What do you do Nov 3rd?
Scenario: It is Nov 3rd and your candidate has lost the election. What do you do?
-- Will you continue about life and accept the elected president as the leader of our nation?
--Will you spend endless amounts of energy trying to convince people why the person in office shouldn't really be there?
-- Will you look for every opportunity to bad mouth and tear to shreds the man in the office?
-- Will you grab your gun and head for the hills to wait for imminent implosion of the nation?
-- Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and take solace in the fact that you are comfortable, yet disgusted, that it doesn't really matter who is in power because none of them really care about people like us anyway?
-- Will begin to look for the quickest exit out of the country?
Is that an option?
What if your candidate wins the election but is denied the presidency?
-- Will begin to look for the quickest exit out of the country?
Is that an option?
yeah, you and hollywood. oh wait, they didn't follow through on their promises.
I don't have a gun, so I've gotta go 1, 2, 3, and 5.
What if your candidate wins the election but is denied the presidency?
Depends on what you mean by "win."
yeah, you and hollywood. oh wait, they didn't follow through on their promises.
Well if hollywood contacts you again.....tell it that i'm a worthy cause and to donate. I'm not sure why hollywood would make you promises, but that's obviously none of my business. I can respect your privacy about the whole thing......... :D
My idea is obviously not permitted so I'll just go with:
--Will not draw my own conclusion and will embrace all insults with charity :thumbsup:
Secret Option #6 - Enroll in Semester At Sea and jump ship.
[QUOTE]Depends on what you mean by "win."[QUOTE]
get more votes
Gore got more individual votes, but Bush got more electoral votes, which is what is needed to win the presidential election in the US. The EC sucks, but I don't see it changing any time soon...and I wouldn't say that Gore was necessarily denied.
I gotta go with head for the hills with my gun while waiting for Aunt Elsa to send me my one way ticket to Zurich on Swiss Air. :eek:
Gore got more individual votes, but Bush got more electoral votes, which is what is needed to win the presidential election in the US. The EC sucks, but I don't see it changing any time soon...and I wouldn't say that Gore was necessarily denied.
Perhaps had tens of thousands of American citizens ( primarily black) not been denied their vote due to "errors" in the accounting of people's right to vote ( innocent people whose names and demographics bore a resemblance to that of a convicted criminal for instance) or in the inexlicable blocks which were placed in the way of other ( again mainly black) American citizens and which had the effect of making voting a ( sometimes physically) difficult affair.....Perhaps then yes Bush could be said to have recieved more votes. But since the tens of thousands of people whose votes were denied were overwhelmingly likeely to vote Democrat....and since Bush only "won" by a handful of votes, much less than the votes which were unfairl;y discounted I still consider the election to have been stolen.
Perhaps had tens of thousands of American citizens ( primarily black) not been denied their vote due to "errors" in the accounting of people's right to vote ( innocent people whose names and demographics bore a resemblance to that of a convicted criminal for instance) or in the inexlicable blocks which were placed in the way of other ( again mainly black) American citizens and which had the effect of making voting a ( sometimes physically) difficult affair.....
I'd be interested in seeing 'neutral' proof of these allegations.....I can only seem to find this information coming from the mouths and fingers of Pro Kerry supporters....and from that, extrapolate that it's merely a tactic to deter Pro Bush voters.
As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".
Dagney
Sources, por favor.
It wasn't all that long ago that the (
until recently secret) Florida felon list was shown to be
massively flawed in a pro-Republican way. Data errors my ass.
I'd be interested in seeing 'neutral' proof of these allegations.....I can only seem to find this information coming from the mouths and fingers of Pro Kerry supporters....and from that, extrapolate that it's merely a tactic to deter Pro Bush voters.
From what I've seen, it's clear that the State of Florida really fucked up this year regarding the felon list. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the fuck-ups Dana mentioned
did occur. But I haven't seen anything other than conspiracy theory-type items regarding those issues.
As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".
Not me...I'm voting
for John Kerry because I think he'll be a better president than Bush, not just because I hate Bush.
I'll go with 1 and 5. With the corollary that I will have to endure the celebrations of my boss.
On the other hand, if Bush wins, the other manager and I have plans to sneak in early and plaster his office with pro-Bush banners and such. hehehe
As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".
