Vote Early
 

...vote often.

Yeah, I know I didn't list anything for "other" or "I don't vote". I'm mostly interested in the Bush vs. Kerry conflict.

I'd also like to know why you'd vote the way you did: Are you voting because there is something about the candidate you really like and support? Are you voting because there is something about the opponent you don't like and are against?

Can I choose neither? Sheesh, are those the two best people America can come up with?

if there was a "not bush" choice, id make it, but since that seems impractical, i have to go with kerry. can;t be worse than GWB. can he?

Unfortunately, I am primarily voting against Bush, rather than for Kerry. Kerry was about sixth in my Democratic lineup. But Bush is at the absolute bottom. Of course, there are people who could squeeze in under him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, DeLay), but they aren't running.

Last election, I had hope for third parties (not that they could win, but that they could start growing), and voted Libertarian*.
Of course, living in DC, it hardly matters how I vote, but Bush has shattered my complacency that Dems and Reps are similar enough to not matter, so I'll have to go Democrat this time.

Bush, because he's a known quantity. He's also a better wartime president, because he won't hand our balls to the U.N. the first time they whine for them.

Kerry doesn't stand for anything. No Dem that I have asked can come up with something they support Kerry on, other than "he's running against Bush". Yeah. That's how I want to pick the leader of the most powerful country on the planet.

i'm not bush's biggest fan, but unfortunately the best person for the job is out in the private sector somewhere because politics attracts the lowest among us.
but i vote for bush because i am not a fan of kerry's globalist views, besides the fact that i haven't heard kerry come out with any strong points other than he isn't bush.

Ditto, and I love your reasoning, too. To recapitulate: I can't say that I love Kerry, but I'm hoping he'll at least be constrained somewhat by his party's acknowledged platform.

- Pie

"he's running against Bush". Yeah. That's how I want to pick the leader of the most powerful country on the planet.

Doesn't that sum up this election, along with almost every one previous to it? "Picking the lesser of the two evils."

Definitely "Other." I don't know who (s)he is yet, but Other is my first choice. I still subscribe to the dimes worth of difference theory as spelled out here. Right now Bush looks more evil with his big government, big oil, war-making agenda, but Kerry hasn't exactly reputiated the methods, just the man.

As far as I'm concerned, Kerry is the better of the two evils. I just.don't.like.Bush...I was cringing through that whole press conference the other night, especially when he said this:

Quote:

"You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned. "

*sigh* And again, here is the government tying themselves in with God and yet again, alienating another group in this country that do not have a belief in the "Almighty". How are "we" all supposed to come to the table of peace, when various groups/people are constantly being undervalued, underestimated and marginalized???


An obligation to help feed the hungry (impoverished), eh?

Mayors Survey reveals U.S. Poverty 2003

Census Bureau News

Coalition on Human Needs

Hunger and Poverty

And as far as the fight against AIDS in Africa...it seems as though the US didn't bother with it until it became such a huge epidemic.

I was always under the impression that we had an obligation to take care of our own citizens. hm....*shrugs*

Yeah. Well, the thing is, when you have hit rock bottom, every direction leads up. It's a perfectly rational way of thinking. The Democrats will happily vote for Kerry, even though he doesn't inspire anyone. They think he can't muck things up as bad as Bush has. Nothing wrong with picking a leader that way. It's unfortunate, but not wrong.

what specifically has Bush mucked up so bad?

that's a joke, right, 123?

what specifically has bush NOT mucked up?

sorry - hit the wrong button.

yes there is something wrong with voting for someone just because you don't like the other one. this isn't an election for homecoming king. the person elected will be stearing this nation for the next 4 years.
if you can honestly say that kerry has a better plan for improving this nation's position within the world; then by all means vote for the man. but if you can't be honest enough to vote FOR a person running the don't vote. i wish there were other choices for president - but there are not for this current campaign. Carefully choose a person to vote FOR - don't just blindly vote AGAINST someone.

the "anybody but Bush" or "anybody but Kerry" mentality is just plain screwed up.

no - it's not a joke. i know he has made mistakes. although i generally support him. i despise his immigration policies and am not real happy of the whole medicare thing. but to just say he has screwed EVERYTHING up??? you can do better than that.

but to just say he has screwed EVERYTHING up???

Well, the wealthy corporation owners are quite happy under his administration, so I guess he hasn't fucked everyone.

