion, its just misguided. Thats the problem with American politics. Your either on one side or the other. Well, I'm on my own side.

* Most hospitals are required to provide health services whether the individual can afford to pay or not. There are also many, many health care providers available to children in particular at no charge. This is, in fact, the primary reason for the high cost of healthcare in the US.And those hospitals send them the bill whether they can afford to pay or not. The stress of filing for bankruptcy isn't exactly therapeutic for someone fresh out of the hospital, and medical bankruptcy is a massive and growing problem even among those with insurance (Source 1 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/17/BUG5QBCI5B1.DTL&type=business) 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html) 3 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04219/357527.stm)). How do you propose we fix this without universal health care? Or do you think it's okay to bankrupt increasing numbers of average Americans who have health insurance?

If you absolutely had to. If there was no other choice or option and you absolutely had to vote. Who would you vote for to become President of the USA. If you are not an American Conservative, etc., pretend that you are.

Please give your rationale, if possible.

If there was no other choice or option and you absolutely had to vote...

Howard Dean
John Kerry
Al Gore
No, you can't choose someone else. I said no.
No, you can't kill yourself. Do not vote for this option. Stop it.



I would kill them. Then I'd vote at random for one of the dead candidates. :p

In theory, if you wouldn't have forgotten to do away with the option of killing them, I suppose Gore would be the least painful of the three, but I'd probably vote for Kerry, because I am fairly certain that he would have the smallest chance of actually winning.

No, you cannot kill yoruself. Don't vote for this option. Stop it
:D

And those hospitals send them the bill whether they can afford to pay or not. The stress of filing for bankruptcy isn't exactly therapeutic for someone fresh out of the hospital, and medical bankruptcy is a massive and growing problem even among those with insurance (Source 1 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/17/BUG5QBCI5B1.DTL&type=business) 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html) 3 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04219/357527.stm)). How do you propose we fix this without universal health care? Or do you think it's okay to bankrupt increasing numbers of average Americans who have health insurance?
Hey ... WTF do you expect from me? I'm just an old, broke-down, disabled Vietnam veteran! Supposedly wiser heads than mine are at work on this conudrum. Ask them! :p

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: Please, please, please nominate someone who takes a pragmatic approach to problem resolution, as opposed to an ideological one! :headbang:
You know, this would carry some weight if you hadn't spent your entire career on Nationstates defending the foremost example of a guy who uses ideology instead of pragmatism to deal with just about any problem.

You know, this would carry some weight if you hadn't spent your entire career on Nationstates defending the foremost example of a guy who uses ideology instead of pragmatism to deal with just about any problem.
You know, that would carry some weight if I hadn't spent a considerable portion of my "career" on NS trying to present real solutions to real problems. :p

You know, that would carry some weight if I hadn't spent a considerable portion of my "career" on NS trying to present real solutions to real problems. :p
Riiiiiiiiight. Look--you want to talk shit about Democrats, fine, but don't act like the Democratic party is the one who puts out ideological candidates as opposed to pragmatic candidates when the Republicans have a longer track record of doing just that. The Democrats can't be ideologues--we're too diverse a coalition, and we spend so much time trying to keep all members of them happy that, if anything, we're anti-ideological.

Democrats are not single-minded--that's our weakness in simple yes-no debates, which is why in this world of stupid good/bad dichotomies put together by Limbaugh, Rove, Gingrich and the rest, we have message problems. But ideologues excel in that sort of debate--and who's been winning the debate lately? The Republicans. So spare me your simplistic asides about the Democrats being ideologues, please--it does nothing for your reputation.

At least Howard Dean has some modestly conservative domestic policies. (He ran Vermont with a fair degree of moderation) Plus, he's the only with any actual passion and drive. Kerry's a zombie, and Gore likes to pretend to be angry.

I would not vote for Dean, considering that Dean has shown himself unwilling to work with others. Has resorted to name calling. Is using evangelicals as a scape goat (yes we have a lot of loonys but not all of us want to install a theocracy). Regardless about what I think about his ideas on the issues I'm not going to vote for a guy who has stereotyped a group of people I belong to and blaimed us for the country's woes. Christian does not equal neo-con.

It's sort of a toss up between Kerry and Gore. I guess I would pick Gore. I think he did a better job at describing what he wanted to do as President. Kerry just ran on the platform that he wasn't Bush. I think Kerry might actually be a little more conservative then Gore. Gore seems more honest. When Kerry came to Ohio he pretended to be a gun toting church goer, which frankly was embarising.

In case you are wondering, I voted for Gore the first election and Bush the second.

What I'm interested in is the thought process of those who have to make an uncomfortable choice among what they consider a series of evils, as it were. So, which of the three is the lesser evil, from a point of view from across the aisle?

It is precisely my refusal to choose the lesser of two evils that has led me to vote third party for the last decade or so. Perhaps the thread title confused me. How can you be a conservative (at least economically) and still support Bush and his budget? I appologize for the confusion it is an ongoing problem. there is an ethical difference between Libertarians like me and the two primary parties. We actually have some....

Riiiiiiiiight. Look--you want to talk shit about Democrats, fine, but don't act like the Democratic party is the one who puts out ideological candidates as opposed to pragmatic candidates when the Republicans have a longer track record of doing just that. The Democrats can't be ideologues--we're too diverse a coalition, and we spend so much time trying to keep all members of them happy that, if anything, we're anti-ideological.

