17-08-2004 02:43									#1
	Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry Enter the AD-FREE zone

I could go on and on about the many reasons I dislike Kerry as a man and my distaste for the government policies he has seen fit to pursue. However, in another thread debeest posted the following link:

Brief Cato Institute article

I was certain that by now Jose Padilla would certainly have been charged with any number of crimes. I was wrong. what the administration is doing is a bald faced rejection of our constitutional rights. A US citizen is being held without charges indefinately and without legal counsel. This is extremely dangerous. In fact I honestly believe that it should be regarded as an impeachable offense.

What I would like is for someone to explain how the Cato article is wrong (I've had no luck so far) so as to spare me the indignity of having to vote for Kerry. As it stands, the current administrations offense is so grave that I cannot even allow myself to consider voting for some third candidate. An offense of this magnitude would demand the most effective response which (tragically) would seem to be casting my vote for Kerry.

I'm still having trouble believing that the executive is getting away with unilaterally suspending habeas corpus for US citizens with no apparent opposition from the other two branches of government whatsoever. Scary.

	17-08-2004 02:50									#2
	Got spare money?

dont vote kerry, vote badnarik.

www.lp.org , click on badnarik, top left.

	17-08-2004 02:53									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: dont vote kerry, vote badnarik.

Yeah, don't vote for the douchebag, vote for the criminal.

	17-08-2004 02:55									#4
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There are always plenty of candidates on the ballot. And you oculd write in any name you wanted.

	17-08-2004 03:00									#5
	Remove this text

I can't explain why they are wrong without getting into conspiracy theories and crazy talk.

	17-08-2004 03:01									#6
	Support Apolyton

"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.

	17-08-2004 03:02									#7
	Remove this text

I have often voted for 3rd party candidates and even wrote in candidates when I couldn't stomach any of the options listed but this situation is different. I normally vote for the candidate that I would most like to win but I find this Jose Padilla situation so appallingly dangerous that for the first time it seems obvious that I should vote against Bush rather than voting for someone else.

I recognize that in principle "voting against" a candidate is contrary to the spirit of both democracy and the ideal of a republic but I find the principle of protecting the constitution from all critical assaults to be even more important than this.

Can't anybody explain how Jose Padilla's incarceration is consistent with our constitution effectively neutralizing this entire dilema?

	17-08-2004 03:05									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Before you change your vote on this issue, has Kerry publicly asked for the release of Padilla?

	17-08-2004 03:06									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So vote for the candidate who closely approaches your ideas. This way, no matter what, you win. If you vote for Kerry, and he turns out to be just as bad as Bush, what have you gained?

	17-08-2004 03:08									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I recognize that in principle "voting against" a candidate is contrary to the spirit of both democracy and the ideal of a republic but I find the principle of protecting the constitution from all critical assaults to be even more important than this.

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.

	17-08-2004 03:09									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So vote for the candidate who closely approaches your ideas. This way, no matter what, you win. If you vote for Kerry, and he turns out to be just as bad as Bush, what have you gained?

Nothing- but of course, you lost nothing and you gave it a chance. And four years later you get a choice again.

	17-08-2004 03:10									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap There are always plenty of candidates on the ballot. And you oculd write in any name you wanted.

Would you be giving this same advice to someone who was going to vote for Nader?

	17-08-2004 03:14									#13
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Would you be giving this same advice to someone who was going to vote for Nader?

Like I care what people vote for. I want Bush to lose dearly, but I am not on the same level as loathsome republicans, giving money to candidates they don;t support simply under the idea of sucking votes from others.

So at least I can say I am better than republicans

	17-08-2004 03:15									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Before you change your vote on this issue, has Kerry publicly asked for the release of Padilla?

Releasing Padilla would be preferable to the current situation but it would still suck. I simply want him charged with a crime. He broke a number of laws and it would be easy to put him away. The fact that there is so little reason to hold Padilla without charges only serves to make the situation more frightening.

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.

	17-08-2004 03:18									#15
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Like I care what people vote for. I want Bush to lose dearly, but I am not on the same level as loathsome republicans, giving money to candidates they don;t support simply under the idea of sucking votes from others. So at least I can say I am better than republicans

Someone forgot to tell Joe Hoeffel that Democrats don't do that.

	17-08-2004 03:21									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

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.

	17-08-2004 03:22									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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."

	17-08-2004 03:22									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

www.lp.org

	17-08-2004 03:30									#19
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:30									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:33									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:40									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:42									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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?

	17-08-2004 03:44									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I voted for the Christian Heritage Party.



For this man here.

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

	17-08-2004 03:47									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:50									#26
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 03:54									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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

	17-08-2004 03:59									#28
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

Bullshit, 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.

	17-08-2004 04:00									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	17-08-2004 04:55									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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,

quote: 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/20...ts-569471.shtml