123 has a point, and firmer rhetoric isn't the answer.

oh - i forgot, you didn't get a check back because someone "rich" got yours. your "working-class" candidate kerry will probably fix it all, so just hang in there.

the dems are just as guilty of catering to the rich as the Rs. if you want to fix that -well, you will have to scrap the whole damn tax code. (which i am in favor of, BTW)

123 has a point, and firmer rhetoric isn't the answer.

True.

I posed the question of why people are voting because, well, I can't actually look at either of the main candidates and say, "Wow, I really like his stance on..." or "I really like his ideas on..." It just doesn't happen for either of them and I get the feeling that this election is more about what people don't like about the person they are not voting for. That is, honestly, a big problem.

Can anyone list out what things they like about Kerry that would better the US?

Can anyone list out what things have improved since Bush entered office that are his doing?

Minus all the mud slinging (mine included), I'd like to hear what people like about the candidates.

(and I promise to cease pointing out the bad things about either candidate from here, out, in this thread)

Try it. I dare you. Point out the good things.

Well, I'd love to completely change the American electoral system, but I can't see that happening in the next 7 months, so I've gotta work with what's available. Here's what's available:
:angel:
:thumb:
:D
:)
:rolleyes:
:(
John Kerry
:worried:
:mad2:
:angry:
:rar:
George Bush

The problem with this is that society tells people to vote, and to not complain when things don't go your way. Besides, when there is only really two candidates that will actually be voted on (that's not to say that Nader won't be voted for, but come on. The bulk of votes will go to either Bush or Kerry).

So, what's a citizen to do? And quite honestly, that is exactly how some people choose their leaders. You don't think that people will choose Bush for a second term just because he did such great and monumental things for the country. I'm willing to bet that many people will vote for him because he's well known, and that he's the current "war" president, and those people don't want to change things in mid stream. They'll vote for what's "comfortable" and not be bothered too tough with the policies and politics.

Quote:

the "anybody but Bush" or "anybody but Kerry" mentality is just plain screwed up.

Calling someone "screwed up" isn't going to get people to not vote the "anybody but" route.

I could do better than that, it's true. but not MUCH better.

I know next to nothing about Kerry. I know enough about Bush, that I honestly feel that if he has another term(where he would not be hindered by thoughts of the next election) that he will have this country so deep in an unwinnable war in the ME, our world image so damaged, and our civil liberties so stripped ( including free speech and privacy) that it will be unrecoverable.

say good bye to the land of the free. say hello to the 4th reich.


and you say voting against someone is foolish?

what

the

fuck?

here goes -

1) i like the fact that bush, to this point, refuses to tuck tail and run from iraq because the going is rough. YES - i believe we need a better exit strategy. i have a little personal knowledge about being in the military when your president pulls out of a conflict after not giving the troops full support and the order to go win.

2) i like the fact that bush, doesn't bow to the UN. the UN is simply a tool - it is not a force that we should allow to govern our actions in ways that are counter to our interests. YES - you've guessed it, i'm not a globalist.

3) i like the fact that bush didn't back down when historical allies (france and germany) shouted him down. i believe that bush understands that those nations are (understandably, from their view) trying to re-assert european thought as the center of the world. (bad grammar but you know what i mean)

4) i like the fact that bush has lowered MY taxes. which believe it or not did put a little extra cash in people's hands. in my business, i actually saw a surge in spending at around the same thing. bush was not the reason for the economic collapse, just like he wasn't the sole reason for the recovery. just as clinton was not the reason that the economy surged in the late 90's. the economy is cyclical. it happens whether you like it or not. it has very little to do with which party is in power.

and to be fair

5) i despise his immigration policy. i don't see any "unfillable" jobs laying vacant in america. at least not while we are also paying other american's unemployment. this was simply a move to pander to the hispanic vote.

6) social security and medicare are failing - let's make them bigger entitlements... WTF???

AIDS Policy:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/aids/

Freedom, Independence, and Choices for Americans with Disabilities:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/awd/

Civil Rights:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/civilrights/

Crime:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

Economy and Jobs:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

Strengthening America's Schools for the 21st Century:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

Energy and Environment:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/

And other things. Check the site.

Quote:

Can anyone list out what things have improved since Bush entered office that are his doing?

*crickets....*

Sorry. As I said before I don't like him, I don't feel I have to like him and that's that. And yeah, a part of me does say "anyone but Bush", and if that's how I feel, then so be it. However, I do take the issues in consideration, and I feel that Kerry best reflects how I feel on certain issues.