If it's true, so what? By definition (except in really unusual circumstances) the presidential challenger is always less well-known on the national level than the incumbent. How many Republicans were sitting home pining for George W. Bush to get into the White House in, say, December of 1999? Most voters probably hadn't really heard of any of the candidates... W probably had more name recognition than the rest just because of his dad. In 1992 people thought Bush Sr. had screwed up and they wanted him out. In 1980 they wanted Carter out. If George H. "voodoo economics" W. Bush had won the Republican nomination in 1980, would Republican partisans have sat home because their hero Reagan was not in the race? The most flaming liberal voters supported Dean and Kucinich (sorry, I probably spelled that wrong) in this primary cycle. Are they supposed to vote for Bush because Kerry won the nomination instead?
Republicans are famous for loyalty to their party. How come that's all of a sudden a bad thing when Democrats start doing it?
Oh, I never answered the question.
I suspect I'll be having several stiff drinks no matter who wins.
And no matter who wins, if there is even the smallest hint of irregularity in any election results in any county, even if it isn't significant enough numerically to have changed the outcome of the race, then we're all a bunch of complete idiots if we don't immediately force every government official of every party to clean house with respect to voting procedures.
Colorado just prduced it's own new list of "felins".........uh-oh. Coloradans don't make datea mstkes on purrpose thogh so im not worried. :eek: oooopsy....
Thanks monkey.
Sneaky so and so's. :mad:
Republicans are famous for loyalty to their party. How come that's all of a sudden a bad thing when Democrats start doing it?
I didn't say it was a bad thing...what I stated was that I found it interesting that some - not all - people will back a candidate, simply because he's the one their party chose, and don't explore the issues...they vote the party.
I have a somewhat checkered trend in my own voting history - because I vote for the issues, not the party. (Which is how I personally think it should be done...YMAYVMV)
they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".
So what? :confused:
So what
What is, "One of the greatest jazz songs ever," Alex.
I think you can say you're voting against Bush and be informed of the issues. Kerry is the alternative to Bush and If one feels that Kerry is the lesser of two evils...that seems the most damning of Bush.
Bush is running against his record.
Oh, and I dont think this will be decided by Nov 3. I think it will take a while.
Nov. 3?
What if the hammers of Hell come down on the insurgents in Iraq and we have a Kerry win? I'm not emotionally equipped to deal with all this.
I'm crawling into a hole with as much beer as I can get no matter how it goes.
Another update on the
Florida felon list.
From the
article
Bush told the Herald-Tribune that Craft didn't call him, and he denied that any meeting took place May 3 with Craft or other election officials.
"Once it became clear after talking to the secretary of state that there were problems with the list (in July), that's when we decided to end it," Bush said.
Craft hung up on a Herald-Tribune reporter seeking comment Friday. A message left for a Paul Craft in Tallahassee was not immediately returned Saturday.
I think he really means "After the media sued to look at the list, and after we failed to stop them, and after examination driven by the media it was found to be less than %90 accurate, and after members of a large Republican voting block were shown to have been 'accidentally excluded' I met with my Secretary of State, who is also a Republican, and told her 'If I try keep this up, we're all going to jail.'"
From the article
Bush's spokeswoman, Jill Bratina, denied allegations that the governor ignored warnings about the list.
"It's also irrelevant because the list isn't being used," Bratina said Saturday.
Bush told the Herald-Tribune that Craft didn't call him, and he denied that any meeting took place May 3 with Craft or other election officials.
"Once it became clear after talking to the secretary of state that there were problems with the list (in July), that's when we decided to end it," Bush said.
Craft hung up on a Herald-Tribune reporter seeking comment Friday. A message left for a Paul Craft in Tallahassee was not immediately returned Saturday.
I think she really means "After the media sued to look at the list, and after we failed to stop them, and after an examination driven by the media it was found to be less than %90 accurate, and after members of a large Republican voting block were shown to have been 'accidentally excluded', the governor met with my Secretary of State, who is also a Republican, and told her 'If I try keep this up, we're all going to jail.'"
Simple solution - make it a state law to pay any eligible voter turned away $10,000, the money to be paid by the county, state, and company who placed them on the list. That should make the list more honest.
