Dean's won me over

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-02 10:16pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durandal wrote:Jesus Christ, is every Republican here a one-issue voter?

EDIT: Changed "conservative" to "Republican."
Well, if Bush actually signs the AWB, I'll vote Libertarian in protest.

Are you really ready to cast a vote for the foreign policy of the Libertarian party, Marina?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-11-02 10:32pm

SirNitram wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Damn it, Dean is so close to me on so many issues and diametrically opposed to me on a few issues that happen to be the most important ones to me. <sigh> Wonder who the Libertarians are running this year.
At the risk of asking a personal question, what are the few that are that important?

I find his foreign policy largely objectionable. In principle, I like Bush's much better--though the handling of it has been just disgraceful. Dean has made no bones about his willingness to sign treaties on the basis of social responsibility, not what's in the best interests of the United States (or, to put it more kindly, he feels that "socially responsible" treaties ARE in the US's interests).

And of course, Dean has said he will raise taxes to balance the budget AND has outright ruled out cutting spending. I want a balanced budget, I want a rainy day fund, and I want to start paying down the national debt so my kids don't have to ask my why the United States has gone bankrupt, but raising taxes right when an economic recovery is getting started is not the way to do it. Though to be honest, I might just ignore the "I might raise taxes" bit if Bush keeps throwing money around like he has. This spending has got to stop.

Surprisingly, I don't find myself hating his health care plan, since what he wants to put into place is not the Clintonian boondoggle we almost got ten years ago. I might be amenable to some kind of national health insurance plan for those who can't afford private medical insurance IF it were coupled with significant reforms of the industry that would lower the real cost of healthcare. What I don't want is a system where doctors are government employees, but at least from what I've seen, that's not what Dean is talking about. Dean is also in favor of decriminalizing marijuana for medicinal use, and I think it's pretty well known here that anyone who talks about drug law reform has my attention (if he came out and said, "The war on drugs has failed, it's time to stop throwing people in jail for using them", he'd have my vote in a heartbeat, but alas, I doubt that's happening).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-02 11:01pm

RedImperator wrote:And of course, Dean has said he will raise taxes to balance the budget AND has outright ruled out cutting spending.

Say what?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-11-02 11:22pm

Durandal wrote:Jesus Christ, is every Republican here a one-issue voter?

EDIT: Changed "conservative" to "Republican."

Everyone has their pet issues. Gun control is mine. I look at others, and won't vote simply on the basis of gun control, but it is a major impact.

I'm sure you have some issue you look at more than others.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 12:12am

Durandal wrote:Jesus Christ, is every Republican here a one-issue voter?

Not hardly. If Dean weren't for screwing over our troops, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as more, ill concieved, unfunded welfare programs I'd actually consider voting for him. Were it not for those issues I'd readly support the man.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-03 12:15am

Nathan F wrote:
Durandal wrote:Jesus Christ, is every Republican here a one-issue voter?

EDIT: Changed "conservative" to "Republican."
Everyone has their pet issues. Gun control is mine. I look at others, and won't vote simply on the basis of gun control, but it is a major impact.

I'm sure you have some issue you look at more than others.

Sure I do. But I also accept the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. If I was a moron, I'd never cast a vote, because every fucking candidate always makes sure to say, I religious therefore I good." I've accepted the fact that politics is a game of voting for the lesser evil, because the only person in complete agreement with you on everything is you.

It wouldn't be so bad if people had multiple pet issues, but this thread tells me that the more vocal Republicans on this board ultimately only care about gun control. If he wants to ban assault weapons, he'll never get a vote from Glocksman or Marina because, regardless of what his stances on other issues are. That's asinine, stupid voting, and it's on both sides of the spectrum. If a candidate wants to outlaw abortion, it doesn't matter if he has the economic plan of the century to balance the budget and keep everyone happy. He'll never get the votes of the very large pro-choice bloc.

