Official "Why we should vote for Kerry?" thread

[ellsworth81]

I'm under the impression that many people (myself included) do not want Bush returning to the office for a variety of reasons. And it seems like Kerry is the only one with a shot of winning. But in spirit of voting for who we want to be president, I ask seriously, "Why should we vote for Kerry?"

I'd very much like to see opinions, facts, and legitimate claims and with some kind of supporting evidence where applicable. So yea, I'd hope this remain somewhat educated so as to serve as some kind of guide or reference. Unless of course, something like this already exists out on the internet somewhere ....?

[Banana]

We should vote for him because he *might* suck less.

[BigLew]

Who can ever really tell what someones "reign" will be like before the fact? Bush has had the chance to show how things are under his administration. So I'm sticking with, because he's not Bush.

[Kuchana]

Can we also post why some don't think Kerry would be a good candidate???

[VV o n g B a]

really, the most compelling thing about kerry is that he isn't bush. i would vote a monkey into power before bush b/c it might do less damage.

[moJo]

Can we also post why some don't think Kerry would be a good candidate???
that could be a new thread. or a "Why we should vote for Bush?" thread. :smile:

[Kuchana]

that could be a new thread. or a "Why we should vote for Bush?" thread. :smile:

yeah i was thinking about that but i wondered if it would be too many threads hogging the forum:)

[ellsworth81]

really, the most compelling thing about kerry is that he isn't bush. i would vote a monkey into power before bush b/c it might do less damage.

though i am in agreement, but i would like something more substantial to really base a voting decision on.

and yes, i realize that it's hard to predict how a presidency turns out ...

but honestly, *why* should we vote for kerry?

.
.
.
and yes, we should have a "why should we vote for bush" as a separate thread, but that's for a later date ... probably a few months before actual elections. :wink:

[Banana]

When Bush first got "elected" and was giving his victory speech, I remember saying "Just don't do anything stupid like getting us all killed." Then, the worst security blunder in the history of the United States happened which was followed by a war.

Go figure.

[Kuchana]

When Bush first got "elected" and was giving his victory speech, I remember saying "Just don't do anything stupid like getting us all killed." Then, the worst security blunder in the history of the United States happened which was followed by a war.

Go figure.

Excuse me? Don't blame Bush alone for the security blunder. Past administrations have to be held accountable as well.

[yoMAMA]

that could be a new thread. or a "Why we should vote for Bush?" thread. :smile:

dumbya Sr. is a pretty decent man, though.

[he volunteered to serve in WW2 in the pacific at age 18]

he was accused by "slick willy" during the 92 campgain for being "kow towing to china"........go figure..... :rolleyes:

:smile:

[rice cracker]

Excuse me? Don't blame Bush alone for the security blunder. Past administrations have to be held accountable as well.

Yes, but it needs to be said that Bush did ignore reports about issues leading up to 9/11. That's a pretty large chunk of the responsibility pie.

As for the obvious, overused argument that Clinton cut funding for national security, take into account that there wasn't a need for a huge budget for that.

[kimpossible]

Can we also post why some don't think Kerry would be a good candidate???

Of course.

really, the most compelling thing about kerry is that he isn't bush.

same for me

I will be voting for Kerry, but the more I see of Kerry the more disenchanted I become. My vote for him is nothing more than a anti-Bush vote to begin with.

[yoMAMA]

Of course.



same for me

I will be voting for Kerry, but the more I see of Kerry the more disenchanted I become. My vote for him is nothing more than a anti-Bush vote to begin with.

Does nader ring a bell?

:wink:

[Banana]

BA HA HA! Go ahead! Throw your vote away!

-Kang

[yoMAMA]

BA HA HA! Go ahead! Throw your vote away!

-Kang

so?

:smile:

[kimpossible]

Does nader ring a bell?

:wink:

Of course but I don't get the context of the comment unless you mean vote for him. My point is to oust Bush from the Presidency and I don't see Nader with the base of widespread support necessary to do that. Additionally, I'm not interested in putting Nader in particular in office.

[rice cracker]

so?

:smile:

So a vote for Nader is like a vote for Bush, since it takes that vote away from Kerry. Wasn't there a thread on this?

Anyway, Roger better vote for Kerry or I'll spill hot congee in your lap at dim sum.

[yoMAMA]

Of course but I don't get the context of the comment unless you mean vote for him. My point is to oust Bush from the Presidency and I don't see Nader with the base of widespread support necessary to do that. Additionally, I'm not interested in putting Nader in particular in office.

actually i don't really like nader either....but at least last time he nominated a native american women [from a minnesota reservation and harvard educated] to be his vice president......and i do like the green party......although as of now it's got only like 3% support nationwide.

now i doubt the donkeys have the guts to do that.......[i do agree that they are the lesser of two evils, though]

So a vote for Nader is like a vote for Bush, since it takes that vote away from Kerry. Wasn't there a thread on this?

Anyway, Roger better vote for Kerry or I'll spill hot congee in your lap at dim sum.

ok.....i surrender...!

:wink:

[Faithless]

We should vote for him because he *might* suck less.
I like the reason "because".

Because.

[Yeahman]

Yes, but it needs to be said that Bush did ignore reports about issues leading up to 9/11. That's a pretty large chunk of the responsibility pie.

As for the obvious, overused argument that Clinton cut funding for national security, take into account that there wasn't a need for a huge budget for that.
Were you trying to sound like a hypocrit?

Anyway, we should vote for Kerry because his name isn't George W. Bush. There really is no other reason. I've tried hard to think of some. Oh wait, I like Kerry's wife better than Bush's wife.

[kimpossible]

Oh wait, I like Kerry's wife better than Bush's wife.

Oh really?

[kitty]

if i cuold vote, i would vote kerry as primarily an anti-bush vote. i don't think kerry is a good candidate, but he's marginally the lesser of two evils.

[yoMAMA]

if i cuold vote, i would vote kerry as primarily an anti-bush vote. i don't think kerry is a good candidate, but he's marginally the lesser of two evils.

Kerry is gotta be one of the dullest candidates ever.... i mean...at least with dumbya....you know you are gonna get a couple one liners....... :tongue:

And i still don't understand why is al gore considered "boring".... i mean...he would have been a great president.......

and those Gore daughters....... :eek: :biggrin:

[ellsworth81]

about 20 responses later and still no good reason why we should vote *FOR* kerry...

thus far, just reasons to vote for the de facto challenger that isn't bush.