Damn, Lookout123 -- you did something I haven't heard anyone else accomplish, which is to successfully list reasons you would like to vote for one of the candidates.

Too bad they're all wrong. ;)

But you still get my congratulations. Everyone I know voting for Kerry is simply voting against Bush for his actions while in office, but have nothing positive to say for Kerry. Everyone I know voting for Bush is voting because they hate Democrats or don't like the look of Kerry's face. (Yeah, I'm not lieing about that.)

I'd like to say that I like Kerry because he plans to get our troops out of Iraq. Too bad he hasn't actually stated what that plan is or how to go about it in the right way.

The sad part of this election is that I have nothing positive to say about either of the two main candidates. Suck.

our world image? our world image has not changed that much. the same people who didn't like us before are just standing up to shout now. i worked alongside with members of the french and german military 11 years ago. they didn't like us then. in 1945, shortly after our soldiers freed france, they looked upon us with disdain.

we are not here to win a popularity contest. on an international level i will take respect rooted in fear over love anyday. not a fear of the unpredictable, but a fear that if x nation is pushed too far, they will DEVASTATE their opponents.

Go check out his site. IMO, worth reading and getting to "know" him and his stances.

Quote:

I know enough about Bush, that I honestly feel that if he has another term(where he would not be hindered by thoughts of the next election) that he will have this country so deep in an unwinnable war in the ME, our world image so damaged, and our civil liberties so stripped ( including free speech and privacy) that it will be unrecoverable.

Could not have said it better. :thumb:

Quote:

say good bye to the land of the free. say hello to the 4th reich. and you say voting against someone is foolish? what the fuck?

I wouldn't say it was "foolish" but I would hope that those people would also see what the candidates stand for, and then vote accordingly. And hey: if in the end they still vote the way of "anyone but", then oh well. You can't force someone to vote a certain way.

...and thank you, Ladysycamore. I have a lot of research to do before election time by reading this stuff. (all while ignoring the media)

Are there any planned debates coming up between these two guys, yet?

and for that i have great respect. you have a reason (s) to vote FOR kerry. i disagree with them and hope that more electoral votes go my way, but that is ok.

if everyone had my view of the world, we would all go overboard and live in a world of shit. it goes the other way too - if everybody felt the way you do on issues it would swing too far the other way and it may look different but it would still be shit.

that's the beauty of our system folks - we are meant to balance each other out.

but anyway - good luck with your vote for kerry, you have reasons to vote FOR him.

I would say that the Iraq war was a significant Bush muck up. We didn't need to go to war. And now it is a hellish situation with no end in sight. It alone, is reason enough to vote for anyone but Bush.

I could go on and on with the list of Bush mistakes, but lookout123 has already admitted that Bush made mistakes, so I consider the point proven.

There is nothing wrong with an "anyone but Bush" mentality, because Bush is bad. The opposite of bad is good.

Sure, it's possible that someone could be worse than Bush, but I seriously doubt that Kerry would be that person. He's got a proven track record of being a wishy-washy politician who leans to the left.

An ineffective politician who is pointing the correct way is much better than someone sprinting in the wrong direction, like Bush.

There is nothing wrong with an "anyone but Bush" mentality, because Bush is bad. The opposite of bad is good.

Just because Kerry has a "(D)" after his name instead of an "(R)" doesn't exactly make him opposite of Bush.

An ineffective politician who is pointing the correct way is much better than someone sprinting in the wrong direction, like Bush.

Well, you mentioned the war -- how is Kerry pointing in the right direction on that? I'd like to answer this myself, but I haven't heard him speak much on it other than that he wants to pull our troops out and he hasn't explained it in detail. I'd be against Kerry's plan if he were to pull our troops out suddenly and leave the Iraqi people to suffer.

I doubt you are going to hear anything from Kerry on his views of the war. He can only lose by opening his mouth. He voted (along with almost all the rest of the spineless Dems) to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to. So Kerry can't claim the moral high road on that one. I'm quite certain that he never would have dragged us into this war, but with his poll-driven vote on record, he can't say anything now.

As for the future, I agree with you. I don't want anyone pulling us out of Iraq prematurely. We started this mess, we need to finish it right.

Conspiracy theory?
 

'Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html

The only thing I could find is this:

CPD Announces 2004 Sites and Dates:
http://www.debates.org/pages/news20.html

We're at war. Bush has picked his side and is vigorously defending it. You might not agree with him, and in fact you might hate him. Terrorists certainly do. By replacing Bush with Kerry, we would be inviting ass-rape from every two-bit "organization" in the world that had a beef with the U.S. Kerry would practically turn himself inside out trying to take 3 sides of the argument simultaneously.

