#128842 - 2004-11-09 11:38 PM
Re: U.S. Election ...
|
ShaneEP
MM club member
Registered: 2002-11-29
Posts: 2125
Loc: Tulsa, OK
|
I voted for Bush as well. As far as the connection between IQ and voters...I myself dont think your IQ has much to do with how you decide who to vote for. I personally voted for bush because of the job he did immediately following 9/11/01. Still think he did a great job comforting the country following such a disaster. That and the fact that kerry seems to change his mind a bit too much. I would rather have a president that stands by his beliefs (no matter the heat he gets from it), rather than one that changes his stance to follow what the majority thinks. Other than that I didnt really care too much....and I have no idea what my IQ is, but the 3 states that ive lived in so far are ranked 14, 44, and 27. Oklahoma really dropped my average on that one.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#128845 - 2004-11-10 02:50 AM
Re: U.S. Election ...
|
Radimus
Moderator
Registered: 2000-01-06
Posts: 5187
Loc: Tampa, FL
|
I voted for Bush... really for only 2 reasons.
It is a given that all politicians are underhanded, crooked, powerhungry, self-involved, etc. and as George Carlin states, the fight for the presidency is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
#1 real reason, it that GW drew a line in the sand and turning our back on what we started will not fix anything... In for a penny, in for a pound.
#2 real reason, anything that Michael Moore and most of Hollywood agree on, I am against. And I really disagree with the Bush is Evil and Bush is Satan lines that I saw all over the place, there should be a bit more respect for the office, if not for the man.
The last election I voted for Nader for politcal reasons. Not for his platform, but because a 3rd party would stir the pot. Our current 2 party system doesn't leave much to choose from, as most people are moderate with strong views for some things and no concern for others. We are stuck either voting against 1 or 2 items that we are opposed to, instead of a candidate that has more items that we are for.
Why is it so hard to imagine being fiscally conservative (in general), while being pro-choice, believing in a strong military, and cheaper higher education?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#128851 - 2004-11-10 11:30 AM
Re: U.S. Election ...
|
Radimus
Moderator
Registered: 2000-01-06
Posts: 5187
Loc: Tampa, FL
|
but don't forget the special interest groups... those are also getting voted on. If they are backing a candidate and the candidate wins, they want to get 'paid' for it with political favors.
the American Democratic systems comes down the Business Party (Republicans) vs. the Workers Party (Democrats). The most basic defination of each party is; What is good for business is good for the nation, and What is good for the workers is good for the nation. Like most things that do not live in a vacuum, the reality is somewhere in the middle.
The special interest groups are worse than that though, as they focus on their tiny little agenda with whichever party is likey to promote their agenda. So Kerry got the Pro-choice group, and Bush got the evangelical christians and the Pro-lifers... Problem is, there are dozens of theses groups pushing their agendas and they expect to be paid if their candidate wins. Things aren't that simple today, especially with the war/terrorism going on.
People need(ed) to approve a candidate that espouses a platform beyond their typical tiny focus group and most people are ignorant of the 'bigger picture'... or perhaps not since Bush won
I still believe a 3rd major party would spread around these groups, so people could vote FOR a candidate that more closely matches their beliefs, rather than AGAINST the candidate that doesn't
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Arend_, Allen, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 381 anonymous users online.
|
|
|