NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm back...

Please forgive me, I may be a bit out of the loop. I just spent a week hundreds of miles from home without access to a computer, television, radio, or newspaper.

Now for the purpose of this topic:

It is my belief that most democrats are voting for Kerry just to get Bush out of office. I think that this is very reckless. You don't put someone in the most powerful office in the world just to get someone else out. That's how Nixon and Hitler got elected. It's time the left tried to make a case for Kerry, and this is the place.

Note that this is the case for Kerry, not the case against Bush. I want you to tell why Kerry is better without basing your arguement on his not being George W. Bush. That means tell Kerry's credentials, and no, Vietnam ain't one of them. Being a veteran may look good on the campaign trail, but it doesn't mean that you are experienced with foreign policy. Anyone can pull a trigger.

Now's your chance. Without directly or indirectly flaming the Bush administration or having twenty thousand "Kerry won't"s in there, tell us what Kerry has done to deserve the presidency.

For the love of Deity of Choice, enough with the Bush/Kerry threads. Pleeeeeaaassssee. I'm a strong Kerry supporter and severe political junkie, and even I've had enough.

What about "For Kerry to get rid of bush AND because he is more qualified"

And what about "For Kerry because I'm a trained liberal ballot-marking monkey."

And what about "For Bush because I'm a trained conservative ballot-marking monkey"

?? :confused: ??

I didn't vote in the poll because I'm not an American so I can't actually vote in the American election, however I would of picked. "for Kerry because he's more qualified"

I didn't vote in the poll because I'm not an American so I can't actually vote in the American election, however I would of picked. "for Kerry because he's more qualified"That leads us to the purpose of this topic, to the question nobody cares to answer.
How is he more qualified?

That leads us to the purpose of this topic, to the question nobody cares to answer.
How is he more qualified?
I'll start off with a cheap shot. Ever heard of a "Kerry-ism"?

That leads us to the purpose of this topic, to the question nobody cares to answer.
How is he more qualified?

America is at war, Kerry has been to war, the current administration had alienated most of it's traditional allies, Kerry will go a long way in rebuilding those fractured relationships by simple virtue of him not being Bush. Kerry has been in government for 20 years and a D.A. before that, he obviously has more experience. He believes that war should be the last resort, not the first. He's thoughtful and complex, he's no gun-ho. He is smart enough to know that no matter how powerful a country is, they can't go it alone and ultimately hope to succeed. Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

You can't be a leader if no one is following you.

the entire military follows Bush.

the entire military follows Bush.
I wonder if the left will try again this election to get their votes discounted.

the entire military follows Bush.

Ummmmm .... yeah, they follow him in the capacity of Commander in Chief ... but that doesn't mean they vote for him.

I was on active duty under GHWB and I voted for Clinton. There are plenty of Democrats and Independants and Liberals in the military.

the entire military follows Bush.

I believe you missed the point..

What are you talking about? That never happened :rolleyes:

America is at war, Kerry has been to warAnyone can pull a trigger. Next.

the current administration had alienated most of it's traditional allies, Kerry will go a long way in rebuilding those fractured relationships by simple virtue of him not being BushForeign policy is a bit more complicated than whose in office and those alliances didn't help us very much pre-9/11. Next.

Kerry has been in government for 20 years and a D.A. before that, he obviously has more experience.This is the kind of arguement that the left should be making, however, Kerry doesn't really have a significant history in the Senate.
He believes that war should be the last resort, not the first. He's thoughtful and complex, he's no gun-ho.He also believes in supplying, and not supplying, our troops.
He is also remarkably good at being vague.

He is smart enough to know that no matter how powerful a country is, they can't go it alone and ultimately hope to succeed.We've managed in the past.
You can't be a leader if no one is following you.And Bush does have followers. If he didn't, Kerry would be mopping up, and that is not evident.

Next.

I believe you missed the point..

No, you said you can't lead if nobody follows and I'm pointing out the strongest military in the world follows the man. If he was so terrible Generals would refuse his orders.

I believe you missed the point..
It didn't have a point. It was a circle. No points.