As for the rest...."world image." pfft. Ninety percent of Europe has always hated us, unless they needed our military or our money to pull their fat out of the fire. And our liberals want to be accepted by them soooo badly. It's nauseating.

so, mrnoodle, if the rest of the world decides that we are out of line so far that we need to be stopped, do you think we can beat them?
I doubt Hitler cared about his "world image" either.

do france and germany constitute the "rest of the world" or should we just say "the un" and call it even. we couldn't win that kind of war but it would be one hell of a shit-storm considering that we provide a fairly sizable portion of the un's military might and monetary support.

and comparing the US (or bush) to hitler is pretty over the top. dominate an entire continent, exterminate the jews, gypsies,poles..., handicapped, homosexual,... etc. vs. taking out a violent dictator. i see the correlation.

that's TODAY, lookout. in 4 years? how about when china decides we are overstepping our bounds? or Pakistan, for chrissakes. they got nukes! south korea? russia?

i don;t think bush is insane like hitler was, just using that as an extreme proggressional example. his buddies at clearchannel are taking over radio media. the patriot act and homeland security acts have direct correlations to german history. why not compare them? did you follow ladysyc's link and read about the PNAC and RAD?

i don;t usually get very involved in arguing politics, but i'm scared of bush's next term. scared silly.

ok, let's slow down for a minute. you are talking about the patriot act, etc. - but what was the background that allowed these to be put into place? what was the goal?
and believe it or not bush couldn't take us far down that path even if it was his secret goal.

you forget about the major obstacle to that - YOU! do you honestly believe that if we were moving in that direction that individuals, such as yourself wouldn't be up in arms, protesting and contacting your local rep's? our system is one of balance, cyclical certainly. we will go too far one way then jerk back too far the other. but in the end - america stays fairly close to the center. internal politics (within our borders) will take care and perpetuate this balancing act. our true threat is, and will remain, what(and who) is outside of our borders seeking to take away our power and ability to have these ridiculous little discussions.

germany in the early 20th century was destitute, not uncomfortable, not poor (as defined by only having 1 vehicle, 1tv, and dial up internet). they were destitute not from the actions of their internal leaders but by the burden placed upon them by a veangeful continent. they were ripe for the plucking. and here is a landmine - the german people historically have been disciplined followers. the american public, although mindless sheep at times, rarely unites in a large meaningful way, for anything but short term goals.

I'm glad I'm not old enough to vote. I'd feel torn between the vote that, having read essentially nothing on the subject makes sense to me (Nader) and the vote that game theory says is best (Kerry).

The way I see it, things at home are remarkably shitty right now. Public schools, gay marriage/church & state separation, teen pregnancies, teenage drug addicts, etc. America is far from perfect. While Bush probably has spouted about how he wants to improve at least some of these things, his definition of improvement differs from mine (gay rights), and in general I don't really trust presidential candidates to stick to what they say.

Kerry certainly might make things worse, but Bush might, too. Maybe it's more blind hope & desperation than "lesser of two evils".

As far as foreign policy and the US's image in the eyes of other nations: If, as someone (123?) said, the only change has been for the people who didn't like us before to speak louder, doesn't that mean that they like us less?

Kerry has articulated that it is our nation's responsibility not to abandon Iraq to total chaos. He advocates rebuilding bridges with other nations and the UN, asking for their help, to stop playing into the terrorist rhetoric of jihad and oil occupation, and to have global help with this nation building. (We'll see if Bush adresses the UN...)
Reasons I'm leaning Kerry:
Kerry is smarter than Bush. I want a leader who is smarter than Bush.
Kerry seems to understands diplomacy.
As far as I am aware, Kerry does not use fundamental Christian rhetoric to describe the righteousness of his policies or as justification for governmental decisions.
Kerry supports a woman's right to choose.
Kerry doesnt support gay marriage (darn) but is open to civil unions. I'll take a bit of social progress.
Kerry, even though filthy rich himself, will reverse Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
Kerry inspires just the slightest bit of hope in me that things can improve and not get worse.
Kerry is the moderate.
Kerry's running mate will not be Dick Cheney.

