GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Lots of distros in the past, now Linux Mint
Posts: 748
Rep:
What do you vote for?
Okay, election season is approaching, the DNC is about to pick their candidate, so the obvious question is: What do you vote for, when you vote. Sure, there are issues and such, but seeing as every politician on the planet seems to be for more jobs, better life, etc. (at least in their speeches), what is (are) your primary factors when voting?
I don't mean this to be a Bush vs. the Democrats post, or anything similar. That's been discussed ad nauseum over and over (including posts which started out with nothing related). If it helps, forget the "big" races, and think about your local elections. Why do you pick the people you pick? Platform's wonderful, but often not the deciding factor. Party tends to be, but it's by no means a "secure" way to get elected.
So, do you vote by looks? By their wife's looks? By the way they carry themselves or speak? Who's name is listed first, or the name you've heard the most? Is age a factor? Sex? Race? (I know this last one is touchy, and a good number of people will claim to be "color-blind", but it is a factor. I just don't think that it's as negative a factor as people make it sound. Most people would tend to vote for a good-looking person of another race than a monsterous looking person of their own.)
I'm interested in hearing from people outside the US as well, to see how that compares. (I think it will be relatively similar, but I'm wrong a lot.) I considered making this a poll, then decided against it, because off-the-cuff remarks are often more accurate and can go in directions no poll can expect.
Between two similar candidates, with two similar platforms, how do you decide?
Oh, and while I'm at it.... It's not the thief's fault you buy expensive stuff. Nobody could resist ripping you off. A law prohibiting people from purchasing anything over $1000 in value would eliminate crooks. I DON'T THINK SO! Place the blame where it belongs. If politicans are selling their influence to the highest bidder, it's not the money's fault. We don't need campaign finance reform, we need crooked politician reform. So I vote to remind them who they're really working for!
Originally posted by Crito The one who pisses off the Capitol Hill establishment the most gets my vote. Fat cat career politicians need a swift kick in the pants every so often.
From where I'm sitting in the UK, it looks like Howard Dean is the one for you. It seems the Washington Democrats just hate his guts!
seriously its not like it matters. bill hicks was on the mark when he said
Quote:
"i think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs, i think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. hang on theres one guy controlling both puppets- Go back to sleep america your government is in control, go back to sleep america."
nobody gets into the white house unless its organised prior by the group of reptiles (sorry to bring em' in to this but i feel its nessercary) has decided they should be there. anywho thats my thoughts.
Distribution: Lots of distros in the past, now Linux Mint
Posts: 748
Original Poster
Rep:
>"From where I'm sitting in the UK, it looks like Howard Dean is the one for you. It seems the Washington Democrats just hate his guts!"
I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. I think the reason the other candidates are getting so upset is that they had a carefully crafted plan for removing Bush. They'd compete against each other for the nomination, then try to win by being relatively moderate in the "real" election. Party politics, but important.
Then Dean showed up. Aside from his attacks on the other democrats, painting them as Bush lackeys, he's effectively split the democratic party. A fair number of democratic-leaning voters simply aren't liberal, anti-war, etc., enough to support a candidate like Dean.
As most voters know this is probably going to be another close race, the likelyhood for a high turnout is pretty good. In that respect, democrats tend to have an advantage, as they tend to be able to mobilize the welfare voters, and others who don't carefully evaluate candidates, but vote based on FUD.
I'm not a democrat (I don't have an affiliation), but I've gotten a number of calls asking for support for the DNC. I listen to them, mostly to hear what they have to say. Every call, and I mean every single one, has someone on the line spouting stuff about how "evil" the current president is, and how his "cronies" are "raping" the environment, economy, and public in general. He's "the worst president in US history", "done more damage to the economy and environment than any other president", and "intentionally killing minorities by sending them into war".
Everything in quotes in the paragraph above is a direct quote. There were others, these are just what pops to mind at the moment. Needless to say, if I wasn't particularly into politics or history, I might tend to be riled up by this kind of stuff. As it is however, I tend to automatically shut off my attention when I hear hysterical priming like this. In truth, I have to bite my tongue at some of the wild things that are said, partially because I start to laugh at the apparent panic of the callers.
Anyway, back to the topic. Dean is great at getting this kind of support, and telling hardcore liberals what they want to hear. He's doing well because many of them don't want to vote for anyone that even hints at supporting the president. To a lot of them, George Bush is an evil man, and anyone who does anything except battle him is under his thumb.
That's great for winning the nomination, not so good for the election. Those voters that don't agree with Dean's form of politics might vote for Bush or perhaps not at all. Instead of winning the moderate vote and perhaps the election with voter mobilization and unhappy previous Bush voters, there is a very real risk that if Dean does win, that he might paint the entire party as crazed Bush haters.
This would tend to have the reverse effect, making moderates push away from the party, and drawing out republicans/conservatives with voter mobilization as well. Either way, the biggest risk is that Dean will push moderate democrats (namely those who approved of the Iraq thing) into the Bush column in November.
