PDA

View Full Version : Bush vs. Kerry



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

jlou
11-03-2004, 12:41 PM
I know there is another thread about this already, but I purposefully made a new thread for this different topic.

My question is for people who voted for Bush. Why did you make that decision? I tend to be more liberal than conservative, and there were things Bush did in the last four years that I don't agree with, which is why I voted for Kerry. I can think of a few reasons why some would vote for Bush, but I haven't seen anybody actually use those in their justification.

I'm just trying to understand.

B0bDole
11-03-2004, 12:56 PM
Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda....it's all in the past now.

All we can do is pray, and hope that Bush finishes the war in Iraq the right way, and pray that he doesn't mess things up that much more than he already did.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 01:19 PM
I voted for Bush:

- I am a fiscal conservative. The economy thrives when capitalism is allowed to operate naturally.

- "group vs group" mentality is disgusting. Look into the "veil of ignorance" principle. You'll see that most of what liberals fight for violates this ethical principle horribly.

- I believe we are in a war with radical Islam which lives around the world in lots of countries and it is no longer acceptable to accept our status as the infidel that isn't permitted to enter a muslim land.

Zach L.
11-03-2004, 01:48 PM
FYB -- The Republicans aren't particularly advocates of laissez faire capitalism. Granted, much more so than the Democrats.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 01:55 PM
yes, I'm aware of that. Two major parties. You have to pick one and run with it. Nobody is perfect.

B0bDole
11-03-2004, 02:07 PM
Nobody is perfect. God is

jlou
11-03-2004, 02:09 PM
I voted for Bush:

- I am a fiscal conservative. The economy thrives when capitalism is allowed to operate naturally.

- "group vs group" mentality is disgusting. Look into the "veil of ignorance" principle. You'll see that most of what liberals fight for violates this ethical principle horribly.

- I believe we are in a war with radical Islam which lives around the world in lots of countries and it is no longer acceptable to accept our status as the infidel that isn't permitted to enter a muslim land.Interesting points.

- I am not really a fiscal liberal or conservative. I have not done much research into the topic, but I will admit that based on the simple explanations the Democrat's fiscal policies seem to make more sense to me than the Republicans. I do, however, feel that this is a completely legitimate reason to vote for Bush.

- Based on my understanding of the "veil of ignorance" principle, I'm not sure how the social agenda of liberals violates that principle. Do you have examples? In my opinion, the more conservative social ideology violates that principle consistently. That is one of the main reasons why I tend to vote more for Democrats. Examples include gay rights and church/state issues.

- The president's handling of the war in Iraq was the kicker for me. In my opinion, you should be sure about what you are doing whenever you do something, and if that something is going to war, multiply that by 1000 before you do so. The simple fact that the President and his advisors pushed for and engaged in the war in Iraq without being sure, and despite the concerns and protests of so many Americans is disturbing, especially after it was found out that a huge part of his basis for going to war was wrong.

At the time of the war, I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. I thought it would be easier than it has been, and I thought and still think that having a democracy in Iraq is much better for the whole world than having Hussein still in power. However, I think the benefits of moving the world towards a time of global cooperation outweighed the urgency of ousting Hussein. This is especially true now that we have found out that much of the intelligence was wrong. I would very much prefer someone who made the right decision despite hemming and hawing over someone who doesn't seem to acknowledge the possibility that he was wrong.

I agree that America must protect itself from a myriad of threats, but I think the greater solution is to convince the world (or adapt to their convincing arguments about) what needs to be done.

Zach L.
11-03-2004, 02:31 PM
yes, I'm aware of that. Two major parties. You have to pick one and run with it. Nobody is perfect.
You don't have to pick one of those two. The fact that people refuse to actually see this fact is the factor that really hampers third parties.

Shogun
11-03-2004, 02:32 PM
God is

Explain the Toedicé problem then. :p

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 03:02 PM
- Based on my understanding of the "veil of ignorance" principle, I'm not sure how the social agenda of liberals violates that principle. Do you have examples?
ok, for those who don't know what the veil of ignorance is about, basically if you're going to be making a policy, it has to be able to fit for people regardless of who they are. You aren't to consider what the characteristics of the person are when making that policy and it has to be acceptable when applied to any person.

So you asked for an example. Lets start with affirmative action. Since we are to have no prior knowledge of the characteristics of the individual beforehand, the statement "White skin should not be preferred to black skin when hiring" can not be used. A more appropriate and unbiased statement would be "Skin color should not be considered when hiring".

With the "veil of ignorance" corrected statement in place, affirmative action can not be reasonably considered as it violates the principle that skin color should not be considered.