What is, "One of the greatest jazz songs ever," Alex.
Mmmm! I could listen to Kind of Blue forever and ever and ever.
and ever.
-- Will you grab your gun and head for the hills to wait for imminent implosion of the nation?
This points out one of the great ironies of our present political nightmare. If the Dems win they grab guns and violate the intent of the 2nd Amendment, leaving people without the power to resist. If the Reps win, they put in place the very police state policies which the people need to resist. Good thing I'm already in the hills. :gray:
You really need a "drink heavily" option.
Oh. I'm for #4 and #5.
if i new everyone would pick one of my choices i would have made this a poll. i thought someone would give a narrative description of their plans. and then, because this is the cellar - we could ridicule them and tell them why they are stupid and probably the downfall of america. :D
Last paragraph in the link
Election officials have said that anyone who feels they have been inadvertently removed from the voter rolls on Nov. 2 will be allowed to use a provisional ballot that will be examined later to determine eligibility.
Well, Mr Jones, it seems you were wrongly listed. We're very sorry, we'll count your provisional ballot right now. Let's see now, did you vote fer or agin us? :rolleyes:
This points out one of the great ironies of our present political nightmare. If the Dems win they grab guns and violate the intent of the 2nd Amendment, leaving people without the power to resist. If the Reps win, they put in place the very police state policies which the people need to resist. Good thing I'm already in the hills. :gray:
It'll take the Dems at least 3 or 4 days to round up all, what.........150......200 millions guns. According to the chicken littles, anarchy will commence immediately, so there's no conflict.
I think I'll get out the "big gun" to handle those Apache Longbows. :thumb:
Lots of folks out there with unregistered guns, Bruce. Of course, I wouldn't know any! :angel:
It doesn't matter if they are registered or not if the anarchy will commence immediately following the election. ;)
They can take the guns. It's okay with me. I have my own formidable arsenal that doesn't use any gunpowder, CO2- or air-cartridges. Just makes things generally safer for me! :ninja:
required reading for marichiko
Michael Totten quietly notes the stupid irony in claiming Bush has festered totalitarianism in the US, as he plans his trip to Libya, a truly totalitarian regime.
There didn't seem to be much more than "Libya's much worse than the US, so don't complain" in there. We're supposed to set our bar much higher than Libya, and complain bitterly over any attempt to lower it.
required reading for marichiko
Michael Totten quietly notes the stupid irony in claiming Bush has festered totalitarianism in the US, as he plans his trip to Libya, a truly totalitarian regime.
Well, thank you for your concern in regard to my reading list. I can't recall ever posting that the US=Syria or some other totalitarian regime (of course we all know about me and my stupid memory, but that doesn't seem like an analogy I would make).
Yes, I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our freedoms under the Patriot Act and various laws that have come out of the war on drugs. The Patriot Act allows the government to arrest people who are suspected of being terrorists and hold them for indefinate lengths of time without access to a lawyer or the right of habeas corpus. These people essentially get disappeared, and that is frightening. There have been more than 1200 presumably terrorist-related arrests and 750 people deported, and no one outside the government knows their names, or how many court docket entries have been erased or never entered. Secret federal court hearings have been held with no public record of when or where or who is being tried. (I'll get you the cite on this). Here it is, Bill Moyers:
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13509.shtml
I agree with the words of Pastor Niemöller 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
When we see something which is unconstitutional being done to a group of people who may indeed be guilty, but where some may be innocent; we need to speak out. Even the worst criminal still has certain basic rights in our country. We protect that criminal's rights because they are also the rights of an innocent person who may have been falsely accused. These rights under the constitution are MY rights and YOUR rights, and we should oppose ANY governmental attempt to undermine them for ANY reason. Who will speak out for you, UT, if someone makes a false accusation of terrorism against you and you get taken away?