No, you said you can't lead if nobody follows and I'm pointing out the strongest military in the world follows the man. If he was so terrible Generals would refuse his orders.
His orders are something like this "Take over Iraq"

After he says that, the generals take care of the specifics.

No, you said you can't lead if nobody follows and I'm pointing out the strongest military in the world follows the man. If he was so terrible Generals would refuse his orders.

I wasn't talking about the American military, they will follow Bozo the Clown if he is president. I was talking about real leadership, world respected.. Bush is not and that's a fact you can't deny.

Why am I not surprised?
Sofar, every lefty who tried to make a case FOR KERRY has failed to restrain themselves from attacking Bush.

I guess his not being bush IS the case for Kerry. God help us all.

Why am I not surprised?
Sofar, every lefty who tried to make a case FOR KERRY has failed to restrain themselves from attacking Bush.

I guess his not being bush IS the case for Kerry. God help us all.
Well...if Bush is less qualified than Kerry, doesn't that automatically make Kerry more qualified than Bush. (Sounds like I should have started with "In Soviet Russia...")

Why am I not surprised?
Sofar, every lefty who tried to make a case FOR KERRY has failed to restrain themselves from attacking Bush.

I guess his not being bush IS the case for Kerry. God help us all.

That is your opinion and you're most certainly entitled to it. I could certainly turn the argument around on people who support Bush, but it's all been done before, so meh!

I wasn't talking about the American military, they will follow Bozo the Clown if he is president. I was talking about real leadership, world respected.. Bush is not and that's a fact you can't deny.

It's not the job of the President to do things to please other countries. His job is to keep America strong and safe.

It's not the job of the President to do things to please other countries. His job is to keep America strong and safe.
Keeping foreign countrys happy is probably one of the best ways of keeping America safe a strong.

So bending to their demands is what we need to do?

It's not the job of the President to do things to please other countries.

Then why do we have a Secretary of State?

It's not the job of the President to do things to please other countries. His job is to keep America strong and safe.
Attacking Iraq, makes America and her allies LESS safe.

Bin Laden who?

Zing!

And it's true, I dont see how disregarding people who have been our greatest allies, and then insulting them to boot (re: France). Followed by invading other countries in a region that already hates us, AND under false pretences that led us to war, are the best ways to keep America safe.

Kerry will make a horrible president cause he wont do anything if someone bombs the US again. If he comes to be president everybody will be bombing us because they know Kerrys a pussy and can be pushed around. We need people like Bush to show the world that we are the best and that we don't take any crap. :mp5:

Kerry will make a horrible president cause he wont do anything if someone bombs the US again. If he comes to be president everybody will be bombing us because they know Kerrys a pussy and can be pushed around. We need people like Bush to show the world that we are the best and that we don't take any crap. :mp5:

Uh huh, Kerry is the pussy who risked his life to go fight in Vietnam while Bush is the hero who protected the skies of Texas from the Viet-cong... How do you people come to these conclusions exactly? :rolleyes:

Uh huh, Kerry is the pussy who risked his life to go fight in Vietnam while Bush is the hero who protected the skies of Texas from the Viet-cong... How do you people come to these conclusions exactly? :rolleyes:
The same way Senator Byrd's KKK experience is explained away, he's changed over the last 40 years...

Uh huh, Kerry is the pussy who risked his life to go fight in Vietnam while Bush is the hero who protected the skies of Texas from the Viet-cong... How do you people come to these conclusions exactly? :rolleyes:
I just got a mental picture of Bush hiding in his personal bomb shelter on his ranch after November.........too vivid!!

Kerry will make a horrible president cause he wont do anything if someone bombs the US again. If he comes to be president everybody will be bombing us because they know Kerrys a pussy and can be pushed around. We need people like Bush to show the world that we are the best and that we don't take any crap. :mp5:

Gee, "we're the best", "we can ignore the UN and kill innocents"... I wonder how did these nuts succeed at recruiting so many people that hate the US... I mean, only a nation led by someone very arrogant would be hated around the world... Oh, wait... Gee, it's explained!

Kerry is a joke, and the fact remains that no one, not even his own campaign can mmake the case for him. They resort to Bush-bashing and anti-american groups like moveon.org.

Hello everybody!

