VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:52:37 01/27/04 Tue
Author: Robert
Author Host/IP: host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de / 131.188.93.25
Subject: 'When the facts change, I change my mind'.....
In reply to: Joe Taylor 's message, "Article up on my site" on 08:57:42 01/25/04 Sun

about the stuff I'm cronfronted with - not about what I prefer though. I don't see sellout at Moore, and I don't see it at Clark - of course according to what I know.

Dean however IMO is. The 'committed believer' thing of Dean you mention is result of 2/3 of Americans prefering a religious president. So he poses as religious. An article mentioned that the book he named as his favorite one from new testament sadly is a old testament one. *L*

Personally I vote strategically. It depends on what I rate to be the best thing. My personal preference for whatever candidates and parties is only part of the reasons that make up my decision.

Twain mentions in his autobiography a Republican who told him that according to his understanding the parties have to be balanced. To do this he educated his son to prefer Democrats, and he says, 'if his son should ever turn towards Republicans then he would turn towards Democrats - though this would contradict his conviction'. :)

Such stuff is part of it. The BASIC question is what is the best thing for the community you live in, preferably based on long term considerations and considering interaction with the surrounding world. It's no sellout to base your actions on it. Actually it's the only reasonable way to do it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About Clark... -- Joe Taylor, 10:20:59 01/27/04 Tue (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...did he support the war or not? I still have no idea what his *real* position is.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with strategic vote. I do see a lot of wrong things with thinking that "anyone is better than Bush." If you really think that Lieberman is going to be a good president, then vote for him by all means. But don't vote for him because he's "not Bush," because it's idiotic. And this is what the 2003 Sellout is about - the delusion (I dare not say doublethink) that suddenly things will get better if Bush is booted. They won't. They didn't when Clinton was elected (okay, they to some degree were but that's independent of his being elected), and they don't now.

I don't know if Clark's a real 2003 Sellout - in fact, I'm not so sure that Dean is, anymore; when I developed the concept, I thought he was a secular moderate-liberal who actually believed in what he said. The quote at the beginning of my article says it all. The 2003 Sellout is the Anyone But Bush movement; Dean just personifies it.

Moore is one of the main culprits because he doesn't oppose Kucinich for "making a bad president" but for not being able to win. And that's abhorrent, considering that Clark may well win the election, but if nothing changes then there's very little point to winning. If I want Team A vs. Team B, I'll watch a Yankees vs. Red Sox game, or Liverpool vs. Manchester, or whatever. Moore never said something like "Kucinich will be a bad president because he supports canceling international agreements unilaterally, which I find a bad foreign policy." This is one of the reasons I oppose Kucinich; Moore, however, never gives it or any other similar substantiative reason, and rather talks solely about "beating Bush."

If you ask me, the parties don't need to be balanced - they need to be broken up into at least two factions each. With a multiparty system I might be able to vote for candidates who can win and who aren't 12 units to my upper-right on the Political Compass (scores range from -10 to 10 on two scales: economic, on which socialist is left and capitalist is right, and on which I score -5; and social, on which liberal is down and conservative is up, and on which I score -9; Bush's scores are +9 and +4 respectively, which means he's 19 units from me).


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clark is Moore's decision, and if I'd be american, he would be my decision too.... -- Robert, 12:55:46 01/28/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

what the hell is wrong with chosing among the candidates? And doing it of course has to be based on some stuff. THe ability to beat Bush is one of them. Don't you recall what Moore wrote in one of his former messages? - most of the candidates aren't bad.
To defeat Bush is important. Foul more years will cause a lot of shit for many people who are affected by it, in Amarica and outside. Actually I don't mind much who will - hopefully - replace him. Whether it's Clark, Dean or Kerry.
My choice is Clark, but I'm ok with Dean or Kerry. And I'm sure, that's Moore's position too. To be pro Clark doen't mean to be against the others.

It's impossible to change basic stuff in a sudden. Evolution works bit by bit. It's already quite a bit to move stepwise towards the right direction. And you can't get all at once either.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, I don't bash you for supporting Clark -- Joe Taylor, 20:46:20 01/28/04 Wed (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

I bash Moore for supporting someone when there's another candidate who a) could use his endorsement and b) agrees with him on everything.

Didn't Moore lament how the Democrats acted like Republicans and how Clinton was all words and no action? There's no proof or evidence that Clark will be better.

Four more years will hardly be worse than four years of a Clintonesque Democrat with the spine of an earthworm.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nor do I bash you for bashing Moore.... :) -- Robert, 05:19:24 01/29/04 Thu (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

IMO Clark is Moores honest choice. That's where I disagree with you.

Of course you can't have any proof that Clark would act different from Clinton - sadly proofs pertaining the future still aren't available. *L*
However IMO there would be difference. Enough difference to justify supporting him.

Be assured, four more years of Bush will be worse. It's possible though that there are some few positive effects - boosting european unity for example, or it may wake up some more Americans. But I don't think such stuff is worth the bill to pay for another period. I deny to take any responsibility for it.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.