I have traveled in totalitarian countries. I spent almost a year in Brazil in the early 70's when that country was under an extremely repressive military dictatorship. Soldiers stood on every street corner. One had to be extremely careful of what one said in public. I heard story after story of dissenters being taken from their homes in the night and never being heard from again. I had a Brazilian friend named Augusto B. who had fled Sao Paulo for the northeastern Brazilian town where I was staying because he was an activist against the dictatorship and it was no longer safe for him to reside in Sao Paulo. Everytime I got on a plane going to, from, or within Brazil I had my passport scrutinized and re-scrutinized. I was actually strip searched a couple of times by female members of Brazilian customs. I know what it is to live in a totalitarian society.
The US is not Brazil. I hope to God it never becomes like Brazil. We citizens need to speak out when we see bad things happen in our country. Thank God we still can.
I haven't seen anyone mention assassination. Hmmmm
MY candidate will not win. I already know this. I think he could win if we'd have instant run-off voting, but that's not likely to happen since the Democrats and Republicans are keeping everyone else out. I hope for the lesser of two evils (John Kerry) because if Bush is elected it will mean the possible complete destruction of America and perhaps the world. At the very least it will mean there will no longer be any trace of the freedoms or principles upon which America was built.
I'd seriously consider moving to another country, but no country would be safe with Bush in office...especially the USA.
I haven't seen anyone mention assassination. Hmmmm
Probably because mentioning it in a public forum could get you flagged by Carnivore, after which you could end up in an uncomfortable basement room being questioned by hostile government agents, and (regardless of the outcome) never be able to get on a commercial flight again. (note lack of emoticon).
Probably because mentioning it in a public forum could get you flagged by Carnivore, after which you could end up in an uncomfortable basement room being questioned by hostile government agents, and (regardless of the outcome) never be able to get on a commercial flight again. (note lack of emoticon).
Now, now, now. What did your Uncle UT just tell us a few posts above? This isn't Syria and Radar can say anything he wants! :eyebrow:
This isn't the first time that Radar has said something like his comment above...he's still here, isn't he?
Or is he?
Does anyone reading this thread actually know someone who was actually prevented from getting on any flight?
It's a government secret! :D Come to think of it, George Jr. did have his flight priviledges revoked for not showing up for his physical for the National Guard.
I skimmed back a bit - what flights are you referring to?
Does anyone reading this thread actually know someone who was actually prevented from getting on any flight?
By prevented, do you mean stopped from boarding but ultimately allowed to fly or barred from flying ever?
Well Russ has set the bar pretty high, as "never be able to get on a commercial flight again", but let's take any particular restriction of over 24 hours, for the purposes of seeing what turns up.
How about Cat Stevens? Ted Kennedy? Anyone named
David Nelson? And those are just a few of the ones that were amusing enough to make the news.
If you meant know personally, the people I know don't fly much...
Actually, the "no-fly" list is NOT a matter of public record. For a sampling of citizens' complaints about being placed on this list, look here:
http://www.epic.org/foia_docs/airtravel/congress1.pdf
:eyebrow:
One person on Baen's Bar (another board not quite entirely unlike this one) says that he's had exactly that -- arrest and questioning by three-letter agencies and placement on the no-fly list -- happen to him, as a result of posting a rant on that board.
Do you think the three-letter agencies would have a similar story about why they placed him? (Might there be more to it?)
Well Russ has set the bar pretty high, as "never be able to get on a commercial flight again", but let's take any particular restriction of over 24 hours, for the purposes of seeing what turns up.
Ahh. Haven't reached the 24 hour mark yet, but I do know a couple of people who were detained, one for about 6 hours and the other for around 8, before being released to 'go about their business'.
Here's
a discussion of various airline-watchlist-related stories.No outright bannings mentioned, as of yet.
The cite I gave above contains the documentation of an innocent individual who is consistently being detained and delayed each time he attempts to fly somewhere. Everything is reproduced on Federal Agency letter heads. His example is just one of many. :eyebrow:
Do you think the three-letter agencies would have a similar story about why they placed him? (Might there be more to it?)
If the TLAs have a story, they aren't telling it. Which is one of the problems with the no-fly list... they don't HAVE to justify themselves. There's no review and no oversight. Blatant violation of the constitution (punishment without trial), but one which will no doubt be upheld by SCOTUS using the talisman of "public safety".
I'm just trying to see how big a problem it is, at this time.
I'm just trying to see how big a problem it is, at this time.