Democrats are not single-minded--that's our weakness in simple yes-no debates, which is why in this world of stupid good/bad dichotomies put together by Limbaugh, Rove, Gingrich and the rest, we have message problems. But ideologues excel in that sort of debate--and who's been winning the debate lately? The Republicans. So spare me your simplistic asides about the Democrats being ideologues, please--it does nothing for your reputation.

Honestly both parties are too ideological right now. Arguing over which party is worse is silly. I agree that the democrates seem to have more diversity, and theoretically you would think this would make them less ideological. But in practice they are just as ideological. The dominant ideology just wins out and sort of pushes the others aside (which explains all the infighting that occurs in the Democratic party). The problem with the Democratic party is that it remains ideological when it's not practical to do so for the very reasons you have pointed out. They aren't as good at an ideological argument, yet thats still the kind of argument they make.

I choose John Edwards.

Riiiiiiiiight. Look--you want to talk shit about Democrats, fine, but don't act like the Democratic party is the one who puts out ideological candidates as opposed to pragmatic candidates when the Republicans have a longer track record of doing just that. The Democrats can't be ideologues--we're too diverse a coalition, and we spend so much time trying to keep all members of them happy that, if anything, we're anti-ideological.

Nazz, do you honestly believe that, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument? Diversity != lack of ideology, as different groups can and do hold similar opinions.

Democrats are not single-minded--that's our weakness in simple yes-no debates, which is why in this world of stupid good/bad dichotomies put together by Limbaugh, Rove, Gingrich and the rest, we have message problems.

That's bullshit and you know it, Nazz. Seriously, Democrats and Republicans are just as single-minded as each other, and if diversity resulted in a lack of single-mindedness - which it doesn't - Republicans would have Democrats raped. Republicans have supporters ranging from die-hard statisticians that have no hearts and ignore anything that isn't supported by tangible fact to morally driven, bleeding-heart freaks that don't care what the facts of a situation are but only "what's right."

But ideologues excel in that sort of debate--and who's been winning the debate lately? The Republicans. So spare me your simplistic asides about the Democrats being ideologues, please--it does nothing for your reputation.

And it does nothing for your reputation to suggest that either party is less ideological than the other. That is, put simply, a naïve, partisan, stupid assertion to make.

Nazz=PWNED!

Anyway, I would have to vote Dean. Simply put, He has a personality, the other two candidates don't.

I love this thread, sounds like me, I.

Conservative,
President Bush backer,
Right Wingish,
Well content, and
I love Public Polls.

Naturally I cant vote in this poll.

Sounds like a choice between
President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for life and
President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for Life.

Not the kind of choices you would see
in a democratic nation, with all its faults,
offering diffrent political party choices,
with diffrent economic, political and
social points of views.

I love this thread, sounds like me, I.

Conservative,
President Bush backer,
Right Wingish,
Well content, and
I love Public Polls.

Naturally I cant vote in this poll.

Sounds like a choice between
President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for life and
President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for Life.

Not the kind of choices you would see
in a democratic nation, with all its faults,
offering diffrent political party choices,
with diffrent economic, political and
social points of views.

Gee, did I provide an unrealistically and artificially limited set of choices? I was sooooo unaware of that. :rolleyes:

Well, I guess it depends on the scale you use. One thing Ive learned on NS is that everyones idea of liberal and conservative, left and right, are different. I consider my views on some issues to be "left", so when I see a view so far ahead of me on the left scale, I consider it "far left". I certainly don't think far left = communism. I would never call a liberal a communist.

You're confusing liberal with left. Liberal (technically libertarian, but a certain political party hijacked the term) refers to one's stance on social issues. Left refers to one's stance on economic issues. Communism is by definition left-wing.

I voted howard dean. I am leaning conservative but Howard Dean would be an awesome president. If any country started beating at anything us or anything like that he would get pissed. He would give a passionate speach about it and scream. And if we are lucky and his anger translates to action then... KABOOM we just dismanteled our nuclear arsenal in an efficient way. :sniper:

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: Please, please, please nominate someone who takes a pragmatic approach to problem resolution, as opposed to an ideological one! :headbang:

Hahaha! Yeah be more like the Republicans! Clearly they have never elected Presidents who govern using ideology rather than pragmatism!

I support Republicans on the state level, cause after 125 years of democrats ruling the state after the civil war, they had made zero progress on racial equality. It's only been in recent years that people have started making movement. It could be coincidence, or a new generation ready to make a move that happens to be republican.

Nationally, I'll vote for whomever isn't bought and paid for by foreign powers or big corporations. Gore, Kerry, Dean (shiver), Bush, Clinton... all crap.

Al Gore.

Howard Dean, hands down.

Al Gore had some seriously disturbing tendencies towards censorship and economic meddling, not to mention the asinine “locked box.” Kerry was just a talking head that wasn't Bush, sculpted and instructed to play the game. Dean on the other hand is an irrational firebrand who would undoubtedly have me laughing my ass off at most of his policy and would guaranty that a Democrat would not set up shop in the White House for at LEAST sixteen years.