[BigLew]

about 20 responses later and still no good reason why we should vote *FOR* kerry...

thus far, just reasons to vote for the de facto challenger that isn't bush.This is nothing new though, I remember my parents telling me these reasons for whom they were voting for when I was a kid. It's sad but true, people vote who they think will suck less then there are those who vote strictly by party.

[John0101]

So a vote for Nader is like a vote for Bush, since it takes that vote away from Kerry. Wasn't there a thread on this?

Anyway, Roger better vote for Kerry or I'll spill hot congee in your lap at dim sum.

my vote goes for NADAR, just because I live in MA and Kerry is got MA in a bag.

[rice cracker]

Were you trying to sound like a hypocrit?


Uh, how so?

[kitty]

Uh, how so?

kim, apparently you too ignored security reports detailing the possibility of 9/11. damn you, kim!

[rice cracker]

kim, apparently you too ignored security reports detailing the possibility of 9/11. damn you, kim!

What? I needed that month long vacation back at the ranch. Protecting the free world is a 9-5 job, you know.

[Yeahman]

about 20 responses later and still no good reason why we should vote *FOR* kerry...

thus far, just reasons to vote for the de facto challenger that isn't bush.
That's because none of us are voting for Kerry. We're voting against Bush. Kerry just happens to be the name that appears on the ballot opposite Bush.

[Yeahman]

www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om (http://www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om)

[yoMAMA]

Lol!

i just saw a new kerry ad today on tv...it highlighted his vietnam experience and interviewed some veterans that were rescued by him and what not....

and then it went to his daughter and wife [ketchup princess...yeah.... :rolleyes: ]

Anyways....i guess still, kerry is better than dumbya, but not by much.

[Arex]

Here're a few "affirmative" reasons to vote for Kerry... =)

1) He's not a war-monger
2) His agenda is more likely to include immediate local/national concerns
3) He's pro-choice
4) He will not propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
5) He is less prone to being influenced by the Christian right
6) He will not have Cheney as his VP
7) We don't have to worry that he'll make an ass out of himself, simply by opening his mouth, when meeting with foreign leaders
8) He may lack charisma, but at least he's articulate (he can at least pronounce "terror" and "terrorist")
9) He was never, to my knowledge, almost done in by a pretzel
10) I will no longer have to be ashamed that my country elected a monkey (and a stupid one at that) to the most powerful position in the world

RX

[Kuchana]

sorry i'm voting for bush. kerry just doesn't do it for me.

[rice cracker]

But Bush does? Why is that? I mean, I can see Kerry "not doing it" for you, for whatever reason, but voting for Bush is just a mistake. You really want a repeat of the last four years?

[Kuchana]

But Bush does? Why is that? I mean, I can see Kerry "not doing it" for you, for whatever reason, but voting for Bush is just a mistake. You really want a repeat of the last four years?

I somehow had the feeling that you'd respond to this :biggrin:
But seriously while I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, overall I would prefer him to Kerry; mainly due to the war in Iraq and on terrorism. I cannot envision Kerry in having the ability to handle it as much as Bush has. Furthermore, I think that he'll try to withdraw the troops and leave Iraq in a more worse condition than it is already. I really don't think the last four years have fared that badly. Whose to say that Kerry will do any better? I have this doubt that he won't. But that's my opinion :smile:

[rice cracker]

Bush has handled the war in Iraq with a level in ineptitude that has astounded the world. Leaving him in office to continue his work there will lead to nothing good.

As for how the last four years have fared...the economy and world relations with the US speak for themselves. But then, maybe our country being a laughingstock and an example of how NOT to be diplomatic, fiscally conservative and supportive of social concerns and political freedom doesn't concern some people.

Also, there is no way in hell that Bush is going to magically be able to correct or improve all the damage that has occured during his term, and giving him four more years to try...well, that's a joke.

[kboy75]

I somehow had the feeling that you'd respond to this :biggrin:
But seriously while I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, overall I would prefer him to Kerry; mainly due to the war in Iraq and on terrorism. I cannot envision Kerry in having the ability to handle it as much as Bush has. Furthermore, I think that he'll try to withdraw the troops and leave Iraq in a more worse condition than it is already. I really don't think the last four years have fared that badly. Whose to say that Kerry will do any better? I have this doubt that he won't. But that's my opinion :smile:
kuchana you're like the anti-me. you hate friends, you like the lakers, and you like bush.... hahaha. but i do respect your opinions.


but as to the war. before 9/11 who would have though bush could have been able to handle it all? he just stepped up. as will kerry. and has he handled it? not really... but he has at least shown leadership. albeit with some bad decisions.

and i just don't trust bush. plain and simple. i feel he has/had a personal agenda in iraq, and i also really do not like how he is so influenced by the christian right. i respect that he has beliefs but i don't want him to do stuff like make a constitutional amendment that forces it upon all of us.



i actually most identify with nader. if you listen to him talk, he makes a lot of sense. but i just couldn't live with myself if i voted for him and bush won by a small margin.

[ellsworth81]

I somehow had the feeling that you'd respond to this :biggrin:
But seriously while I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, overall I would prefer him to Kerry; mainly due to the war in Iraq and on terrorism. I cannot envision Kerry in having the ability to handle it as much as Bush has. Furthermore, I think that he'll try to withdraw the troops and leave Iraq in a more worse condition than it is already. I really don't think the last four years have fared that badly. Whose to say that Kerry will do any better? I have this doubt that he won't. But that's my opinion :smile:

Bush has not handled the Iraq situation very well. Nor has his cabinet really.

How will Kerry handle Iraq? Will he withdraw? I don't think a withdrawal is a viable option at this point.... but I don't want Bush plowing more money into it and bungling the operation.

Aside from Iraq, does Kerry have the testicular fortitude to go balls out and do what's necessary to stamp out the terrorists? (That's a bit of a loaded question... :rolleyes: )

[Kuchana]

Bush has handled the war in Iraq with a level in ineptitude that has astounded the world. Leaving him in office to continue his work there will lead to nothing good.

As for how the last four years have fared...the economy and world relations with the US speak for themselves. But then, maybe our country being a laughingstock and an example of how NOT to be diplomatic, fiscally conservative and supportive of social concerns and political freedom doesn't concern some people.

Also, there is no way in hell that Bush is going to magically be able to correct or improve all the damage that has occured during his term, and giving him four more years to try...well, that's a joke.

Ok I agree that some of Bush's actions in regards to the other countries have not been so wise and I think that he should do more to have the U.N. to help the situation in Iraq. But I like how he's stood up to the terrorists instead of not doing anything.