What about people arrested only because they had a video camera? A friend just told me his story of their trip to NYC. They were video tapping interesting cars, and just having fun. When they went through the Lincoln Tunnel, they were arrested by the NYPD. Because one had once heard a name (a name that was on a watch list- a name he had once heard on TV news), then they were all held for most of that day.
One of their tasks was to visit the Egyptian Embassy. They ended up only seeing the Lincoln Tunnel and an NYPD stationhouse. Their entire trip to NYC - and their one day off - was wasted only because they looked Arab and had been using a video camera.
The NYPD cop did apologize and even gave each his card so that they could call for help when it happened again.
How many immigrants are your friends. Too many of mine are being detained for nothing. After a program that required 80,000 immigrants to 'come in for a voluntary talk', not one terrorist was discovered. At what point do we acknowledge that FBI agents, when empowered to do their jobs pre-9/11, were more than sufficient to make America safe.
The system worked when a president read his memos - and gave federal employees warnings as to what to look for. The system worked when terrorist investigators such as John O'Neill were not driven from law enforcement for simply demanding facts; because the George Jr administration did not like his aggressive terrorist investigations. People like O'Neill were more than sufficient so many times to discover terrorist bombs all over the world. O'Neill even had the names of what would become 9/11 attackers.
Richard Clarke was this nation's #1 anti-terrorist in the White House. Even he was demoted by a president who could not bother to read blunt warnings about real world terrorists.
A new president never reads his memos - says that terrorism is not a major problem. He never puts out the warning in the 6 Aug Presidential Daily Briefing- even demotes his counter terrorism group from principle level. So instead we must now detain everyone who looks like a terrorist (also called racism)? What does a terrorist look like? Can you just look at evil and recognize it? When do we fix the real problem? When do we get a presidient who reads memos and makes his own decisions? Therein lies the problem.
Here's a story related to me by a man when I was out canvassing for the Democrats. This man has some friends who have a son who has a brain injury. The kid has dark hair and a swarthy complexion. The boy got work through Goodwill Industries. His job required him to drive on base to Fort Carson several times a week to pick up donations made by military families. Every single time this boy tried to drive on post, he was delayed, sometimes detained by the MP's at the gate. This went on for 6 months with the SAME MP's who knew who the boy was. After 6 months of this harassment, the kid quit his job with Goodwill. So far he has not been able to find another employer.
Now, same military base, same time period. I have a friend who is blond with blue eyes. He got a job delivering phone books to Fort Carson. He had to drive on base every day for about 3 weeks. The first day he went on base he went through the standard delays and questioning. Every single trip he made after that first one he was just waved on through because the guards knew him.
So what's THAT about? :mad:
Based on all your information I conclude that the problem is not that bad. Thanks correspondents!
BTW if you want to see how other countries act in comparison -
http://www.wolfpac.com/uk.htm
Consider that this act are not theoretical terrorists, just art that some people don't like. If they were terrorists they could probably enter the country just fine.
So what's THAT about?
They welcome those that giveth and not those that taketh away. :)
UT, you're sticking your head in the sand.
I just want to know how paranoid to be. Keep me updated when the WoT has imprisoned as many as the WoDrugs.
It occurred to me today that the way the polls are going today, Bush will take the popular vote by like 2% and Kerry will take the Electoral College after a legal fight over Ohio. If that happens, hope both sides have their irony suits on.
Nov 3
Kerry wins by 10 points.
I hang out in seclusion under arrest until he takes office. The CIA guys stop kicking my ass every day and electrocuting my genitals. Lyndie England stops pointing at my dick in photos with various CIA agents laughing in the background.
Life is getting better.
Kerry takes office and puts me back in office instead of on trial. The US troops stay in Iraq under my command. They train "my people", through pressure from the UN, to use the equipment they were so kind to bring with them.
I now have a world class army.
Kerry and the UN send the US troops home. They are so happy and spiteful, righteous that they dont even notice I move in on all adjoining countries with my new toys.
I have my "boys" retrieve Lyndie, chainsaw fuck her, lop her head off. Ten video cams are rolling the whole time. I put her head in a bowl of formaldihyde with a leash around the neck portion of the severed head. the sealed bowl sits on the main table when and where my meetings are held.