Although I'm not an American I wish to say a few words about your thread.
First of all I would like to ask you a simple question: Do you know where is Romania on the map?Ask this simple question to a simple american citizen and I'm sure that less than 0.1% will know the answer. But if you will ask a simple romanian citizen who is the president of the USA more than 99% will give the right answer.
Second, why all the world MUST care about USA? Does USA give a damn on other nation?I don't think so! I agree that USA is the most powerfull nation in the world and the man who sits on White House chair is the most powerfull, influent, well-guarded man on the Earth but this doesn't mean that he is the most inteligent or his decisions are the best concerning his country or other countries!
How would have received America the interfering of other nations in his internal matters? What if a war would have started in America and Somalia or Iraq or some other country sent her's military forces to solve the conflict???
Exscuse me but America doesn't have any problems but it's leaders!
USA have the most developed industry but it's the most poluting country in the world, USA have the most developed human rights but it's full of crimes, murders,etc., and the list could continue!
And at last do you really think that a man can rule a nation ALONE? What difference makes to you if it's Kerry or Bush? Any of them will do whatever they or their partie will think it's best for USA or the rest of the world, not what the common citizen says!
And as a personal opinion for everybody, please stop posting threads that imply facts, events or characters from the real world, make them ipothetical!

Thank you!
PAX ROMANA ! :fluffle:

Kerry, because he's not bush AND he's more qualified.

So there :p

I've always wished there was a rule where every ballot had a "none of the above" options. If the majority of voters selected that option then ALL parties had to toss their candidates and start over.

In this case I would select that option. A way to vote out Bush but also ask the Democrats to find a better candidate.

That sort of thing could be managed in countries where the elections are not on such a fixed calendar and where there isn't such a formalized (and bloody expensive) election year set of procedures as happens in the US.

If I were an eligible voter, I would have to vote Kerry as lesser of two evils. Which I suppose means I feel him better qualitied than Bush, but then again I think my magic 8-ball hits more correct answers than he does...

My vote is for Kerry for both of the reasons in the poll.

anti-american groups like moveon.org.
How is moveon.org anti-American? Aren't the people who run it Americans?

Hello everybody!

Although I'm not an American I wish to say a few words about your thread.
First of all I would like to ask you a simple question: Do you know where is Romania on the map?Ask this simple question to a simple american citizen and I'm sure that less than 0.1% will know the answer. But if you will ask a simple romanian citizen who is the president of the USA more than 99% will give the right answer.
Second, why all the world MUST care about USA? Does USA give a damn on other nation?I don't think so! I agree that USA is the most powerfull nation in the world and the man who sits on White House chair is the most powerfull, influent, well-guarded man on the Earth but this doesn't mean that he is the most inteligent or his decisions are the best concerning his country or other countries!
How would have received America the interfering of other nations in his internal matters? What if a war would have started in America and Somalia or Iraq or some other country sent her's military forces to solve the conflict???
Exscuse me but America doesn't have any problems but it's leaders!
USA have the most developed industry but it's the most poluting country in the world, USA have the most developed human rights but it's full of crimes, murders,etc., and the list could continue!
And at last do you really think that a man can rule a nation ALONE? What difference makes to you if it's Kerry or Bush? Any of them will do whatever they or their partie will think it's best for USA or the rest of the world, not what the common citizen says!
And as a personal opinion for everybody, please stop posting threads that imply facts, events or characters from the real world, make them ipothetical!

Thank you!
PAX ROMANA ! :fluffle:

lol yes i know where it is and i would bet you a lot more than 0.1% know. it may be lower than the rest of the world but we are not that stupid as a group

lol yes i know where it is and i would bet you a lot more than 0.1% know. it may be lower than the rest of the world but we are not that stupid as a group

More then .1%, yes.

Slight majority of populace in the US, no.

Majority of the minorty? Still no.


I'm not as opptomistic as you when it comes to the intellegence level of some people :p

After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that NO ONE can make a case for Kerry to be president. All the people here is touting his vietnam record and that no one is touting his Senate Record.