I'm not saying that Bush is going to magically improve the situation in Iraq. It will take years but to see him and this country trying is a good thing in my book.

Bush has not handled the Iraq situation very well. Nor has his cabinet really.

How will Kerry handle Iraq? Will he withdraw? I don't think a withdrawal is a viable option at this point.... but I don't want Bush plowing more money into it and bungling the operation.

Aside from Iraq, does Kerry have the testicular fortitude to go balls out and do what's necessary to stamp out the terrorists? (That's a bit of a loaded question... :rolleyes: )

Frankly I don't think he has the guts to handle the terrorists. Well a lot of people are calling out for a withdrawl and it may well be that Kerry may choose this option if he's president or at the very least having less troops, which will not be helpful.

Bush and his cabinet hasn't handled the war very well but at least they're not turning tail and abandoning it as the U.S. has done in the past.

[Yeahman]

Here're a few "affirmative" reasons to vote for Kerry... =)

[QUOTE=Arex]1) He's not a war-monger
Was this one a joke? You said "affirmative" reasons!

2) His agenda is more likely to include immediate local/national concerns
Can you be any more vague?

3) He's pro-choice
That's a negative in my book.

4) He will not propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
It's not like a constitutional amendment would have any chance of passing anyway.

5) He is less prone to being influenced by the Christian right
Looks like he was influenced by the Christian Zionists.

6) He will not have Cheney as his VP
You said "affirmative!"

7) We don't have to worry that he'll make an ass out of himself, simply by opening his mouth, when meeting with foreign leaders
OK I'll give you this one.

8) He may lack charisma, but at least he's articulate (he can at least pronounce "terror" and "terrorist")
But he says it with about as much enthusiasm as Ben Stein.

9) He was never, to my knowledge, almost done in by a pretzel
Skipping this one.

10) I will no longer have to be ashamed that my country elected a monkey (and a stupid one at that) to the most powerful position in the world
You start with a negative reason and end with a negative reason. Proof positive that its REALLY freakn hard to find any affirmative reason.

[kboy75]

Ok I agree that some of Bush's actions in regards to the other countries have not been so wise and I think that he should do more to have the U.N. to help the situation in Iraq. But I like how he's stood up to the terrorists instead of not doing anything.

I'm not saying that Bush is going to magically improve the situation in Iraq. It will take years but to see him and this country trying is a good thing in my book.



Frankly I don't think he has the guts to handle the terrorists. Well a lot of people are calling out for a withdrawl and it may well be that Kerry may choose this option if he's president or at the very least having less troops, which will not be helpful.
i think any president would have stepped up and done something if they were in his position during 9/11. they would have had to. you can't be president and be a wimp. and IMO, keryy and heck... even gore would have made more wise choices...

bush is too much of a cowboy for me... just cause he seems like he is a action taker does not make him a great leader. it may show some good leadership skills, but the way he just went in there unilaterally... it's just turned out terribly.

[Kuchana]

kuchana you're like the anti-me. you hate friends, you like the lakers, and you like bush.... hahaha. but i do respect your opinions.

and i just don't trust bush. plain and simple.

i actually most identify with nader. if you listen to him talk, he makes a lot of sense. but i just couldn't live with myself if i voted for him and bush won by a small margin.

And that's where we agree :smile: You don't trust Bush, I don't trust Kerry. Oh what a happy world we're living in. :tongue: I respect your opinon as well and for not flaming me:)

[Arex]

As I see it, I can't imagine anyone doing WORSE than Bush with regard to the war on terror. I would say the war on terror was going just fine up until the point Bush decided to stir things up with Iraq. After that point, he blew everything. The rush to war with Iraq, without any international support, and without a shred of hard evidence, not only diverted crucial resources and intelligence from Afghanistan, but also provided yet another reason for the world and its abundant terrorist organizations to hate us. Whereas rebuilding Afghanistan might potentially have accomplished something in terms mending the image of the U.S. in the middle east, leveling Iraq has done nothing. Regardless of whether Kerry supported action against Iraq, Bush, as president and commander-in-chief, was the one who brought the hair-brained scheme to the table in the first place, rushed the inspections, and ordered the dropping of the first bombs. He is therefore ultimately responsible for everything that's happened. As to where we go from here, I highly doubt any president, Kerry included, would simply seek to withdraw the U.S. and leave Iraq in its present state. As stupid an idea the war was, especially in the name of fighting terrorism, I think we, for the most part, realize and reluctantly accept that we're in this thing for the long haul. The question is to what degree. I fully believe Kerry will do a better job than Bush in involving the U.N. and building the coalition that should have been in place before the first bomb was dropped to assist in the rebuilding efforts. After all, since Bush got us into this whole mess and prematurely declared the end of hostilities, what the hell has he done that's so worthy of praise?

RX

[Kuchana]

Regardless of whether Kerry supported action against Iraq, Bush, as president and commander-in-chief, was the one who brought the hair-brained scheme to the table in the first place, rushed the inspections, and ordered the dropping of the first bombs. He is therefore ultimately responsible for everything that's happened.

But who was the one that granted him the power to declare war on Iraq hmm? It wasn't necessarily classified as a declaration of war but more as in the Iraq Resolution, which Congress gave Bush the power to use military force in Iraq. Thus the reason being that Congress didn't want to take the ultimate responsibility of agreeing on the war so they didn't officially call it a declaration but a resolution instead. Blame the president but don't blame Congress. Too many people think that just because Bush is the Commander-in-Chief and the President no less that he has the power to do what he sees fit. *sarcasm*Forget the checks and balances system. */sarcasm* Look to the source and how the power was given. Blame Bush all you want but you have to blame Congress as well for giving him the power to use it.

[Arex]

Blame Bush all you want but you have to blame Congress as well for giving him the power to use it.
Sure, congress deserves some of the blame as well. But, again, I place more blame on the president for this whole mess than I will on any individual member of congress. Yes, Kerry voted to give Bush the gun, but Bush was the one who asked for it in the first place, and then he used it in the most irresponsible manner possible and shot the American public in the foot. Yes, both Bush and congress are worthy of blame. I just see Bush's actions as more blameworthy than anyone else's.

RX

[Shogun Empress]

I just saw a Kerry support email that yellowworld sent in my email.

After Ivan hit, only Bush visited my city. Now tell me why should I vote for Kerry.

[Mr.Lum]

Because I shook his hand one time. That makes him awsome by association.

