Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-01 20:47:44 +0000
Read this off of Drudge earlier this morning.
"I would vote for Bush if for no other reason than to be at the airport waving off all the people who say they are going to London if he wins again." -T. Wolfe
I've said it before: The spite vote doesn't hold for me. There should be substance.
Posted by rladew on 2004-11-01 20:55:29 +0000
what should be and what is IMHO is the difference between idealism and realism....
_______________________________
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-01 21:09:59 +0000
Then why vote?
Posted by uncle on 2004-11-01 21:17:58 +0000
"It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment."
I think that Wolf is buying rhetoric for the sake of personal dislike. Support for Bush comes primarily out of playing to base instincts (fear for instance) or unspoken life conditioning (my parents are Republicans) or rhetorical drivel (the Republican perspective is more patriotic). I think that the large part of avid support for Kerry comes from a hatred of Bush. Which for me is based on morality, but I have a hard time seeing it as "twisted morality". It seems that the morality that says, "Before you decide to kill a whole slew of people, you should do everything you can to avoid it. And if you are going to knowlingly destroy innocent people's lives, you should do everything you can to mitigate the damage."
If you want to see twisted morality try, "I believe everything that Jesus teaches. He taught me that it is wrong to kill. So I will avidly defend the right to life- don't kill unborn children. This holds true universally unless the people in question have been sentenced to death or live in the middle east."
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-01 21:29:03 +0000
Uncle! Uncle!
Posted by rladew on 2004-11-02 04:00:05 +0000
so Im voting my base instincts because I dont understand the issues well enough? hmmm I'll have to respectfully disagree.
_______________________________
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 13:12:25 +0000
rladew, on another thread you proclaimed that you had no proof of Iraqi WMD but you believed them to exist anyway. Your so-called "valid" opinion. You've also proclaimed yourself Republican for Life b/c you saw a Pro-Kerry flyer on a college campus. Please fill me in on where your base instincts are not at play here.
I'm voting for a major party president for the first time in twelve years b/c of my base instinct of revulsion for this incompetent incumbent. dawnbixtler may be disappointed in me, but there is a bit of spite in my vote for Kerry.
Posted by rladew on 2004-11-02 18:33:22 +0000
'Republican for life' was a bit of an exaggeration / sarcasm.It can also be fun to go to the other extreme with all the support for the liberal / extreme sentiments on the board. sorry. The 19 yr olds on campus calling themselves
informed irked me more than I should have vented in this forum. you'd have to have brass balls to even utter a sound beginnig with the letter B on that campus... the liberals that supposedly value differences in opinion and mindset (as long as you agree with them)are not more informed or educated than someone that sides more with the republicans in this election at all.
I see the 'base instinct' argument as a valid one if yr talking about tactics ALL career politicians use to effectively persuade potential voters who may or may not have read up on the issues that said politicians are using base instincts on. You think Kerry's not using base instincts? For example, what about people currently using social security? I see that message as 'we need to make sure social security stays firmly in the hands of the government because even the suggestion of partial privitization or people taking ownership for their futures is risky - so trust us in government - we Can Do Better'
I am certainly not immune to voting in part from a base instinct, but to argue that Im a primate that doesent understand the issues and a politician's word can just sway me to vote one way or another is just wrong.
I have been reading much of the same news sources you guys have (NYT, Economist, Globe, Reuters, BBC) as well as a few sources such as WSJ, Drudge (which I would guess you guys contest as way too partisan) and have come up with different opinions than you have.
The way I see it, to argue that my viewpoint is solely steered through 'base instinct' even with all the sources I read, and my familiarity with both candidates positions etc etc. is simply an emotional reaction that you guys have because you think Im wrong
so yeah, when Kerry angers me because I haven't seen him take a definitive stand on anything, denigrates the contributions our forces have made to Iraq, etc. I tend to get angry / emotional and say stupid things like 'republican for life'.
_______________________________
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 19:00:47 +0000
You could gauge campus sentiment from one pro-Kerry poster?
I read somewhere that Bush enjoys a 55% or 60% approval rating amont colleged aged voters. Maybe UNH is different, full of all those ranting, liberal Mass-holes.
Whatever your motivations are, it seems to the casual observer that you're a strict party line voter. That's how it comes across, sorry. Especially when you state that even though you have no proof, it's your gut feeling that all the WMD we were scared about are now in Syria. Are you using the same crystal ball that you accuse Teresa Heinz of using?
I'd agree that WMD _could_ be in Syria, but the longer time goes by, it's more likely that there was no WMD to being with. Call me partisan if you wish.
Both parties motivate through fear, but I'm going to give it to the Republicans for the 'vote for us or you'll end up with nukes on your subways' over the Democrats for the 'vote for us or Bush will privatize Social Security'.
We're all primates.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-02 19:59:11 +0000
"The liberals that supposedly value differences in opinion and mindset (as long as you agree with them)are not more informed or educated than someone that sides more with the republicans in this election at all."
Not true, rladew. They are more informed, as we have shown on this board from multiple threads. People who are more educated, read more, and watch Fox News less, tend to vote democratic.