Kerry, even though filthy rich himself, will reverse Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Really? See, I thought he was just going to reverse Bush's tax cuts. I'm not rich, so I can't say how much of a tax break they got, but I CAN say how much of a tax break I got, which is to say that me and my lower-middle-class income bracket did in fact get one, and it was very helpful to me and my family.

I don't care if some people got a bigger tax break than me or not. I'm grateful for what I got. And my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Kerry is going to repeal all the tax cuts, some of which directly affected me, and those are the ones I care about. I'm sure as hell not going to support repealing them just because in addition to my own tax cuts, someone else got some money too and it seems on the surface that they don't deserve any extra money.

Your portion of the deficit this year is larger than the tax break you got. Difference is that your kids will be paying that. Feel like explaining that to them?

people keep saying that this is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

imho, it is a choice between a known evil, and a possible evil. seems like a no brainer to me.

You are wrong. From Kerry's site:

Your portion of the deficit this year is larger than the tax break you got. Difference is that your kids will be paying that. Feel like explaining that to them?

I agree, deficits have to be paid for by someone eventually. But I feel pretty certain this particular deficit won't be around 20 years from now for my kids to pay for. Some other deficit probably will be, but there will also be years of balanced budgets in there too. Hell, Kerry himself says he can cut the thing in half in just four years. If it's that easily done, then more than likely it will be--it's the pendulum nature of our government system. Even if you don't believe Bush will do it, at the very least someone else will get a shot another four years from now.

The possibility that money has been spent poorly by this administration is a separate idea from whether the tax cuts were a bad idea in this particular economy, and the former does not inherently mean the latter. If I am asked to explain to my children someday that, yes, I wanted to keep the tax cuts I got because it directly enabled them to live in a better school district during a time when we could not have afforded it otherwise, then I think I can do so with confidence. The fact that we as a country ALSO spent a lot of money on a war at the same time is another issue entirely.

If, as Happy Monkey showed, Kerry really does intend to keep the middle-class tax cuts, and follows through on that promise (assuming he has the opportunity), then great. As it is I don't want to vote for either of them.

You can read this article about the International Monetary Fund's warnings on the US debt. This is their second or third warning this year.

So, rich, you're saying Kerry is wrong to promise to keep the middle class tax cuts in place?

Kerry's appearance on "Meet The Press"
 

Transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

I saw the show this morning. I had no complaints whatsoever.

Kerry, 2004! :D

McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.

You mean like the protesters being sheperded into 'free speech zones', and not reported in the mainstream media?

Germany in the 1930's was undergoing a period of extreme nationalism in response to perceived foreign threats. They systematically marginalized and segregated target groups.

If you don't see a similarity in America today, you're not looking.

A common misconception is that the death camps were built overnight. That is not true. It first started with new laws. One of the criticism's of the new Homeland Security department was that Homeland sounded a lot like Fatherland.

And up until the Abu Graib pictures were releases, how many Americans were asking their Congressman about what was going on in Guantanamo Bay and the military prisons? All our goverment had to say was 'national security', and we looked the other way. How many times have we heard the word 'treason' trotted out by neocons? How much of a step will it be for the Justice Department to begin taking those accusations seriously?

Don't think that because we have McDonalds and Wal-Marts that something like that can't happen here. That was the mistake everyone made in the 1930's. "Germans are rational." "Germans are civilized." "Germany is a free republic." "This will all get better soon".

Got an NRA magazine today, an there's Dick smiling from the podium of the annual NRA meeting in Pittsburgh.:)

SAME HERE....
 

Kerry was fourth in my list, Clark, Dean & Edwards were ahead of him to me......but he can STILL redeem himself by choosing one of the three as his running mate....

I feel a vote for Kerry isn't a vote for the Democrats, (since I'm an independent I try to stay neutral) but by voting for him, it hurts junior more than voting 3rd party, which I did in 2000 & 96....although in 92 I was ALL for slick willie....


Later :rattat:

This is one of the reasons I'll be voting for Bush. The UN is not my government (yet).

God endorses Bush, with a little hesitation.

He endorses you without any reservation ... not returning the favor? Or are you nervous about mixing religion and politics too?

Slang, I missed you, you old son-of-a-bitch.

Have some Kool-Aid...

http://ciberbosque.org/images/sycamore/koolaid2.gif

Lemon-Lime!! Thanks Syc! That's my favorite! ( takes a big gulp )


That's strange. It tastes a little like almonds.

I'm not but it makes the non-believers angry(er) if I try to meddle or pols even speak my name.

That's a very funny title you have there too Wolf.