[VV o n g B a]

u live on the gulf coast? where?

btw, i wouldn't be too miffed if kerry didn't visit ur area. if u live in the panhandle, that is pure bush territory. no way he's winning that area. he did visit areas the other hurricanes hit tho.

[SunWuKong]

I just saw a Kerry support email that yellowworld sent in my email.

After Ivan hit, only Bush visited my city. Now tell me why should I vote for Kerry.

because Bush sucks and you'd be throwing your vote away if you voted third-party.

[kitty]

because the president isn't a hollywood celebrity. everyone wants to vote for bush because he has these 'heartwarming moments' -- with the hurricane survivors, with the firefighters of 9/11, with that mission accomplished stuff. call me old-fashioned, but i think a president needs to know more than how to shake a hand and take a few pictures. y'know... like the difference between sadam hussein and osama bin laden?

incidentally, i believe bush was going to florida as president, not as a candidate for presidency. don't confuse one with the other.

[ellsworth81]

i already did a thread on this i believe. =D someone merge?

[deez nuts]

i already did a thread on this i believe. =D someone merge?


link?

[Hiroshi2]

I just saw a Kerry support email that yellowworld sent in my email.

After Ivan hit, only Bush visited my city. Now tell me why should I vote for Kerry.




To get Bush out.



Like SWK said, since America is a two-party political system, quite frankly any vote for a non-Democratic or Republican candidate might as well not count. Vote for Kerry just to get Bush out.

[Arex]

Because Kerry will not so quick to commit our troops and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to an unprecedented preemptive war when there are obviously bigger fish to fry (can you say Osama?), and the imminence (and existence) of the threat is in dispute within your own intelligence agencies. Yes, Kerry voted to give the president war powers, but he did not tell Bush to rush to war, ignore the U.N., burn bridges with key allies and make the U.S. go it alone. Kerry will actually use war as a last resort.

Because Kerry will never tell terrorists and insurgents in a region to "bring it on" when thousands of our troops are deployed on the ground, and the average militant is indiscernable from the average man walking down the street. Easy for that fucker Bush to say when he's an entire continent and ocean away from the violence. That asshole never saw a minute of combat in his life (recall that it's questionable whether he even showed up to his cushy Air National Guard tour). It's no wonder he has no problem spewing fighting words at the enemy.

Because Kerry is in favor of expanding stem cell research.

Because Kerry did not try to pass a ridiculously discriminatory Constitutional Amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage, unlike Bush. In other words, Bush said to every gay and lesbian out there, "you are not entitled to the pursuit of happiness, even though what you do has no negative impact on my health, safety, security or happiness, just because of your sexual orientation." Not too long ago, minorities were deprived of similar marriage rights but the passage of time and "enlightenment" of the people revealed how fucked up that was. Clinton was fucked up for signing the defense of marriage act (but he wasn't the one to propose it). What Bush proposed goes 100 steps further by attempting to write it into the supreme law of the land--our Constitution. Luckily that bill went nowhere, as should Bush's bid at reelection.

Because Kerry is not Bush and we're smarter than to vote Bush into a second term knowing everything we know of his first term. Notwithstanding 9/11, the country is arguably in a significantly worse and more dangerous position than it was before Bush took the helm. Record deficits, are troops are spread thin, hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown into stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq when our own schools, hospitals and local governments are facing record budget shortfalls, 1,000+ American and 10,000+ Iraqi lives lost in Iraq, the "Axis of Evil" of North Korea and Iran causing mischief since the U.S. is tied up in Iraq. All the baby-kissing, handshaking and all the visits to disaster areas should not make up for Bush's dismal failures as a president.

RX

[deez nuts]

i think only you know which candidate is the best candidate. that's essentially the bottomline.

for every reason kerry supporters give you to vote for kerry. bush supporters will give you two more reasons to vote for bush. and vice versa.

it's a tired game of tug o war. you're just gonna encounter the same old shit wherever you go when you ask this type of question. both sides will almost seemingly assume that you're not intelligent enough to determine which candidate is the right candidate and they'll give you the same old tired rhetoric and push their candidate with fervor.

research the candidate. find the candidate you agree with the most and vote. it's your vote. not someone else's.

[ism]

After Ivan hit, only Bush visited my city. Now tell me why should I vote for Kerry.If you elect Kerry President, he'll get free trips on Air Force One and will visit you the next time a hurricane hits. If I visit you, will you write me in? =D

[kimpossible]

Because Kerry can eat a pretzel or ride a bike without nearly killing himself.

[kasia]

I just saw a Kerry support email that yellowworld sent in my email.

After Ivan hit, only Bush visited my city. Now tell me why should I vote for Kerry.

what else did he do besides wasting our tax dollars on a plane ticket?

[Bhodi_Li]

Don't. Vote Bush.

[Yeahman]

Because Kerry will not so quick to commit our troops and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to an unprecedented preemptive war when there are obviously bigger fish to fry (can you say Osama?), and the imminence (and existence) of the threat is in dispute within your own intelligence agencies. Yes, Kerry voted to give the president war powers, but he did not tell Bush to rush to war, ignore the U.N., burn bridges with key allies and make the U.S. go it alone. Kerry will actually use war as a last resort..
Then he should've saved his vote as a last resort. It was his mistake. He gave Bush the blank check.

Because Kerry will never tell terrorists and insurgents in a region to "bring it on" when thousands of our troops are deployed on the ground, and the average militant is indiscernable from the average man walking down the street. Easy for that fucker Bush to say when he's an entire continent and ocean away from the violence. That asshole never saw a minute of combat in his life (recall that it's questionable whether he even showed up to his cushy Air National Guard tour). It's no wonder he has no problem spewing fighting words at the enemy..
Instead he'll critisize our troops for commiting war crimes.

Because Kerry did not try to pass a ridiculously discriminatory Constitutional Amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage, unlike Bush. In other words, Bush said to every gay and lesbian out there, "you are not entitled to the pursuit of happiness, even though what you do has no negative impact on my health, safety, security or happiness, just because of your sexual orientation." Not too long ago, minorities were deprived of similar marriage rights but the passage of time and "enlightenment" of the people revealed how fucked up that was. Clinton was fucked up for signing the defense of marriage act (but he wasn't the one to propose it). What Bush proposed goes 100 steps further by attempting to write it into the supreme law of the land--our Constitution. Luckily that bill went nowhere, as should Bush's bid at reelection..
Practically that whole paragraph also applies to Kerry. Kerry opposes gay marriage.
Everyone knew that the amendment proposal would go nowhere. The point wasn't to ban gay marriage through a new constitutional amendment but politicize the issue to drum up support for the Republicans.