I vote for the third option in this poll that Bush is more qualified than Kerry. Bush has 6 years of executive leadership and 4 years as president. Kery has 4 months in Vietnam and 19 years in the Senate. If you look at it on the surface, Kerry is better but its below the surface is what people need to look at. In 19 years as Senator, he never sponsered a single bill, tried to cut intelligence funding on about 2 occassions and one of those after a terror attack on our soil. Voted against some of our weapons that we have today. Tried to slash funding for one our bomber projects. Strong on defense? NO! Though he voted for the Iraq war, he is now adamently against it. Voted AGAINST funding our forces as well as body armor.

Bush by contrast has had a presidency of Fire. Inherited a recession that started under Clinton, had a terror attack that killed 3000 people, corporate scandals. All three things that have caused massive job loss. It takes time to recover jobs that were lost on the scale of what Bush had to go through. Do you think Clinton magically created 22 Million over night? No, it happened over 8 years. Though Job Creation has slowed down, we are still creating jobs as the Unemployment number as actually indicated. It dropped to 5.5 percent.

If Kerry is elected president, I fear for how our military is going to suffer. Kerry has alienated most of the veteran and current crop of soldiers. The military vote WILL go for President Bush and not for Kerry. Is Kerry qualified? According to his Senate Record, no he is not qualified. Is Bush Qualified? As for what Bush has accomplished in 4 years, yes he is. He has done more for the US as President than Kerry did for the US as Senator.

I advise all of Kerry's supporters to look at his Senate Record. You might be surprised at just how unqualified he is. The debates will show this.

I wasn't talking about the American military, they will follow Bozo the Clown if he is president. I was talking about real leadership, world respected.. Bush is not and that's a fact you can't deny.I can tell you, that should Kerry be elected, it would not be much different from Bozo the Clown.

But, what I and numerous others are not going to do is follow Kerry if he is elected. I will leave the military, never to look back. I will not let my family suffer in the military working under a Democrat administration again. Democrats think that the military is there for their personal use flitting around the world doing the work of the UN, cutting budgets, lengthening deployments and generally making the military's existence hell. Clinton was a disaster, and Kerry is a war criminal looking to lead the military. That entire party is a joke.

The case for Kerry.
1. He's smarter than Bush. He got into law school (Bush couldn't, even with daddy's money), finished it, worked as a very successful prosecutor, and while a Senator, broke a huge scandal involving BCCI that eventually led to the busting open of the Iran-Contra scandal.

2. Kerry's more liberal than Bush. That's no surprise. Kerry's not the most liberal Senator in the Senate, no matter how the National Journal tries to portray him as such, but he's more liberal than Bush is, and that's a good thing. He's more concerned with workers' rights, with the environment, and with the way the US is looked upon by the global community. That's important to me.

3. Kerry doesn't believe that the free market can cure all ills, and he's right. There is a place for the government when it comes to certain projects, and especially when it comes to protecting individuals from the excesses of corporations.

4. Kerry believes in balanced budgets. He voted for them before Bill Clinton was president, and went against his own party when doing so--that's a little shot at you people who say he has no backbone. Bush obviously doesn't believe in balanced budgets.

5. Kerry served with distinction in combat. He carries around a piece of shrapnel in his thigh to this day. To me, that means he's seen what war is like, firsthand, and it will make him less likely to send soldiers to die unless there's good cause for it.

Now for every one of these reasons, I could have added some Bush bashing. I tried to keep it to a minimum. If anyone is going to question this post, then I ask that you follow the same rules. Argue for Bush instead of against Kerry.

Kerry, because he's not bush AND he's more qualified.

So there :pThe purpose of the topic, which all but one have dodged:
HOW IS KERRY MORE QUALIFIED?

As Kerry said at the DNC, saying it doesn't make it so.

I wasn't talking about the American military, they will follow Bozo the Clown if he is president. I was talking about real leadership, world respected.. Bush is not and that's a fact you can't deny.

It's not that simple Steph, Bozo the clown is not hanging in a war Museum in Saigon.

The military is going to be a problem for Kerry. Mainly because of his record and his claims.

General Giap himself said that if it were not for the Veterns against the war, they would have eventually surrendered.

His claims of being in Cambodia. His discriptions of his efforts.