Ahh, revenge is sweet.
Next, I corner the market of oil in the middle east,militarily controlling all oil fields and ports.
The US pays $8 a gallon for gasoline, and the people curse the Bushes (even more).
Bush and co then release hi-tech renewable energy technology for use in all petro applications. The new technology is released, controlled and distibuted by the exsiting oil companies.
Other countries that are major oil consumers, adopt the new tech, the price of oil falls back to $5 a barrel
Once again, I have no power or influence and now people have no reason to tolerate my murderous brutal ways.
Kerry and UN send inspectors into Iraq and Blix reveals the massive violations that had been there since 98 but now no one has any reason to help me.
Even Chiraq tell me on the phone "Yer fucked this time bud, nothing I can do"
Kerry makes the case to Nuke Baghdad unilaterally, the people buy it because he debates well and has great hair.
This is how I think the map will look on the 2nd:
Bush wins and the SUV replaces the bald eagle as the national emblem. It becomes mandatory to join the National Guard. Those who do and refuse to appear for their physicals are given bronze stars. New Mexico seccedes from the Union and Bush claims this as a victory against illegal immigrants who had persisted in coming over the New Mexico border to Colorado and Arizona. Life goes on.
Kerry wins and gets rid of the pesky state of Florida by handing it over to Cuba. Cuba attempts to give it back. The people of Florida take a vote on the matter and elect George Jr. as dictator for life. Some black Floridians complain about this and are sent to Gitmo Bay. Life goes on.
Wow, that's *good*. Nice work Mari
Bush wins and the SUV replaces the bald eagle as the national emblem. It becomes mandatory to join the National Guard. .
:D All very funny,but are you forgetting that it's Kerry proposing mandatory service? :thumbsdn: OK lemme go find the proof. (the proof I had got left at a resteraunt)
Bush proposed mandatory service dears ago: ;)
"And so, in my State of the— my State of the Union—or State—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give four thousand years—four thousand hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America."
OK, not mandatory. I just like the quote.
Ever wonder if Bush isn't on Thorazine or something when you read his quotes like the one above? :eyebrow:
Was it Kerry specifically, or just congressional democrats? All the sponsors of the bill had "D" next to their names ... and all but one of the sponsors voted AGAINST their own bill.
Was it Kerry specifically, or just congressional democrats? All the sponsors of the bill had "D" next to their names ... and all but one of the sponsors voted AGAINST their own bill.
The House voted 402-2 to defeat the draft bill offered last year by U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat. Kerry did NOT sponsor the bill and has stated specifically that he would not re-instate the draft.
Scenario: It is Nov 3rd and your candidate has lost the election. What do you do?
-- Will you continue about life and accept the elected president as the leader of our nation?
Continue life, yes. Accept if Bush wins...hell no.
--Will you spend endless amounts of energy trying to convince people why the person in office shouldn't really be there?
Nah.
-- Will you look for every opportunity to bad mouth and tear to shreds the man in the office?
Pshctttt but OF COURSE! :D
-- Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and take solace in the fact that you are comfortable, yet disgusted, that it doesn't really matter who is in power because none of them really care about people like us anyway?
Hmm...I could possibly do that too.
To be totally honest, I will probably bad-mouth whomever is in office Nov. 3rd (or, more likely, Dec. 12th. Or, even more likely, Jan. 6th). I will vote for Kerry and as many Pennsylvania Dems as it is within my power to vote for, but I am a liberal in the simplest sense of the term. I think America can be made better, and that changes must be made in order to do so. No one candidate can ever go far enough to satisfy me, because a man of my politics is inherently unelectable. I believe in an evolutionary government, change for the sake of change. Make the change, and if its good, keep it. If it sucks ass, be rid of it. If things are a good idea, like social welfare systems, keep them around but make them work. If things are a bad idea (like offshore tax loopholes), cut the crap and toss them out. Make the bad good, and the good better, and if something doesn't directly improve the life of J. Random Citizen, toss it (and I mean *directly. A rising tide does, indeed, lift all boats, but lifting a few boats doesn't raise the tide). Essentially, what I'm saying is that I will vote for Kerry because I believe he'll make things better, but I reserve the right to point out where he's fucking up if he does get into office.