Because Kerry is not Bush and we're smarter than to vote Bush into a second term knowing everything we know of his first term. Notwithstanding 9/11, the country is arguably in a significantly worse and more dangerous position than it was before Bush took the helm. Record deficits, are troops are spread thin, hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown into stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq when our own schools, hospitals and local governments are facing record budget shortfalls, 1,000+ American and 10,000+ Iraqi lives lost in Iraq, the "Axis of Evil" of North Korea and Iran causing mischief since the U.S. is tied up in Iraq. All the baby-kissing, handshaking and all the visits to disaster areas should not make up for Bush's dismal failures as a president.
Finally we agree on something.
ABB.

[ellsworth81]

shameless bump, especially with the election around the corner. i guess this should be placed in the election forum?

[kimpossible]

shameless bump, especially with the election around the corner. i guess this should be placed in the election forum?

your wish is my command.



in this case

[Bhodi_Li]

your wish is my command.Is that just his wish or anyone's wish? And is that Leona from KOF?

[Kuchana]

www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om (http://www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om)

That is just so unbelievably sad.

My vote's still going to Bush! I've already listed my reasons.

[Arex]

Then he should've saved his vote as a last resort. It was his mistake. He gave Bush the blank check.I agree it was, in retrospect, a mistake to give Bush the so-called blank check without pushing for more controls on the power to commit troops and wage war. On the other hand, I believe it was reasonable for Kerry to assume Bush would in fact exhaust diplomacy and would use military force and occupation as a last resort. And, as I've said many times before, as between idiot # 1 who hands idiot #2 a gun, and idiot #2 who proceeds to kill an innocent child, I'll always view idiot #2 as ultimately more responsible than idiot #1. Even though both are arguably responsible, only idiot #2 pulled the trigger.

Instead he'll critisize our troops for commiting war crimes.So are you saying that troops in wartime situations are above reproach? War crimes are crimes. If they're being committed by our troops, I think it's the president's responsibility to speak openly condemn such criminal conduct. I think it's more problematic if the leadership does not condemn it knowing full well that it's occurring.

Practically that whole paragraph also applies to Kerry. Kerry opposes gay marriage. Everyone knew that the amendment proposal would go nowhere. The point wasn't to ban gay marriage through a new constitutional amendment but politicize the issue to drum up support for the Republicans.It doesn't matter that everyone knew the proposed amendment was dead before arrival, only Bush politicized the issue. While I personally believe any opposition to gay marriage is narrow-minded (whether by Clinton, Kerry or otherwise), as I said, it's far worse to take a position that it should be Constitutionally prohibited.

Finally we agree on something.
ABB.Yup.

RX

[Kuchana]

I agree it was, in retrospect, a mistake to give Bush the so-called blank check without pushing for more controls on the power to commit troops and wage war. On the other hand, I believe it was reasonable for Kerry to assume Bush would in fact exhaust diplomacy and would use military force and occupation as a last resort. And, as I've said many times before, as between idiot # 1 who hands idiot #2 a gun, and idiot #2 who proceeds to kill an innocent child, I'll always view idiot #2 as ultimately more responsible than idiot #1. Even though both are arguably responsible, only idiot #2 pulled the trigger.

Isn't it blatantly unfair and irresponsible to withhold the blame from idiot #1 since idiot #1 was the one who gave idiot #2 the power despite how idiot #2 used that power? idiot #1 should have known better. it wasn't only him but the majority of congress who gave him that power. doesn't that tell you something, considering it's congress that has to give the power to the president? that's like reasoning if a kid gives another kid a gun, the kid who gave the gun isn't held responsible even though he's the one who gave the gun to the kid who used it. I disagree vehemently against your reasoning. I think it's wrong to hold only one person accountable when obviously there is more than one who shares the blame.

So are you saying that troops in wartime situations are above reproach? War crimes are crimes. If they're being committed by our troops, I think it's the president's responsibility to speak openly condemn such criminal conduct. I think it's more problematic if the leadership does not condemn it knowing full well that it's occurring.

Noone should be held from responsibility on committing war crimes, especially our U.S. soldiers. But I think yell0man was referring to the constant barrage of negativity the media has shown and members of government, most notably the Democrats, who have been vehemently outspoken against the war. Naturally, the soldiers see this as critcizing what they were doing. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same way, too. You cannot deny that this contributes to the morale of the soldiers. Yes I've heard the argument that while people are against the war, they are not against the soliders but I don't think that really helps with the morale process for the soldiers themselves.

It doesn't matter that everyone knew the proposed amendment was dead before arrival, only Bush politicized the issue. While I personally believe any opposition to gay marriage is narrow-minded (whether by Clinton, Kerry or otherwise), as I said, it's far worse to take a position that it should be Constitutionally prohibited.

Only because he was pushed to by the religious voters. He knows their votes play a big part in this election and in any election for that matter. It doesn't make it right of course but this was simply to garner the religious and the extreme conservative Republicans to his side. I support his position since I'm against gay marriage but I'm not against recognizing their civil unions. As for Kerry, even he's against recognizing gay marriages however much he may say he supports it. However, he has stated he supports civil unions. But I hardly think he would have the guts to take on such a position as supporting gay marriage.

[Arex]

Isn't it blatantly unfair and irresponsible to withhold the blame from idiot #1 since idiot #1 was the one who gave idiot #2 the power despite how idiot #2 used that power?Who said anything about withholding blame? See below. And by this, do you acknowledge that Bush is an idiot? I admit Kerry was one for trusting Bush...

idiot #1 should have known better. it wasn't only him but the majority of congress who gave him that power. doesn't that tell you something, considering it's congress that has to give the power to the president? that's like reasoning if a kid gives another kid a gun, the kid who gave the gun isn't held responsible even though he's the one who gave the gun to the kid who used it. I disagree vehemently against your reasoning. I think it's wrong to hold only one person accountable when obviously there is more than one who shares the blame.Well, if you'd read my post, I said they're both blameworthy.

If a kid gives his friend a gun under the assumption that the friend is going to use the gun responsibly, but the friend ends up shooting the mailman, you're damn right I'm going to hold the friend who pulled the trigger more responsible than the one that gave him the gun.