This is the basic idea. If you think in a group vs group way, you tend to make unfair policy.

jlou
11-03-2004, 03:24 PM
ok, for those who don't know what the veil of ignorance is about, basically if you're going to be making a policy, it has to be able to fit for people regardless of who they are. You aren't to consider what the characteristics of the person are when making that policy and it has to be acceptable when applied to any person.

So you asked for an example. Lets start with affirmative action. Since we are to have no prior knowledge of the characteristics of the individual beforehand, the statement "White skin should not be preferred to black skin when hiring" can not be used. A more appropriate and unbiased statement would be "Skin color should not be considered when hiring".

With the "veil of ignorance" corrected statement in place, affirmative action can not be reasonably considered as it violates the principle that skin color should not be considered.

This is the basic idea. If you think in a group vs group way, you tend to make unfair policy.Ok, but I can give you another way of looking at affirmative action, which is the way most supporters of affirmative action view it, that could be supported by a view through a veil of ignorance. I'm not saying I support affirmative action, because this explanation assumes something that I do not necessarily know to be true, but those who do support affirmative action are clearly within the veil of ignorance concept.

The proper way to look at affirmative action from the standpoint of a veil of ignorance is:

"Skin color should not be considered when hiring, unless members of a certain race have been suppressed because of their race in the past and therefore current members of that race are at a disadvantage when it comes to the other considerations for the job/school. Once the extra help is effective in leveling the playing field, then skin color should again be removed from consideration."


So, I submit that the example you gave is not a valid example of a liberal ideal that violates the "veil of ignorance" principle, and I still say that issues such as gay rights and church/state separation do violate that principle. That is why I still tend to prefer the social values of liberals over conservatives.

As for my original question, I can still only see one completely legitimate argument in favor of Bush, that being if you think fiscal conservatism is more appropriate. The other arguments still don't make sense to me.

Dante Shamest
11-03-2004, 05:07 PM
God is

God's perfection is demonstrated by creating imperfect beings like us. :D

gcn_zelda
11-03-2004, 05:08 PM
Vote for Gore.

Zach L.
11-03-2004, 05:14 PM
Gore invented god. :D

Rune Hunter
11-03-2004, 05:24 PM
I don't why people would vote for Bush but I can think of many reasons why they would vote for Kerry!

1. Kerry would help the middle-class more then the rich!

2. He would do the right thing in the war (most likely)

3. Bush screwed things up and does NOT deserve anouterh chance after that.

4. We could have spent 200 billion dallars on things that the USA needs. Such as we could have bought houses for the home less, and helped the people that need help in the USA first! I thought our own country would come first. But not to Bush!!!!

Govtcheez
11-03-2004, 05:29 PM
I don't why people would vote for Bush but I can think of many reasons why they would vote for Kerry!

1. Kerry would help the middle-class more then the rich!

2. He would do the right thing in the war (most likely)

3. Bush screwed things up and does NOT deserve anouterh chance after that.

4. We could have spent 200 billion dallars on things that the USA needs. Such as we could have bought houses for the home less, and helped the people that need help in the USA first! I thought our own country would come first. But not to Bush!!!!You're not old enough to vote, are you?

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 05:37 PM
"Skin color should not be considered when hiring, unless members of a certain race have been suppressed because of their race in the past and therefore current members of that race are at a disadvantage when it comes to the other considerations for the job/school. Once the extra help is effective in leveling the playing field, then skin color should again be removed from consideration."
"unless members of a certain race" is an attempt to bypass the entire veil of ignorance concept. Nope.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 05:44 PM
anonytmouse, changing a few words around doesn't quite do it. But you're right about the general idea. I along with an awful lot of republicans am not in favor of that sort of amendment. I personally don't believe that the government should have ANY role in marriage.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 05:50 PM
by the way, thanks for the negative feedback. I love the fact that expressing a right-wing opinion here is the quickest way to get red squares!!

jlou
11-03-2004, 06:00 PM
"unless members of a certain race" is an attempt to bypass the entire veil of ignorance concept. Nope.No it is not... it only assumes that there exists such a thing as race and that it is possible for two people to be of a different race, something that your original statement assumes as well. If it were to say which race was the one being suppressed, then it would bypass the veil of ignorance concept, but it doesn't.

Maybe a better choice of words would be "unless members of a particular race".

Again, I'm not advocating affirmative action, I am only saying that one can be a proponent of affirmative action without violating the "veil of ignorance" concept. Since you have already acknowledged that the conservative stance on gay marriage is not supported by your veil of ignorance logic, that would support my contention that conservative opinions on social issues are not a reason to support Bush.


I am only trying to understand others' reasoning behind their choice of Bush, and trying to see if that logic makes sense to me. So far, the only response I've seen, though well presented, makes me think Kerry would still be the better choice.