Sorry, but disregarding a candidate just because he wants to ban assault weapons is a very poor way of casting your vote.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-11-03 12:32am

Stormbringer wrote:
Durandal wrote:Jesus Christ, is every Republican here a one-issue voter?
Not hardly. If Dean weren't for screwing over our troops, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as more, ill concieved, unfunded welfare programs I'd actually consider voting for him. Were it not for those issues I'd readly support the man.

Um... what the fuck?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-11-03 12:35am

In what way does opposing the president's asinine plans to soak American taxpayers for 87 billion dollars and give that money to corporations with deep ties to the Bush Administration, equate to screwing the troops?

BTW, President Bush has done a MORE than adequate job of screwing Afghanistan, thank you very much. Just about anything Doctor Dean could do would be an IMPROVEMENT over what Bush is doing.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 01:09am

Iceberg wrote:In what way does opposing the president's asinine plans to soak American taxpayers for 87 billion dollars and give that money to corporations with deep ties to the Bush Administration, equate to screwing the troops?

Because that money isn't going just to reconstruction (something that ought to be done and habit for humanity isn't taking it on) but to paying for on-going operations as well. He wants to keep the troops over there but he's shown no willingness to step up and pay for it.

Iceberg wrote:BTW, President Bush has done a MORE than adequate job of screwing Afghanistan, thank you very much. Just about anything Doctor Dean could do would be an IMPROVEMENT over what Bush is doing.

Given that Dean's plan amounts to paying nothing and hoping the UN takes care of it, I don't think his plan is any better and is probably worse. He's kidding himself if he thinks any one else is going to step up and pay for it.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-03 01:27am

Stormbringer, did Dean run over your dog once or something? Every chance you get, you attack the man regardless of evidence.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-03 01:29am

It wouldn't be so bad if people had multiple pet issues, but this thread tells me that the more vocal Republicans on this board ultimately only care about gun control.

The problem is that the Democrats haven't been sufficiently different from the Republicans on my other pet issues for me to use them as a deciding factor.

My other pet issues are the WoD, illegal immigration, and 'free trade'.
If a candidate would come out and say "I'll renew the AWB, but I'll work to repeal our insane drug laws, strongly enforce the immigration laws, and repeal all of the 'free trade' agreements", he'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

It's too bad that neither party has any interest in enforcing the immigration laws and could care less about the victims of 'free trade' and the unconstitionality of the WoD and the forfeiture laws that sprang from it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 01:44am

Howedar wrote:Stormbringer, did Dean run over your dog once or something? Every chance you get, you attack the man regardless of evidence.

Yes, he killed Fluffy.

I'm going by what he has said he'd like to do and what he's done. There are several areas I disagree with him on strongly and feel no need to hide it.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2003-11-03 02:03pm

Bunch of extremist rag caricatures.

Holtzman · Post by **Holtzman** » 2003-11-03 06:45pm

The only thing I know about this Dean character is that thanks to his little rally near City Hall in New York I had to wait a very long time for my bus!!! GRRRR!!! Ok I am so evil....

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-11-04 02:11am

Durran Korr wrote: Are you really ready to cast a vote for the foreign policy of the Libertarian party, Marina?

If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-11-04 02:34am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

Well, it's standing up for what you believe in I suppose.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-04 04:35am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

Democrat admin for four years? Try 8.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-11-04 07:08am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

Y'know, if your intention in voting Libertarian would be to help the Democrats win, it might actually be more helpful to vote for the Democrats.

Just an idea.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-11-04 10:08am

Andrew J. wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.
Y'know, if your intention in voting Libertarian would be to help the Democrats win, it might actually be more helpful to vote for the Democrats.

Just an idea.

No, it wouldn't, because every vote for the Democrats would be seen as an endorsement of THEIR policy. That's not the message she intends to send. If right wing third parties gain a bunch of votes while Bush loses the election, on the other hand, it will be a complete repudiation of "compassionate conservatism" (i.e., spend like Jimmy Carter and write education laws with Ted Kennedy while John Ashcroft throws Tommy Chong in jail for selling bongs on the Internet) by conservatives.