Vote Early

[glatt]

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.

[Kitsune]

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.

[glatt]

Originally posted by Kitsune
[i]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.

[ladysycamore]

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

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

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Kitsune
...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?

The only thing I could find is this:

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

[mrnoodle]

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.

[lumberjim]

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.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by lumberjim
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.

[lumberjim]

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[Skunks]

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?

[warch]

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.

[Clodfobble]

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.

[glatt]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
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.

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?

[lumberjim]

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.