The claims of nobody on the boats is not valid. The Swift boats tending to go out in packs and fought close to each other. I have seen photos of 4 boats within a few feet of each other. Also, a guy named Gardner was on his boat and he is speaking out against him.

There are questions that he will avoid answering. So I don't think Kerry will ever win over the military(the majority of it, especially if they knew somebody or had relatives in Nam).

I can tell you, that should Kerry be elected, it would not be much different from Bozo the Clown.

But, what I and numerous others are not going to do is follow Kerry if he is elected. I will leave the military, never to look back. I will not let my family suffer in the military working under a Democrat administration again. Democrats think that the military is there for their personal use flitting around the world doing the work of the UN, cutting budgets, lengthening deployments and generally making the military's existence hell. Clinton was a disaster, and Kerry is a war criminal looking to lead the military. That entire party is a joke.

There is no question about Carter.

But Clinton? How was he a disaster especially since he was the one that started digitising the military(at least modernising that aspect).

The case for Kerry.
1. He's smarter than Bush. He got into law school (Bush couldn't, even with daddy's money), finished it, worked as a very successful prosecutor, and while a Senator, broke a huge scandal involving BCCI that eventually led to the busting open of the Iran-Contra scandal.Pro-Kerry and not Anti-Bush, please.

2. Kerry's more liberal than Bush. That's no surprise. Kerry's not the most liberal Senator in the Senate, no matter how the National Journal tries to portray him as such, but he's more liberal than Bush is, and that's a good thing. He's more concerned with workers' rights, with the environment, and with the way the US is looked upon by the global community. That's important to me.I'm going to try to explain this. Being a liberal is not necessarily a good thing. The president is supposed to represent everyone, not just the left wing. That would be like me trying to tell you Bush is more qualified just because he is more right-wing.

3. Kerry doesn't believe that the free market can cure all ills, and he's right. There is a place for the government when it comes to certain projects, and especially when it comes to protecting individuals from the excesses of corporations.I agree we must crack down on corporate corruption, but we must also do something about unions that ask for overinflated wages. The reason that jobs are leaving is because companies save money on wages by sending them elsewhere, meaning that they can afford to grow. Kerry says he will bring back the pay grades to a greater extent than before. If you raise everyone's wages, prices will rise to match. Such is the fundamental nature of capitalism. If you overregulate businesses, they will leave, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You have to advance with caution.

4. Kerry believes in balanced budgets. He voted for them before Bill Clinton was president, and went against his own party when doing so--that's a little shot at you people who say he has no backbone. Bush obviously doesn't believe in balanced budgets.Believes it, but won't create. I have discussed this before. Kerry plans to increase government spending on a plethora of different causes, while somehow reducing the deficit and not bogging down the economic growth we are seeing with new taxes. And if he counts on the end of pork-barrel spending to bolster his budget, he's an idiot. After 20 years in the senate, he ought to know that you can't just tell them to stop. I have done some calculations. He plans to "roll back parts of the Bush tax cut"
ah, *coughs "Tax Hike" several times*
but over ten years, his healthcare plan alone leaves only $5 billion of that behind to fund his veterans plan, education plan, energy plan...

5. Kerry served with distinction in combat. He carries around a piece of shrapnel in his thigh to this day. To me, that means he's seen what war is like, firsthand, and it will make him less likely to send soldiers to die unless there's good cause for it. He voted for Iraq based on the same evidence that made Bush look over there. However, he voted against sending more supplies (including body armor) over there. Oh, then look at his quote from the DNC:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."
THIS FROM THE GUY WHO VOTED NOT TO SEND MORE BODY ARMOR OVER THERE? There would be a helluva lot more families buying body armor had he had his way!
Next.

Now for every one of these reasons, I could have added some Bush bashing.Ah, um... *looks at first point*
Hmm...
No comment.

I tried to keep it to a minimum. If anyone is going to question this post, then I ask that you follow the same rules. Argue for Bush instead of against Kerry.Ah, but this is the case for Kerry, not the case against Bush. 99% of the Kerryites who responded here did nothing but attack Bush, now it's our turn to return the gesture.

There is no question about Carter.