P.S. FYB, please don't be discouraged by negative feedback. At this point, you are the only conservative to even attempt to help answer my questions.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 06:16 PM
jlou, I appreciate that you're trying to understand the enemy. That's good.

Like I said, I'm a fiscal conservative. But I'm also a social libertarian to some degree. I am not going to agree on every conservative issue, but as a social libertarian (to some degree) I see government as something that gets in the way far more than it should.

Economy is the major reason that the Republican party is better for me. I am a strong believer in capitalism. Philosophy that redistributes wealth proceeds under an illusion that there is some "pie" that we should get an equal piece of in order to be fair. It ignores the fact that changes in the slices of the pie can have an effect on the size of the "pie" over time.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 06:17 PM
P.S. FYB, please don't be discouraged by negative feedback. At this point, you are the only conservative to even attempt to help answer my questions.
I may be the only one around here! :)
But I'm obviously not the only one in the US. Thank God.

Govtcheez
11-03-2004, 06:49 PM
I personally don't believe that the government should have ANY role in marriage.hahahaha
hahahahaahhahahhahahah
hahahahahahha
heeeheee

No, I agree with you 100% here, but it's just not ever going to happen.

Maybe I should be crying instead.

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 07:15 PM
you shouldn't agree with me so easily. You might get a pretty red square from someone.

Govtcheez
11-03-2004, 07:26 PM
Getting the government out of marriage isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a freaking common sense issue.'

edit: Duh, I get it now
vvvvvvvvvvvvv

FillYourBrain
11-03-2004, 07:33 PM
I aint shootin for right or left here.

Darkness
11-03-2004, 08:10 PM
by the way, thanks for the negative feedback. I love the fact that expressing a right-wing opinion here is the quickest way to get red squares!!

Unfortunately you can be voted down (or against) for any reason, either here, or running for a seat in congress, or running for president, because there's nothing that says anybody absolutely must respect your opinion when they disagree. Kind of sucks. Unfortunately it also stifles communication, and makes it less likely for people to find common ground. I'm more liberal/socialistic (voted for Kerry, obviously), but I respect the fact that you are a right winger and probably see things differently than I.

VirtualAce
11-03-2004, 10:43 PM
Well squares don't mean anything here and I personally feel that allowing people to place red ones by your name simply because of an opinion on the GD board really defeats the purpose of them. Squares should be reserved for programming issues only. Anything else is simply unfair.

Zach L.
11-03-2004, 10:49 PM
FYB, you sound much more like a Libertarian than a Republican. Although, Republicans are theoretically as strong supporters of capitalism as Libertarians, I generally find that mainstream Republicans still want a good bit of government intervention in the economy (trade restrictions, tariffs, subsidies, tax breaks, etc). The Libertarian platform is that in both social and economis issues, the government should stay out as much as possible (and that the primary function of the government is to provide for the common defense, and not too much more).

novacain
11-04-2004, 01:19 AM
>>The economy thrives when capitalism is allowed to operate naturally.

The problem with capitalism is the EVERYTHING has a price.
This includes your values and your job.

>>The president's handling of the war in Iraq was the kicker for me.

Strange how he man with no actual experience of war is considered best to fight one (compared to a man who choose to fight for his country and was awarded medals for his actions).

>>With the "veil of ignorance" corrected statement in place, affirmative action can not be reasonably considered as it violates the principle that skin color should not be considered.

Its good to see that the US elected its fifth black senator in 216 years (to serve 1/8 of the population). To add to the total of eleven monority senators it has elected since 1788. (out of 1,864 that have served)

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.senate.gov/learning/stat_15.html

Freedom and justice for all! (unless your coloured, poor, gay, non christian or not an American)

FillYourBrain
11-04-2004, 02:55 AM
FYB, you sound much more like a Libertarian than a Republican. Although, Republicans are theoretically as strong supporters of capitalism as LibertariansI can agree with that. A lot of republicans are libertarians choosing a major party on economy over social issues.
Its good to see that the US elected its fifth black senator in 216 years (to serve 1/8 of the population). To add to the total of eleven monority senators it has elected since 1788. (out of 1,864 that have served)this is your response to the affirmative action criticism? I'm confused. You'd like to see affirmative action in senate races?

novacain
11-04-2004, 06:59 AM
I think it shows how disenfranchised the minorities are. I wonder if the 3 current minority senators would agree we need to observe the 'veil of ignorance', for their constituents protection of course.


I saw on TV lines to vote, apparantly lasting for up to nine hours.
Bet they wern't in Beverly Hills.
Wonder if I would have waited to vote?
Would you have?

Here the polsters can tell you which party supporters will use any given polling booth.

More Americans voted against GWB than any other presidential candidate, ever.

Govtcheez
11-04-2004, 07:05 AM
> I saw on TV lines to vote, apparantly lasting for up to nine hours.