Here, Kerry is culpable because he, along with pretty much everyone else in Congress, gave Bush the power to wage war without placing sufficient restrictions on the exercise of that power. However, Bush, in my opinion, is more blameworthy because he's the one that essentially abused the power by failing to use war as a last resort. I think this alone should be enough of a reason to not re-elect Bush. If that means voting for Kerry, then he's got my vote.

Noone should be held from responsibility on committing war crimes, especially our U.S. soldiers. But I think yell0man was referring to the constant barrage of negativity the media has shown and members of government, most notably the Democrats, who have been vehemently outspoken against the war. Naturally, the soldiers see this as critcizing what they were doing. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same way, too. You cannot deny that this contributes to the morale of the soldiers. Yes I've heard the argument that while people are against the war, they are not against the soliders but I don't think that really helps with the morale process for the soldiers themselves.Morale of the soldiers is only one aspect of a war and is infinitely less important to me than the purpose of the war, or the actual (as opposed to perceived) success of the war. If the war effort is going to hell, I think it's important that the American public is aware of that. Personally, I think Kerry's criticisms of the Iraqi prime minister were perhaps a bit harsh and overly pessimistic, but I think Bush's characterizations of the effort are overly optimistic. I would rather hear the truth any day over any fluffing on the part of the administration. In order to accurately gauge whether it makes sense to continue the war, we can't simply pretend everything's a smashing success and the end is just around the corner. When it comes to war, I'll always err on the side of pessimism just because it's war and it's always a fucked up thing.

Only because he was pushed to by the religious voters. He knows their votes play a big part in this election and in any election for that matter. It doesn't make it right of course but this was simply to garner the religious and the extreme conservative Republicans to his side.Which is another reason for me to vote non-Bush, i.e., Kerry. I don't want a president who panders to such extremists. These people don't understand the concept of live and let live.

I support his position since I'm against gay marriage but I'm not against recognizing their civil unions. As for Kerry, even he's against recognizing gay marriages however much he may say he supports it. However, he has stated he supports civil unions. But I hardly think he would have the guts to take on such a position as supporting gay marriage.Given the polls, it would be political suicide for anyone outside of San Francisco and a certain few states to come out in favor of gay marriage. I don't blame any politician for not actively supporting gay marriage. On the other hand, Bush actively sought to outlaw gay marriage. To me, that's the difference between one turning a blind eye to discrimination and one actively discriminating. One is clearly more dispicable than the other (but you may not see this as discrimination, so you may not get the distinction).

RX

[ellsworth81]

your wish is my command.



in this case

dank ya massa

[kitty]

Isn't it blatantly unfair and irresponsible to withhold the blame from idiot #1 since idiot #1 was the one who gave idiot #2 the power despite how idiot #2 used that power? idiot #1 should have known better. it wasn't only him but the majority of congress who gave him that power. doesn't that tell you something, considering it's congress that has to give the power to the president? that's like reasoning if a kid gives another kid a gun, the kid who gave the gun isn't held responsible even though he's the one who gave the gun to the kid who used it. I disagree vehemently against your reasoning. I think it's wrong to hold only one person accountable when obviously there is more than one who shares the blame.


Absolutely. I think it's absurd to argue that Kerry is more to blame for authorizing Bush's errors. It's Bush's error! No matter how dumb it was to give Bush the power, it was MORE idiotic for Bush to misuse the authority he was given. Are we really so patronizing to our president that we can't place the blame squarely on him when he fucks up? Are we really trying to say "Kerry shoulda known better for giving power to the president when EVERYONE knows the president's a dumbass"?


Noone should be held from responsibility on committing war crimes, especially our U.S. soldiers.


Bush is against an international criminal court that could prosecute all war criminals equally. The reason he gave in the debate was because he didn't want American troops being prosecuted, internationally, for war crimes... apparently he DOESN'T want them held responsible... or at least not as responsible as everyone else.

[SunWuKong]

www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om (http://www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om)

hah! that's awesome.

[Shogun Empress]

I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet. When does it come out on DVD?

[mrazntre]

1) So that Heinz can be the sole distributor of condiments in all governmental buildings and the US!

[nonamerasian]

I don't know why I should vote Kerry.

I love a lot of his platform. Perhaps most.

However, how is Kerry planning to implement his plans? Financially.

I don't hear much talk about it.

Ideas aren't anything if there isn't a means to achieve them.

If the vote was right at this moment, I'd vote Kerry, but I'm conflicted and still capable of swinging the other way by next month.

[Arex]

I don't know why I should vote Kerry.

I love a lot of his platform. Perhaps most.

However, how is Kerry planning to implement his plans? Financially.

I don't hear much talk about it.

Ideas aren't anything if there isn't a means to achieve them.

If the vote was right at this moment, I'd vote Kerry, but I'm conflicted and still capable of swinging the other way by next month.Well, you can then think about it this way: Best case scenario if Kerry is elected is that he's able to implement his policy changes and we're that much closer to bringing the U.S. where we want it to be. "Worst" case scenario if he wins is that he attempts, but is unable to implement many or most of his policies due to financial, political or other constraints. So U.S. foreign and domestic policy remains more or less the same as if we had Bush. But at least he gave it a shot. If Bush is re-elected, we're guaranteed more of the same. So if you're at all favoring Kerry's platform, it makes no sense to vote for anyone other than Kerry.

RX

[kitty]

Farenheit 9-11 came out today.

I don't know why I should vote Kerry.

I love a lot of his platform. Perhaps most.

However, how is Kerry planning to implement his plans? Financially.



You'll hear more of how he plans on doing this in the upcoming debates, which focus primarily on domestic issues.

This is what I read from his website:
John Kerry and John Edwards' plan to build a stronger economy will:

Create Good-Paying Jobs
As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas. John Kerry and John Edwards will also stand up for workers by enforcing our trade agreements.

Cut Middle-Class Taxes To Raise Middle-Class Incomes
When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.

Make Washington Live Within A Budget
John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office. He will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.

Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow
Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them.



To pay for some of this, he will also increase taxes for the rich, cutting taxes for the middle-class. As it currently stands, tax cuts under bush affect only a tiny minority of american taxpayers.

realistically, we will probably see fewer government programs, but i believe kerry will spend more responsibly than bush... the gov't program funding cuts will help balance the budget without overtaxing anybody -- and while we'll see fewer programs overall, the budget will be balanced and this will overall help the economy much more than bush's "spend lots and cut taxes, thereby spending money we're not getting in and it'll be our grandchildren's problems" policy.