But Clinton? How was he a disaster especially since he was the one that started digitising the military(at least modernising that aspect).Clinton cut: (let's see what I can remember)
300,000 active-duty troops
700,000 reserve troops
multiple aircraft carrier battle groups
intelligence spending

I think the total amount was somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 billion dollars of defense spending was cut from the budget by Clinton. Yet people still blame 9/11 on Bush...

Kerry won't stick his nose where it doesn't belong (ie. restricting civil rights, science, religion). I know people think that Bush might present a stronger military presence. This might be true. However, I don't see what good it is to fight for your country if the foundations of the country itself are being torn down behind you. I know this isn't a bash-Bush thread, but the truth is, if the Republican candidate wasn't a second-term candidate with extreme neo-con ideals, I'd be voting for the Republican candidate.

That said, the things that make me lean toward Kerry are:

1) He will get rid of the unnecessary restrictions Bush has placed on science. He is also unlikely to fire science advisors just because he doesn't want to hear what the evidence says.
2) He has said he will attempt to balance the budget. What I have seen of his past voting record shows that he holds to this and that he doesn't believe in spending imaginary money.
3) He won't back anything that involves writing discrimination into the Constitution.

I'm going to try to explain this. Being a liberal is not necessarily a good thing. The president is supposed to represent everyone, not just the left wing. That would be like me trying to tell you Bush is more qualified just because he is more right-wing.

But when one is somewhat left-wing and the other is extremely right-wing, aren't you going to vote for the one closer to your side of the spectrum.

I agree we must crack down on corporate corruption, but we must also do something about unions that ask for overinflated wages. The reason that jobs are leaving is because companies save money on wages by sending them elsewhere, meaning that they can afford to grow.

Do you know why they save money on wages elsewhere? It doesn't really have to do with the union - it has to do with the fact that people in other countries will work for sub-minimum wage. Why? They need the job bad enough. Once a company has been in an area long enough, they usually have to move on to another area, because (a) they often get sub-standard work due to language barriers and (b) the wages of their new employees start having to rise. Either way, it would be cheaper for the companies if they just stayed around here, instead of moving things around all the time.

He voted for Iraq based on the same evidence that made Bush look over there. However, he voted against sending more supplies (including body armor) over there. Oh, then look at his quote from the DNC:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."
THIS FROM THE GUY WHO VOTED NOT TO SEND MORE BODY ARMOR OVER THERE? There would be a helluva lot more families buying body armor had he had his way!
Next.

If you would actually read up on this incident, as I have, you would realize that there is much more to the story. Kerry voted *for* an amendment to this bill that would mean that it wasn't just deficit spending. Basically, he figured if we're going to spend more money, we have to get it from somewhere. Last I checked, that certainly is how I have to leave. He also knew that his vote would not swing the passing of the bill, because of how much support it had. His vote against it was a protest against spending lots of money we don't have, not against sending body armor to the troops.

If you would actually read up on this incident, as I have, you would realize that there is much more to the story. Kerry voted *for* an amendment to this bill that would mean that it wasn't just deficit spending. Basically, he figured if we're going to spend more money, we have to get it from somewhere. Last I checked, that certainly is how I have to leave. He also knew that his vote would not swing the passing of the bill, because of how much support it had. His vote against it was a protest against spending lots of money we don't have, not against sending body armor to the troops.But he'll capitalize on it anyway. The hypocracy I pointed out still stands.

i believe we should give bush the next 4 years and then vote in a good democrat to take care of things at home.
Things need to be taken care of in the middle east, and kerry will pull our troops home early because of politics and furhter smear americas image to everyone. We need to finish our job and then go home.
After wards we should have a good democrat ( like obama ) so we can all party :D

Just my opinion:
The Difference Between Bush and Kerry (well, A difference.)
Kerry prepares to handle the next 9/11.
Bush prepares to prevent the next 9/11.

Bush has obviously done something right, because there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

But he'll capitalize on it anyway.

Capitilze on what exactly? From what I've seen, he's gotten nothing but flack for the vote - I don't see how it has helped him at all.

Capitilze on what exactly? From what I've seen, he's gotten nothing but flack for the vote - I don't see how it has helped him at all.At the DNC, Kerry criticized the administration saying quote:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."