This is classic GOP spin; they say this when they want some fact to be argued. Even this post is NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. It is factual data supported by the U Maryland study I posted, the MoveOn.org poll of FoxNews viewers vs. PBS viewers. You are allowed to say
1+1=3, but you are wrong. It is not an opinion. If you disagree with the factual data, prove it. Don't just say IMHO.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-02 20:06:12 +0000
"(Kerry) denigrates the contributions our forces have made to Iraq, etc." -Rladew
Huh? I have not seen any evidence of this. Please fill me in....
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 20:22:03 +0000
Informed voters tend to vote Democratic may or may not be proven through one study. It's also not to say that all Republican voters are uninformed.
IMHO is getting a bit old. My opinion may be wrong, but it isn't humble!
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 20:22:55 +0000
That one gets me too, listening to Kerry speak about our forces in Iraq, I'd say he respects them highly.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-02 20:26:25 +0000
Of course not all Republicans are uniformed! I never said that. These are just tendencies. And it's not just one study. I'll be happy to post more of them if you would like.
Look, I love Naked Gun movies, and I'd be willing to bet that people that like "Much ado about Nothing" more than Naked Gun Movies are more educated, informed, etc. I'm not offended by it, it's just tendencies...
Posted by uncle on 2004-11-03 00:38:33 +0000
Wow, looks like I made it ugly. Simple point, I am yet to read anything that give me a reason to vote republican this time around.
Believe it or not, I would consider it- although some of the liberal folks would not like to hear me say it- if Powell, McCain or someone that seemed reasonable were running. Of course before I made that choice I would heavily research it. Just as I have done my best to look into criticism that I hear about both candidates before I believe them. There used to be good things to say about the Republican party, like "They control spending" or "They advocate small government." But it just is not true anymore. Please RL, give me a reason, any substantive reason, supported by something other than the ramblings of digruntled authors or partisan pundits, to believe that if Bush wins, something good will happen. I want to believe it so that dispare does not fill my heart.
This is what I consider to be true and I have a hard time finding any evidence to say otherwise:
1- The war in Iraq was conducted under false preteneses
Reasons: No WMD, No 911 connection, cabinet deffectors and people close to the scene all make account that Bush was planning this thing before 911.
2- The was in Iraq has been conducted in such a way as to not protect inocent life
Reason: No hospital protected, no food supplies or utilites protected. Oil fields and oil ministries protected.
3- The job market is sucking- We have lost jobs for the first time in forever, and it would have been made a lot worse if not for the massively increased size of government.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/article108.html
4- The deficit is out of control which started with the wastefull blowing of our surplus.
5- Bush's morality is twisted as evidenced by what I wrote in the Tom Wolfe thread about his stance on abortion vs the death sentence and war.
6- He has given rise to rapant anti Americanism.
Do I need to support this?
7- He has given rise to US populous nearly as divided as it was in 1860.
Do I need to support this?
With regards to Kerry, he at least stands a chance of doing better, and I still have seen no criticisms that actually have any substance-from claims of troop non-support or to the bogus stuff about the proposed health plan or his tax plan.
And since there seems to be no substantive reason to re-elect Bush, and many reasons not to, I have to conclude that those who vote for him are acting on instinct.
If I am wrong on any of the above, please please correct me. I am looking for some reason to believe that if he wins, I will not be morally obligated to move to Europe to avoid paying taxes into his immoral and irrational decision making. I love this country, I want to stay here. I worked at a non-partisan organization today driving voters to the polls who have no transport. I had to give up when my fevor reached 102 from strep. I argue on this forum and volunteer my time because I really want things to be better. I still have faith that the voters can see through to what seems so obvious to me.
This President is immoral, immoral at the most base level. Not immoral in the Chistian sense, but in the human sense. I am talking about the most basic level of morality regarding human life that people do not even debate. Torquemada was an immoral man although he believe himself otherwise. Bush's poorly run war, that did not have to happen, that ignored the plight of the innocent in its path, proves the case. This makes him a mass murderer through action and negligence.
98% of my family is voting for Bush. I still love them. I still think they are good people,as I do my republican friends. Many of them are intelligent and well read. But I know they are voting on instinct and not on thought. They discount what they don't want to believe and buy what is easy to buy. No one that is actually well read, and who takes in not only what they want to believe, can conclude that Kerry's heath care plan equates to government run healthcare. Nor, on the other hand, could Kerry suporters conclude that the war has cost $200mil, it has only cost $120mil. Substance, history and the closest approximation to facts therein are the only things that matter. Inferences made about party affiliation, the appearance of character, ones ability to orate, all are manipulable down to the personal level.
If I am misguided, please give me reasons, reasons with substance, that can no be proven wrong in 5 paragraphs or less. I'm begging for some hope here.
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 02:10:24 +0000
My bad on college students, looks like they're going for Kerry in record numbers. (First time a Democrat gets a majority of the college educated vote?)
The Jon Stewart voting bloc per one PBS pundit.
Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 03:30:27 +0000
Hear! Hear! Uncle. God damn, will someone say that this MFP is a war criminal and people who vote for him are accessories? I will.
-=>Nephew