That, IMHO is why they hate Dean so much. I'm sure I'll get some flames on this one, but it's my opinion of the matter.
No flames from me anyway. Dean is certainly anti-war: anti-this-particular-Iraq-war, at least. But I hadn't heard that he was very liberal, except from the supporters of other candidates (particularly Clark) who say that Dean can't win, because he's another McGovern. Whether that is so or not is up to each voter, and, being British, it's certainly none of my business. I have my own fairly strong opinions, but I'll refrain from arguing them as I think the moderators would not appreciate it here!
President Bush, if i was old enough to vote. Religion has nothing to do with my choice (he is christian, I am Jewish) age has nothing to do with my choice, and location has nothing to do with my choice (he is midwestern, I am eastern) I vote for him because I agree with his foreign policy and he's much better than the alternative:
Dr. LET'S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!! Dean Grrr... these rascally Republicans! IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE, THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH, GRRR... THIS PRESIDENT HAS CAUSED THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING, AND THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by unimaginative President Bush, if i was old enough to vote. Religion has nothing to do with my choice (he is christian, I am Jewish) age has nothing to do with my choice, and location has nothing to do with my choice (he is midwestern, I am eastern) I vote for him because I agree with his foreign policy and he's much better than the alternative:
Dr. LET'S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!! Dean Grrr... these rascally Republicans! IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE, THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH, GRRR... THIS PRESIDENT HAS CAUSED THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING, AND THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR!!!!!!!!
So you can all decide which is right.
unimaginative,
I have asked you several times not to post in such threads you cannot hold back your emotions. I am asking you kindly and politely to edit your post.
There is no reason for you to make your post as big and bold as you possibly can. I find this post very unconstructive and useless to tell you the truth.
This is your final warning. Remember, too many warnings will lead you to lose privileges on this site and forum.
If you would like to discuss this and feel I am wrong in this moderated decision, email me privately.
In answer to the question...honestly, if the candidate has (R.) or (Republican) next to thier name. What seperates Repubs from Dems and the rest is just too big for me to try to look past so its Republican every time.
Your post is quite a difficult one to answer from outside the US, I'm sure that vasudevadas will back me up on this (and suspect that it's the same for you, but in reverse), inthat the only stuff that we'll (as in in the UK) see, will be the head line stuff. Any good "dirt" that someone manages to dig up, throw and maybe make a little of it stick. Afterall, dirt, scandal and badnews sell newspapers and advertising space.
I think that the only reason that we saw so much of your last presidential election was because of the "count controversy".
But from my point of view (i.e. the outsider), if I compare the image of George Dubya, to his predecessor, then from image alone I feel that even now, 3+years later, Clinton still comes across as more presidential, than Bush Jr will ever manage.
When I was 18, I went out of my way to read the, then current manifesto's of the UK's 3 main parties. And my conclusion wasn't arrived at from the political point of view per se, but from the way that my parent's brought "us" up, in a fair and considered way.
From what I'd read about the 3 parties it came down to a 2 horse race between "Labour" and "Conservative". Labour was my choice, purely because what "they" were offering, seemed to be fairer to the greater number of people. I've never really believed in Tony Blair (though I'd tipped him as a future Labour leader long before he got to head his party, because from the "image" thing, he did really seem "plausible").
The older I get, the more "Left wing" I become. This is because of the various "inequities" that life seems to offer.
If I were a US citizen, then I would probably be a democrat voter (though I doubt that I'd admit it to the democratic party - afterall, my vote is my business, and private choice).
The one thing that I would change (both here in the UK, and the US if possible) would be to completely outlaw the "lobbying" process, and make sure that all parties were funded equally from central government sources - this would completely remove any corporate influence - because people vote, companies/corporations don't.
Fairness in all things is a good ideology, if a little altruistic.
no no no people dont get obsessed with the preoccupations put there to distract you... your countries are controlled by anti-human reptiles you are the solient green, wake up please.
So, do you vote by looks? By their wife's looks? By the way they carry themselves or speak?
Many people seem to be pretty fickle when it comes to voting, Scott - in Britain I doubt that more than 5% of people ever read the party manifestos each election - often it is simply down to "personality" or a single policy - that's not to imply that peple don't have a rudimentary understanding of which is the Liberal leaning and which is the more Conservativer leaning party - they do, just that the perceived personality of the Leader can do alot to sway people.
I'm still not old enough to vote so I don't know much about politics here in Britain deeper than it's Labour vs LibDem vs Conservative. However I did answer this quiz at http://politicalcompass.org to the best of my ability and it keeps telling me I'm left-wing. Is there something wrong with me? Oh, and it also says I'm an anarchist but that's just because I'm a teenager. Come to think of it, I should come back to this whole politics thing when I'm older.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.