I will never...

[d0rk]

Vote for a man who sweats this much









[edit]
Suppose to be in this thread. Oh well.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

You should see me when I'm at work...

[Pixelcraft]

Well that's a new reason

[pixiefied]

ewwwwwwwwwwww!

[MStar]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
You should see me when I'm at work...

And I wouldn't vote for you either... Or would I?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

If you want some new pipes put down underneath your driveway, you'd better.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by d0rk
Vote for a man who sweats this much



[Image]





[edit]
Suppose to be in this thread. Oh well.

well that will offset the vote from the girl in my politics class who is going to vote for him because he is "cuter" than kerry.

[GqSkrub]

a simple search of kerry and sweat yeilded this.

conclusion: vote kerry.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
well that will offset the vote from the girl in my politics class who is going to vote for him because he is "cuter" than kerry.

What a travesty to women's suffrage.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by Namelessv1
What a travesty to women's suffrage.

less than 50% of eligible american's vote. That in itself is a travesty to suffrage in general.

[aFfLiCtEd]

A vote for either robs a vote from the other.

[m0e]

My theory is never vote for someone you don’t personally know. I have never met either Bush or Kerry so how could I in good conscience choose one of them to be president. I think if everyone thought this way and voted this way our country would be a better place to live.

[ryan]

In my experience with "Things I'll never do", I've done most of them.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by m0e
My theory is never vote for someone you don’t personally know.

What if I psychoanalyze the person to a perspective where it's almost as close to personally knowing the person? Does that count?

[GqSkrub]

why vote when your vote doesn't even count?

[CaptainNuss]

Originally posted by m0e
My theory is never vote for someone you don’t personally know. I have never met either Bush or Kerry so how could I in good conscience choose one of them to be president. I think if everyone thought this way and voted this way our country would be a better place to live.

No. The only people taking part in the presidential elections would be the staff of the candidates. That wouldn't make sense at all.

[m0e]

Does it make more sense to make a decision to vote for someone to hold the highest public office in this country based on multi million dollar ad campaigns? Lets face it; our current national election process is just a huge ad campaign. The interviews, the news reports, and of course the political ads are all done to present a specific view of a candidate, which is almost never an accurate one. Who says we have to vote for one of the two candidates presented by the political machine of this country. If everyone voted for someone they personally knew, just think what that would do to our political system. Do I think this will happen, no, the general population is to stupid to think for itself. We have to do what the magic box tells us to.
On a more positive and practical note, if we applied this theory on a local level we could actually make a change for the better.

[CaptainNuss]

Originally posted by m0e
Does it make more sense to make a decision to vote for someone to hold the highest public office in this country based on multi million dollar ad campaigns?

On a national level, yes. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but it does make more sense then "Let's all vote for people we know."

Originally posted by m0e
Lets face it; our current national election process is just a huge ad campaign. The interviews, the news reports, and of course the political ads are all done to present a specific view of a candidate, which is almost never an accurate one.

Agreed.

Originally posted by m0e
Who says we have to vote for one of the two candidates presented by the political machine of this country. If everyone voted for someone they personally knew, just think what that would do to our political system.

Such a system would be a complete disaster. How many people know you? 500? How many people know you well enough to make a decision as qualified as you'd like it to be? 50? Now imagine those 50 people will vote for you. No one else will because no one else knows you without a campaign. There will be hundreds of people just like you, all being voted for by 50, perhaps 100 people. How democratic is that?

That, luckily, will never happen, though. About three to perhaps five candidates are enough. The real problem lies in the execution of the ad campaigns, which, as you say, present an image of a candidate "which is almost never an accurate one." The political agenda should be most important. At the moment, at least from here in Germany, it seems that in the US the emphasis is on the candidate as a person. Who cares whether or not Kerry has some purple hearts? It's not interesting and important at all, the really important stuff is what Kerry will do when elected.

Originally posted by m0e
On a more positive and practical note, if we applied this theory on a local level we could actually make a change for the better.

Your system might indeed work on a local level, but not on a broader scale.

[m0e]

Originally posted by CaptainNuss
On a national level, yes. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but it does make more sense then "Let's all vote for people we know."

How can anyone, in good conscience, make a vote based on media hype?

Originally posted by CaptainNuss
Such a system would be a complete disaster. How many people know you? 500? How many people know you well enough to make a decision as qualified as you'd like it to be? 50? Now imagine those 50 people will vote for you. No one else will because no one else knows you without a campaign. There will be hundreds of people just like you, all being voted for by 50, perhaps 100 people. How democratic is that?

The US system for national elections is hopelessly corrupt and fatally flawed. In my opinion a disaster is what is needed before we will see any meaningful change.

Originally posted by CaptainNuss
That, luckily, will never happen, though. About three to perhaps five candidates are enough. The real problem lies in the execution of the ad campaigns, which, as you say, present an image of a candidate "which is almost never an accurate one." The political agenda should be most important. At the moment, at least from here in Germany, it seems that in the US the emphasis is on the candidate as a person. Who cares whether or not Kerry has some purple hearts? It's not interesting and important at all, the really important stuff is what Kerry will do when elected.

What most people don’t understand here is Kerry’s administration won’t appear to be that different than Bush’s. The differences between the two candidates political agenda’s won’t affect the vast majority of Americans. And for the past twenty years we haven’t had a president as much as we have had a presidential committee running the oval office. In this country we vote for a personality without having any clue as to who the people that will be running the oval office with and/or for him are.

Originally posted by CaptainNuss
Your system might indeed work on a local level, but not on a broader scale.

This would be my best hope, to affect change on a local level, and hopefully, eventually, trickle up the ladder.