[Kuchana]

Who said anything about withholding blame? See below. And by this, do you acknowledge that Bush is an idiot? I admit Kerry was one for trusting Bush...

Well, if you'd read my post, I said they're both blameworthy.

Here, Kerry is culpable because he, along with pretty much everyone else in Congress, gave Bush the power to wage war without placing sufficient restrictions on the exercise of that power. However, Bush, in my opinion, is more blameworthy because he's the one that essentially abused the power by failing to use war as a last resort. I think this alone should be enough of a reason to not re-elect Bush. If that means voting for Kerry, then he's got my vote.

No you just blame Bush more than Kerry or Congress. I choose to blame both sides. Just think why Congress did not declare war officially? This is the same thing that Congress did with the Tonkin Resolution, no official declaration was given as well. Me thinks this was in part due to how Congress did not want to share in the blame for Vietnam nor now with Iraq.

Morale of the soldiers is only one aspect of a war and is infinitely less important to me than the purpose of the war, or the actual (as opposed to perceived) success of the war. If the war effort is going to hell, I think it's important that the American public is aware of that. Personally, I think Kerry's criticisms of the Iraqi prime minister were perhaps a bit harsh and overly pessimistic, but I think Bush's characterizations of the effort are overly optimistic. I would rather hear the truth any day over any fluffing on the part of the administration. In order to accurately gauge whether it makes sense to continue the war, we can't simply pretend everything's a smashing success and the end is just around the corner. When it comes to war, I'll always err on the side of pessimism just because it's war and it's always a fucked up thing.

Morale of the soldiers is one of the most important things in this war. If the morale is low, it will only help to lessen the chances of the war succeeding. I think it's important that the American public, in particular the media, support the troops without constantly putting up negative press on the war. It's downright disgusting. I don't think Bush's characterizations of the effort was overly optmistic. I believe that even the Iraqi prime minister shared those same sentiments or similar. What you're going to say now that his views are overly optimistic as well? War is a terrible thing but a price that has to be paid at times. Well I try to stay positive as much as possible, it helps to make the world less insane to live in.

By the way, I do think Bush is an idiot at times. But who isn't? :P Nevermind. Don't answer that. :)

[Arex]

No you just blame Bush more than Kerry or Congress. I choose to blame both sides. Just think why Congress did not declare war officially? This is the same thing that Congress did with the Tonkin Resolution, no official declaration was given as well. Me thinks this was in part due to how Congress did not want to share in the blame for Vietnam nor now with Iraq.I blame Bush more for everything that's going wrong in Iraq because he's more deserving of blame than any single member of Congress (or Congress as a whole). How can you possibly deny this? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it wasn't Congress who rushed the U.N. weapons inspectors, it wasn't Congress that told our allies we could go it alone and didn't need their support, it wasn't Congress that ignored military strategists and underestimated the number of troops needed to secure Iraq, it wasn't Congress that assumed Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops as their saviors, it wasn't Congress that made the decision to completely disband the Iraqi military and police forces thus immersing the entire country into a state of anarchy, it wasn't Congress that told our former allies that because they didn't help out initially they could go fuck themselves and we would rebuild Iraq ourselves. Yes, Congress authorized Bush to use military force if necessary. Congress did NOT tell Bush to use that authorization of power so recklessly.

Morale of the soldiers is one of the most important things in this war. If the morale is low, it will only help to lessen the chances of the war succeeding. I think it's important that the American public, in particular the media, support the troops without constantly putting up negative press on the war. It's downright disgusting.The war is not going to "succeed" or "fail" based on the morale of the troops. It's going to "succeed" or "fail" based on the decisions the administration and military brass make in the war effort. Yes, we should all support our troops and wish them a safe return home. I know I certainly do. That's why I wish Bush hadn't played the role of the drunken, high on coke cowboy and gotten us into this mess in the first place. That's why I wish Bush had allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their inspections. That's why I wish Bush used military force as a last resort. I will never agree that it was worth the lives of American soldiers to oust Saddam and "build a free Iraq." If Saddam posed an imminent threat? Sure. But all this for a regime change? Hell no.

If it comes to a point where our servicemen and women are no longer being effective in Iraq because they're feeling disillusioned with the war, all because the people here are disillusioned with the war, then I think it's time to bring the troops home before they sustain even more unnecessary casualties. If that ultimately means leaving Iraq in a state of anarchy and more terrorist attacks in the states against innocent civilians, so be it. I don't see why only men and women in our armed forces should have to pay for Bush's mistakes.

I don't think Bush's characterizations of the effort was overly optmistic. I believe that even the Iraqi prime minister shared those same sentiments or similar. What you're going to say now that his views are overly optimistic as well?Well duh! Who do you think put him in power? And what's he supposed to say? He's got a foreign superpower occupying his country, he's got anarchy on the streets, he's trying to restore order to the country. "Hello Iraqi people. We are so totally FUCKED! This shit is going nowhere fast!" I'm sure that'll really help out their situation. The difference between the Iraqi prime minister and Bush is that they're accountable to different people. Bush owes it to the American public to give a fair and honest account of the situation over there since it's our soldiers and taxpayer dollars at work.

War is a terrible thing but a price that has to be paid at times. Well I try to stay positive as much as possible, it helps to make the world less insane to live in.Whatever helps you sleep at night (and have happy thoughts about Bush). If you ask me, what really helps make the world a less insane place to live in is not having presidents wage unnecessary wars. Remember that this is one war that never had to be fought because Iraq never posed an imminent threat. And even if the war was necessary, it certainly didn't have to be fought in this way. Of course, now that this can of worms has been opened, we ought to put forth our best efforts to fix it.

You've said before that you think Iraqi freedom is well worth the terrible price of this war because Saddam was an evil person. If you really think so, you should definitely enlist and ask to help out in the war effort. Lord knows they could certainly use the help out there. I have to wonder whether the families of our fallen soldiers, and the families of the innocent Iraqi civilians killed would agree that this war has been worth it.

By the way, I do think Bush is an idiot at times. But who isn't? :P Nevermind. Don't answer that. :)I think Bush is an idiot waaaaaaaaaay too often for him to President. We made a mistake once. No need to repeat it.

So to bring this back on topic: People should vote for Kerry because he's less of an idiot than Bush.

RX

[deez nuts]

I don't know why I should vote Kerry.

I love a lot of his platform. Perhaps most.

However, how is Kerry planning to implement his plans? Financially.

I don't hear much talk about it.

Ideas aren't anything if there isn't a means to achieve them.

