Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry

[GePap]

I did not say any democrats do that- I said I don;t do it, unlike those republicans.

What I can;t figure is why anyone who does not agree with Bush handling of Iraq, from invasion to today, could vote for the man. There are plenty of socially conservative candidates for the social conservatives to chose who are not Shrub.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Kerry would appoint left-wing justices who would move our country in the wrong direction.

Excuse me: when have conservative justices ever led the country in any way but backwards?

Women's rights, desegregation, voting rights, and the overall civil rights are all ideals we take for granted today, but were fought very hard for by liberals and fought very hard against by conservatives.

Wrong direction? I don't see how social progress rather than ignorant bigotry is the "wrong direction."

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Frustratingly, none of the candidates seem to have really addressed this issue (excluding possible write ins) but Kerry's campaign does cite the Padilla case as an example of erosion of our basic rights.

michael badnarik has.

https://www.lp.org

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


What!? Since when?

Voting is the act of chosing a leader. Voting in order to depose a leader is the very foundation of democracy. If you think on leader has failed his mandate, why on Earth would you vote to return him to power? You will have ta least 5 choices for president whereever you are.

I find this statement just utterly silly.

It seems you misunderstood me. Voting for a candidate whom I believe has failed their mandate is precisely what I want to avoid doing. I believe voting serves not only to choose a leader from a list of candidates but also serves as a measure of the winning candidates 'mandate' from the public for their policies.

I'll elaborate a bit more on my thinking for voting for Kerry even though I think he has made an especially lousy congressman. The election could be another super close election like 2000. The closer Bush is to getting the most votes the less it will appear that voters care about protecting the constitution and the more people will regard him to have received a mandate for his policies. The only way I can maximise my rejection of Bush's policies is by casting the vote that appears to most diminish his mandate.

Another consideration is that in my state all but one of the candidates listed will be even worse than either kerry or bush judging by their declared policies and the candidate whom I probably agree with most of all (taking into account Bush's threat to our constitution) would probably be seen as a further mandate for bush in much the same way that a vote for nader will be interpreted as a further mandate for kerry should kerry win the election.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by GePap
I did not say any democrats do that- I said I don;t do it, unlike those republicans.

What I can;t figure is why anyone who does not agree with Bush handling of Iraq, from invasion to today, could vote for the man. There are plenty of socially conservative candidates for the social conservatives to chose who are not Shrub.

If voting against someone because you don't want them to continue as President as legitimate, it's also legitimate to vote keep someone you don't want to be President out of office, and George W. Bush is the best shot at preventing a Kerry Presidency.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

If voting against someone because you don't want them to continue as President as legitimate, it's also legitimate to vote keep someone you don't want to be President out of office, and George W. Bush is the best shot at preventing a Kerry Presidency.

Fine by me.

[Ben Kenobi]

you lost nothing and you gave it a chance. And four years later you get a choice again.

Sure you did. You voted for Kerry, and that makes you partially responsible for what happens afterwards.

That's why you vote for the person closest to what you believe, because then you will get better representation in the long run.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure you did. You voted for Kerry, and that makes you partially responsible for what happens afterwards.

That's why you vote for the person closest to what you believe, because then you will get better representation in the long run.

So why did you vote PC instead of something like, say, the Christian Heritage party?

[Ben Kenobi]

I voted for the Christian Heritage Party.



For this man here.

http://www.chpelection.ca/riding/vancouver-south.html

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I voted for the Christian Heritage Party.

Really?

Ok then.


I admittedly don't pay much attention to canpol threads, but I don't think I've even heard you mention the party before, while I have seen you give alot of support to the PC, so I assumed that's who you voted for.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure you did. You voted for Kerry, and that makes you partially responsible for what happens afterwards.

That's why you vote for the person closest to what you believe, because then you will get better representation in the long run.

Ahh but in US presidential elections there is a twist on this logic. A little something called the electoral college system. I don't get to vote for the actual candidate, just an 'elector' who votes for whomever (traditionally the person they declared they would vote for) on behalf of the entire states population if they happen to win the most votes in that state. winner takes all. Therefore if I know damn well that my fellow minnesotans will not vote for either the correct (from my point of view) candidate or for Kerry in large enough numbers to win the state for either of those candidates, there is no way I will be even partially responsible for Kerry's presidency even should he win the election. The worst that would occur would be that my vote would be interpreted as increasing the 'mandate' for his declared campaign promises.

[Ben Kenobi]

I admittedly don't pay much attention to canpol threads, but I don't think I've even heard you mention the party before, while I have seen you give alot of support to the PC, so I assumed that's who you voted for.

I'm a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, and I have been one for the last few years.

I assisted in the campaigns of two candidates in two different ridings, both of whom lost, (one trounced, and one by a slim margin.) I wanted to interview one of the winning candidates, the one in my riding, and he never got back to me.

On election day, my poll was along the way to the Conservative party office, so I went in, and talked to the candidate. We talked, and I asked for his position on the issues, and he wanted to make sure that I knew he felt abortion was between a woman and her doctor.

That had the opposite effect that he intended, so I voted for the fellow I knew, after I had promised him that I would not vote for him, given that I am a member of the Conservative party

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry"

Consider this. As problematic as this current President has been at times, the Next President will likely appoint several Supreme Court Justices, and the effect of that will continue long after Bush and Kerry's political careers have ended. Supreme Court justices have the ability to make rulings that have far reaching effects and can set the national pollicy for a long time. With the parties generally deadlocked right now, it seems the judiciary will be far more likely to be able to make the big decisions on national issues such as States Rights, Affirmative Action, etc. Kerry would appoint left-wing justices who would move our country in the wrong direction.

Bull****, since all Article III appointees have to be approved by the Senate.

With the Padilla case, Bush has violated his oath of office, which is a "high crime" for purposes of impeachment, except his cronies in the Congress are happy to look the other way.

The last thing we need is for a so-called President who wipes his ass with the Constitution is to have him around to appoint justices to SCOTUS who may well share his disdain for the Constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ahh but in US presidential elections there is a twist on this logic. A little something called the electoral college system. I don't get to vote for the actual candidate, just an 'elector' who votes for whomever (traditionally the person they declared they would vote for) on behalf of the entire states population if they happen to win the most votes in that state. winner takes all.

Yeah, and we have a first-past-the-post system, where only the winner gets the seat and no one else gets anything.

The worst that would occur would be that my vote would be interpreted as increasing the 'mandate' for his declared campaign promises.

Over here, the Conservative candidate in the UBC riding got trounced by the Liberal incumbent, he lost support given to the Alliance party, which gives you an idea of how badly he lost given that he represented a unified party.

If everyone voted for the person that best represented their interests, then the results for the state will represent the true support of the candidates, and one will be able to tell how much of a mandate one has to govern.

If you vote for Kerry when you do not support his policy, then you give him a bigger mandate than he deserves, which can have a huge effect on how he governs.

[Ramo]

As far as I'm concerned, the primary reason not to vote for Dear Leader is the idea that John Ashcroft or someone like him (and possibly 3 or 4 of them) could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Regarding Kerry's position on Padilla,

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, said he would call for an end to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and provide those who are detained their basic civil rights.

http://www.dailyvidette.org/news/2003/12/02/News/Kerry.Promises.To.Renew.Rights-569471.shtml