Which candidate would YOU vote for?

Negadas · Post by **Negadas** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:41 pm

I would have a hard time voting from these 2 extremes. Both have ideas that would make them a good president in office but they also both have their down sides.
In the case of canidate A you would have a gun fanatic in office which might not be good for when it comes to conflicts that dont need to solved by war. He also has a record for being against the present government, which in time would lead to a huge change if he was elected.
On the other hand you have canidate B whos ideas remind me of a health cult, it seems like he only cares about health and healthy food. Thats not one of the most important issues. Another thing he might do that i oppose to is he has this idea in his head that the country needs to send people to foreign countries. I dont think that any country needs to mediate another country.
I dont think i would vote in this election, both canidates sound as if they believe to strongly in thier own thing. Thats just how i look at it though.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:48 pm

I'd vote for A, anybody who shoots at cops should be ok. Candidate B sounds like a christian hippy asshole or something, he probably has a sex dungeon.

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:09 pm

B is a military dick, sending people off to foreign countries to do stuff?
Re-Tarded thanks.
A is stupid too, bug business? Not cool. Big Businessmen *cough* might be a little tempted to give to their buddies eh? Especially if he doesn't particularly care for the establishment.

Both of these cantidates are incredibly juxtaposed, people in the big tobacco industry aren't going to be going around shooting at the government - and military people aren't going to be for any of that socialist shit in the second one. The whole thing is pretty whacked out?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:37 pm

I don't think I'd vote for either, nor would I get the chance to. The candidates are much too far apart politically to actually be the opposing parties in any modern first-world election. Candidate B sounds like a great big democrat, yeah, though maybe a bit more outspoken, but Candidate A just isn't plausible. I feel like he should be throwing copies of his manifesto at me.

But anyways, if I have to choose... I'd go with B, naturally, in keeping with my candyass social democratic Canadian nature since a lot of B's stuff sounds like what Canada's got now, namely the healthcare stuff and tougher restrictions on tobacco advertising. For instance, the gov't banned tobacco advertising in the Monteral F1 Grand Prix. And since most sponsors of the Grand Prix are tobacco companies, they yanked our race for next year's F1 season. Bastards.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 4:05 pm

I think it is important to point out to people who seem to be presuming that these candidates are modern day, USA politicians. But there is no indication of that. It is perfectly possible that they are from another place and/or period. They could be ancient Roman candidates from the Republican period.

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 4:22 pm

Ancient Romans against gun control and tobacco use huh?
I don't think so.

These are all current issues, not ancient issues, not even issues from 50 years ago.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:23 pm

id have to go overall with B because A is a business asshole who doesnt give to shits who he steps on to get where hes going.

at least B would be for what the people want not some fuckin businessman who gets sodomized by his buddies and gives them "magic" favors.

A would be shot in my regime.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:50 pm

What regime? I'm still pretty sure that was limited to 3 sect members and your garage.

Doyle wrote: I must say, I'm surprised it's even tied at this point. In my opinion, Candidate A sounds like a complete fucking jerk compared to Candidate B. Candidate A sounds like a dangerous person even to know personally.

Don't be too suprised, you have to remember, we've elected alot of odd presidents before that neccesarily didn't seem to fit the bill. I mentioned Lyndon B. Johnson before ((although technically he wasn't elected the first go round)). He was a known racist, heavy drinker, he cheated throughout his whole life (Including his election with Kennedy), he was very deep in the "Bobby Baker" scandal as well as numerous times caught cheating on his wife (He supposidly has a son from this), and ontop of that he has been tied in with the Kennedy assasination (through some sort of letter or another).

So really, putting any limitations as calling one a jerk and probably not being elected doesn't coincide with usual voting patterns. Apperantly alot of people like Al Sharpton(although Dean will probably win the nomination. I personally like John Dean if I was forced to vote democrat) this year? Although I'm likely to agree that both of these are abit extreme to either side. The only saving grace is that most of what these canidates want wouldn't pass into law thanks to congress, so I can choose knowing that not all of his ideas would affect me.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:00 pm

What happened to the poll? Are polls against the law or something?

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:01 pm

Maybe Canidate B didn't like polls either?

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:03 pm

Given just that information, I'd vote for B, obviously, but that's a stupid question. Too bad that's how so many people see him... :/

Otherwise I'd probably lodge a protest vote or something (you can protest vote in the US, right? Right?)

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:05 pm

Yes, but apperantly only if its composed of idiots, takes up some subject that doesn't concern me (Such as abortion), or is against the president. I think you're covered.

Nuclear Gandhi · Post by **Nuclear Gandhi** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:39 am

Stainless wrote:I believe I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate.....

"HAHAHA, Silly earthlings! THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!!!"

In other words- I'd vote for A. He seems like a pretty stand-up guy. ;D

InvisibleMonkey · Post by **InvisibleMonkey** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:43 am

Just don't vote

The Jizz Stain · Post by **The Jizz Stain** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:04 am

I'd vote for A.

InfinityBall · Post by **InfinityBall** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:09 am

Well, let's see, you can throw out the cancer thing (or is candidate A pro cancer? :roll: as well as asbestos, pesticides, and radiation). I am pro-animal research and won't respect someone at all for being anti. I would never vote for either candidate except to, say, prevent hitler from winning. Given that the entire description of candidate A is designed to be as negative as possible, I suspect i would support him over B. As for business activities, retail is listed? There are non-commies that have an issue with that? Alcohol, tobacco, retail sounds decent, smuggling would really depend on what it was. As for opposing policies, well ,you have to know what the policies are to make a judgement on that (that is, know what country you're talking about)

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:12 am

That comment almost defies irony.

InfinityBall · Post by **InfinityBall** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:18 am

Democracy was officially rendered retarded back in 2000 anyway, when a man in missouri won a seat in the senate BECAUSE HE HAD DIED. He got the sympathy vote and won, which is why we A) had a democrat majority in the senate after the election and

why ashcroft (the loser) is AG

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:20 am

What was his stance on necrophelia?

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:08 pm

These issues could easily be from 50 years ago, but any eariler would probably be impossible. Tell me which one couldn't be possible 50 years ago. Radiation, cancer, tabacco, animal testing and more were all around back then, although it was probably not as mainstream to be against them back then.

To say one candidate is protrayed more negatively than the other shows which side you are actually on.

I would need to know what the present government was like before I voted. Especially with candidate A. For all I know, A could be a freedom fighter trying to bring down Ingsoc or North Korea.

And B could be for gun-control because he is Stalin and doesn't want the people to give him trouble while he slaugters all the class enemies.

I don't agree to sending troops to foreign countries unless the government is planning on conquering it for me or killing some enemy of mine.

I think I know who B is.

I've heard that Churchill drank so much that he'd eat a stick of butter before he drank. I think was Churchill.
He was out late one night, drunk, and some old lady scolds him for being drunk, being the leader of England and all, and he says something like, "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Duck and Cover

Which candidate would YOU vote for?

Re: Which candidate would YOU vote for?