If the vote was right at this moment, I'd vote Kerry, but I'm conflicted and still capable of swinging the other way by next month.


i agree. at times it sounds more idealistic than realistic. i mean everything does look better on paper before you go out and do it.

i think part of his solution for paying for these plans is repealing income tax cuts for those making $160,000 and repealing the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for those making over $200,000.

[kimpossible]

I don't know why I should vote Kerry.

I love a lot of his platform. Perhaps most.

However, how is Kerry planning to implement his plans? Financially.

I don't hear much talk about it.

Ideas aren't anything if there isn't a means to achieve them.

If the vote was right at this moment, I'd vote Kerry, but I'm conflicted and still capable of swinging the other way by next month.

There are a lot of people in this position, myself included. Everytime I consider Kerry-Edwards I want to look elsewhere and the only other choice in the sense of who can get enough electoral votes is Bush-Cheney. I don't want to vote for Kerry. I just can't bring myself to vote for Bush. If there was a different Republican candidate on the ticket or if they were remotely interested in rethinking this "USA versus the World" trajectory they're so hellbent on, I doubt I'd be voting for Kerry.

[ChinaLama]

Back in Feb 2003, Congressman Howard Coble, the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, made a comment on a radio show that internment for Japanese Americans was ok. It was, he believed, for their safety and because "some [of them] may have meant us harm."

Both John Kerry and John Edwards issued STRONG statements against Coble's comment. Edwards represented the same state that Coble represented, North Carolina. In fact, Kerry issued 2 statements; after another NC congressman attacked Edwards for criticizing Coble, Kerry issued a statement of support for Edwards and against Coble. Both said that Coble should consider resigning. The DNC also passed a similar resolution.

On the other hand, what did Bush or the Republican party say? *crickets chirp* Yes, some Republicans (for instance, in Hawaii) condemned Coble, but on the whole most Republicans including the President just stayed silent on the issue.

A war between an Asian country and the United States can happen someday, and the legal precedent for internment (Korematsu vs US) was never overturned in the Supreme Court. So internment isn't just a specter of the past. It's a very real fear.

So, let me pose this question. Bush did not have the political courage to condemn Howard Coble or even issue a weak statement of regret against support for internment when most Americans, at this point, agree that internment is historically and morally wrong. When the tide turns, if there IS pressure to intern Asian Americans, do you believe Bush would have the political courage to say "No?"

Personal security is a big issue during this campaign. Zell Miller invoked it. Ed Koch invoked it. Both lifelong Democrats who say they're voting for Bush for that reason.

As an Asian American, in particular as a Chinese American, I don't feel safer under President Bush. Not if he doesn't even have the courage to just agree with most Americans in condemning internment and condemning a Congressman for expressing an ok for internment.


There are other reasons, too, but I think on YW, we're probably most familiar with Coble, considering how a lot of members joined during YW's petition drive (http://removecoble.yellowworld.org) .

[kitty]

Well, to be fair, in front of the minority journalists conference, Bush did say, in response to an internment question, that point-blank, JA internment was wrong. I can dig up the article, if y'all want.

but I absolutely agree that when Coble went down, the Republican party and Bush in particularly did absolutely nothing... even a statement against Coble would've helped.

[ChinaLama]

Well, to be fair, in front of the minority journalists conference, Bush did say, in response to an internment question, that point-blank, JA internment was wrong. I can dig up the article, if y'all want.

but I absolutely agree that when Coble went down, the Republican party and Bush in particularly did absolutely nothing... even a statement against Coble would've helped.

Especially with Republicans in control of Congress, they could've done a lot more than issue a statement. But they didn't.

I think it's also relatively easy for someone to say "internment is wrong." It's like, who would say straight out, "segregation was ok!" But the failure to condemn someone else for agreeing with internment indicates that maybe Bush would cave to pressure to intern easier than Kerry or Edwards.

[Shuriken]

If anyone doesn't like Bush, and can't stand to see four more years of him, but doesn't want to vote for Kerry, I will be one more voice that says that a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Bush. This is why some Republicans have been fighting hard to get Ralph Nadar on as many ballots as possible, while some Democrats, regrettably, are fighting just as hard to keep him off.

Nadar may be correct — theoretically — that U.S. politics should break away from the two-party duopoly. But we have such a duopoly because we have a winner-take-all system. This is why, even after he lost the popular vote, Bush could govern as if he won in a landslide: there wasn't anything in the electoral process to put any checks on his Electoral College victory. And despite his popular-vote loss, Bush did not feel in any way beholden to the public majority who voted for his Democratic opponent.

If we had a parliamentary system, or some other kind of system, we might not have the duopoly that we do today. But voting for a third-party candidate for president this year isn't going to change that. I see no evidence in the polls so far — and none likely before Election Day — that there is a particular hunger among substantial numbers of voters to vote outside the two major parties. If I did, I wouldn't be saying this.

I think that if you want to make "third" parties sustainable, you must first get some non-duopoly candidates elected to local governments and the Congress (such as Vermont's U.S. representative Bernie Saunders, a Socialist) and build a maintainable base — before you start running them for president of the United States and drawing votes away from the more progressive candidate. As Howard Dean said in his debate with Nadar: The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

So, if you're a progressive and against Bush, but you would rather see four more years of the incumbent than stomach voting for Kerry, then by all means, throw your vote away. Just remember that another Bush term will be the likely result.

[Mr.Lum]

No you just blame Bush more than Kerry or Congress. I choose to blame both sides. Just think why Congress did not declare war officially? This is the same thing that Congress did with the Tonkin Resolution, no official declaration was given as well. Me thinks this was in part due to how Congress did not want to share in the blame for Vietnam nor now with Iraq.


Were they asked for an offical declaration of war? War was the administration's idea. They came in with that.

[deez nuts]

Well, to be fair, in front of the minority journalists conference, Bush did say, in response to an internment question, that point-blank, JA internment was wrong. I can dig up the article, if y'all want.

but I absolutely agree that when Coble went down, the Republican party and Bush in particularly did absolutely nothing... even a statement against Coble would've helped.

you have howard coble under the republicans.

you have the whole chinese spy debacles and nato forces "accidentally" bombing the shit out of the chinese embassy in belgrade under the democrats.

we're fucked either way.

[ellsworth81]

you have howard coble under the republicans.

you have the whole chinese spy debacles and nato forces "accidentally" bombing the shit out of the chinese embassy in belgrade under the democrats.

we're fucked either way.

we need the wisdom of negrodamus to tell us who to vote for.