I don't know of anyone who waited nearly that long. The longest I heard was an hour and a half, and that was right before most people went to work. I went immediately after work and waited for 15 minutes.

Dalren
11-04-2004, 07:17 AM
More Americans voted against GWB than any other presidential candidate, ever.

Yeah amazing how in an election where more people voted then ever before, GWB had more votes for him than any other president in history. And he can't have more votes against him than any other presidential candidate, because Kerry got fewer votes. Regardless its a stupid statistic because more people voted this year. Now back to the meainingful flames...

novacain
11-04-2004, 07:20 AM
>>lasting for up to nine hours.

That was reported here, sounds excessive. There were still booths open at 1AM EST when the TV coverage stopped.

This report says three to four hours.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1099269567184_113?s_name=usElection2004&no_ads=



>>And he can't have more votes against him than any other presidential candidate, because Kerry got fewer votes.

True, opps. Subsitute Presisdent for presidential candidate.

Zach L.
11-04-2004, 07:24 AM
I heard that there was up to nine hour waits too.
Although, I can guarantee you, the TV coverage didn't stop at 1.00 EST. :)

FillYourBrain
11-04-2004, 09:41 AM
More Americans voted against GWB than any other presidential candidate, ever.
which is a hard one for me to understand since kerry had more votes against him. :confused:

Thantos
11-04-2004, 09:46 AM
To me the # of votes for or against a particular candidate or president is meaningless. Its the percentage of the votes. As the population increases the number of votes for or against someone with increase. What matters is the percentage.

Govtcheez
11-04-2004, 09:50 AM
I think we're playing a semantics game here, guys. I think novacain's trying to say that while the votes in Bush's column were more likely for him, the votes in Kerry's were more likely against Bush, not for Kerry.

Or something.

FillYourBrain
11-04-2004, 10:17 AM
oh ok. I guess. err.......
I'm getting back to work for now....

Zach L.
11-04-2004, 11:20 AM
I take that more to mean that as a result of there being a near 50/50 split and there being more voters than in previous elections, Bush is the actual elected president to have had the most votes against him. (Clearly, Badnarik, Cobb, Nader, etc all had more votes against them than either of those two did.)

jlou
11-04-2004, 11:47 AM
So nobody else can answer my question? Why did you vote for Bush?

PJYelton
11-04-2004, 12:15 PM
Couldn't tell you from personal experience since I voted Kerry, but if the polls are any indication, "moral standards" was the biggest reason given by those exiting voting stations who voted Bush while "economy concerns" was biggest for Kerry. What I don't get is, are they implying Kerry doesn't have moral standards?

Govtcheez
11-04-2004, 12:19 PM
They're implying that Bush is an evangelical Christian who'll deal with those queers and those brown people, but that's just my opinion.

FillYourBrain
11-04-2004, 12:51 PM
Couldn't tell you from personal experience since I voted Kerry, but if the polls are any indication, "moral standards" was the biggest reason given by those exiting voting stations who voted Bush while "economy concerns" was biggest for Kerry. What I don't get is, are they implying Kerry doesn't have moral standards?
The polls you're referring to were annoyingly misleading. I heard those too. They basically asked them:

Who are you voting for?
and
What's the biggest issue?

Those who voted for Bush had terrorism and moral issues as their biggest issue, and those who voted for Kerry had economy as their biggest issue.

What does the poll tell you? Not what they would have you believe. If they had asked:

Who is better for (fill in the issue)?

It would have given an a better answer. They tried to say that people thought kerry was better for the economy and that bush was better for war on terrorism based on those polls and that's just not what the polls said.



But I'm sure they got their ratings.. :rolleyes:

PJYelton
11-04-2004, 01:30 PM
I have no doubt that if a Bush supporter was asked who was better for the economy they would have said Bush and if a Kerry supporter was asked about moral issues they'd say Kerry was better. But jlou's question was what reason did people vote for Bush, and if a study showed people were answering "moral issues" more often than not then there you go. In my mind its simply the most obvious and easiest excuse to vote for Bush for those who only barely follow politics.

Rune Hunter
11-04-2004, 06:55 PM
lol no I am 14 but I go to my social class. And I belive my social teacher is for Bush but he won't tell us.

And I have my own ideas. Everything thinks different.

Govtcheez
11-04-2004, 06:57 PM
Your ideas are stupid.

But they're yours, so you've got that, I guess.

PS And this is coming from someone who thinks Bush is probably the worst president in about 80 years.

FillYourBrain
11-04-2004, 08:03 PM
dang, that was harsh. he's 14 dude.

On the other hand, there may be some back story here. Never mind.

Govtcheez
11-04-2004, 08:20 PM
I know that when I was 14, my ideas were stupid, too.