It's happening, he is pointing it out for political gain. Hence, he's capitalizing on it. However, he is being a hypocrite about it because he voted against a bill that supplied body armor for our troops. He is using that example to help tear down his opponent, but if he had had his way, there would be more families out there buying body armor because that bill wouldn't have been passed.

M'kay?

Now, I'd appreciate if everyone would get back to the original topic: is there a case for Kerry? If there is, make it. Or are the democrats just trying to get Bush out of office?

It is my belief that most democrats are voting for Kerry just to get Bush out of office. I think that this is very reckless. You don't put someone in the most powerful office in the world just to get someone else out. That's how Nixon and Hitler got elected. It's time the left tried to make a case for Kerry, and this is the place.

Note that this is the case for Kerry, not the case against Bush. I want you to tell why Kerry is better without basing your arguement on his not being George W. Bush. That means tell Kerry's credentials, and no, Vietnam ain't one of them. Being a veteran may look good on the campaign trail, but it doesn't mean that you are experienced with foreign policy. Anyone can pull a trigger.

Now's your chance. Without directly or indirectly flaming the Bush administration or having twenty thousand "Kerry won't"s in there, tell us what Kerry has done to deserve the presidency.Just refreshing the topic.

At the DNC, Kerry criticized the administration saying quote:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."

It's happening, he is pointing it out for political gain. Hence, he's capitalizing on it. However, he is being a hypocrite about it because he voted against a bill that supplied body armor for our troops. He is using that example to help tear down his opponent, but if he had had his way, there would be more families out there buying body armor because that bill wouldn't have been passed.

And again, you missed the point. He has said more than once that, if his vote might have possibly kept the bill from passing altogether, he would not have voted against it. His vote was simply a form of protest about passing a bill without providing a way to fund it.

M'kay?

Now, I'd appreciate if everyone would get back to the original topic: is there a case for Kerry? If there is, make it. Or are the democrats just trying to get Bush out of office?

Darlin, that was on topic. People posted reasons they are for Kerry, you refuted, you were refuted back. That's how a conversation works.

And again, you missed the point. He has said more than once that, if his vote might have possibly kept the bill from passing altogether, he would not have voted against it. His vote was simply a form of protest about passing a bill without providing a way to fund it.

M'kay?M'kay. It's just that it can be viewed that way. I don't think you should vote to make a statement, you should vote for what needs to be done. If too many senators had decided to "make a statement," our guys would be getting slaughtered over there.

Darlin, that was on topic. People posted reasons they are for Kerry, you refuted, you were refuted back. That's how a conversation works.Did you just call me "darling?"
*cricket starts chirping*
*somebody coughs*
I understand, I would just like to see people make a case for Kerry. If he gets into office, I want to know what to expect, and almost nobody has done that yet. I mean, this is the most powerful office in the most powerful country in the world. You don't give that to somebody just to get someone else out.

M'kay. It's just that it can be viewed that way. I don't think you should vote to make a statement, you should vote for what needs to be done. If too many senators had decided to "make a statement," our guys would be getting slaughtered over there.

Maybe voting to make a statement is bad, but that's part of the way things are done in the legislature.

Did you just call me "darling?"
*cricket starts chirping*
*somebody coughs*

No, I called you "darlin" (those of us in the south know the difference =). Don't take offense or anything, I do that to everyone eventually.

I understand, I would just like to see people make a case for Kerry. If he gets into office, I want to know what to expect, and almost nobody has done that yet. I mean, this is the most powerful office in the most powerful country in the world. You don't give that to somebody just to get someone else out.

You can expect that he will stop or at least slow the government trying to make science into politics. You can expect that he will *not* back a gay marriage amendment ban, but nor will he back recognition of gay marriages. You can expect that he will leave troops in Iraq and continue to try and catch Osama (as anything else would be political suicide) but will not extend the military to anywhere else without an extremely good reason. He will most likely try to patch things up with other countries, while trying to keep from doing so much that this one hates him. You can expect that he won't do anything *too* liberal, because he will be worried about reelection in 2008.

Basically, like any first term president, you can expect him to try and do what he thinks is best for the country, while simultaneously trying to keep as much of the constituency happy as possible in hopes of reelection.