NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an undecided. Your "mission" on this thread is to make me want to vote for a presidential canidate.Other parties can join to. In this debate who is the best canidate and why. Also debate topics such as abortion, gun control, etc.There are rules for this though.

1. Do not bash other peoples ideas or who they are voting for. Don't bash Bush or Kerry or any of the other parties and their canidates.

2. Do not bash othe peoples veiws. Be respectful of other peoples ideas.

3. No swearing or beeping out swears. No smilies that are meant to show offensive language.

4. Be polite. i know this sounds stupid but whenever someone starts to be rude everything falls apart.

If you do not follow these rules you will be punished You will lose "points" which shall be kept by me. These points shall determine who I will side with eventually. If you make a better statement then you will get more points.
So lets begin.

Ugh...

Being liberal simply means being open to new ideas. Bush, stubborn as he is, is not, though few would really argue that he is. Kerry isn't either, as far as I can tell- his stance is determined by politics. This is simply Bush v. Kerry. Don't disgrace the word liberal.

wrong, liberal measn freedom in everything
less governmental control etc...
and is NOT communist (the opposite of it)

Vote Kerry because Bush misled us into a war, and then botched the invasion into a quagmire. We'll be in Iraq for years, and it's Bush's fault. He should be impeached. Don't reward his near-treasonous actions.

wrong, liberal measn freedom in everything
less governmental control etc...
and is NOT communist (the opposite of it)

what do you mean less government control? that's conservatism... conservatism = just letting free market economy go on its own, and liberalism = intervene into the economy

and, no, it's not communism. more socialism (a.k.a un-totalitarian communism).

bramia, quite frankly i'm speechless. Your utter lack of knowledge on this subject makes me wonder if you're 3 years old, or just a european who's been brainwashed by his socialist nation.

oh sorry, did i violate the rules of the post? too bad :D

Here you go.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
That amounts to open-minded. Also, one who is liberal doesn't have to oppose the current order. He or she just has to give fair consideration to the alternatives. I consider neither candidate to be liberal.

what do you mean less government control? that's conservatism... conservatism = just letting free market economy go on its own, and liberalism = intervene into the economy

and, no, it's not communism. more socialism (a.k.a un-totalitarian communism).
conservatism is different in every nation (search it)
and you americans probably dont really know what liberalism is
it IS making a freeer market
maybe i should post a phew links:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

this was something i found about liberalism
i haven't read it
so i dunno whats in there but i know i'm right

personal and, especially, economic freedom.

lol that was one of the first things i read on that link :rolleyes:

The trouble you're going to run into here is that the debate is heated. The public is split and nobody really knows what to think anymore.


I'm not going to bother convincing you either way, because in the end, I think you'll figure out who you want to vote for. I'll just give you the same advice I give my students.

Check either candidate's websites and read about their platforms. Do so with a critical eye because they're bound to try to sway bias in their favor. Examine the current situations (based on fact, not accusation) and decide whether you think the nation has taken a positive turn, a negative turn, or stayed the same. If you think things need to change, leaving current administrators almost never helps. If you want to change things, whether you agree with the opposing candidate or not, the only steadfast way to affect change is to change administrations. If you like them the way they are, leave things as they are and re-elect.

When in doubt, check www.factcheck.org and straighten out the facts. They've got good, unbiased sources. They also have TONS of information regarding the debate information, candidate ads, and accusations. :) Best of luck.

EDIT: I'm officially a Kerry supporter, but these were my methods when I decided who to vote for... I'm also a teacher, so I'm always uncomfortable trying to "convince" someone to vote one way or the other. I'd rather you make your own decision based on your indisputable research :).

If you look at the typical Right-Left chart

Socialist - Liberal - Centrist - Conservative - Far Right

Then there's of course the Authoritarian-Anarchic dimension. Communist being Authoritarian Socialist and, Facsism being Far Right Authoritarianism. Then there's Anarchic Socialism and, Anarcho-Capitalism being the Left-Right of Anarchism. Bush would be Far Right or even Fascistic, Kerry would be Centrist, perhaps leaning towards Liberalism.

I am an undecided. Your "mission" on this thread is to make me want to vote for a presidential canidate.Other parties can join to. In this debate who is the best canidate and why. Also debate topics such as abortion, gun control, etc.There are rules for this though.
I am a supporter of Kerry. This is, for the most part, for reasons which you have already heard a thousand times over, so I won't bother to restate them.

Basically, it comes down to one question. Ask yourself, if you feel you are better off now than you were four years ago. In terms of the economy, in terms of social issues, in terms of security. If the answer is yes, vote for Bush. If the answer is no, vote for Kerry.

Really, I don't care how you vote. As long as you vote. In that capacity, even if I disagree with your vote, I will have respect for your desicion. I reserve no respect for those who choose not to vote.

Read both candidates' platforms.

http://www.georgewbush.com/
http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

Or... just go third-party...

http://badnarik.org/ - Libertarian
http://www.votecobb.org/ - Green
http://www.votesocialist.org/ - Socialist
http://www.peroutka2004.com/ - Constitution
http://www.votenader.org/ - ...Independent

Among many others.

But given the track record of George W. Bush, I would advise against voting Bush. But then again, people view track records differently.

Oh! Oh! Nader! I liked Sharpton and Kucinich more than Kerry... Dean was better, too. But only because if you piss him off, he turns green and smashes stuff.

Just kidding.

It's really hard to say liberal/conservative, simply because there's a lot of variation. For a time, there was a pro-choice republican group. There are pro-life democrats who believe in less government and more civil rights. *shrug* It has a lot to do with stereotypes, and if you count economic policies and state policies. I mean, if it all comes to it, Stalin and Hitler had lots in common.

what do you mean less government control? that's conservatism... conservatism = just letting free market economy go on its own, and liberalism = intervene into the economy

and, no, it's not communism. more socialism (a.k.a un-totalitarian communism).

Just clearing something up, traditional conservatism does advocate less government control. Look to the Constitution Party for the clearest example of this (albeit with a heavy dose of Religious Right thrown in). Bush's administration is neo-conservative, an offshoot of the conservative movement that instead of advocating small government, actually seeks to expand the power of the government, both in military, and domestic issues.

You should read what the Constitution Party has to say about the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and even the Gay Marriage Amendment. As rabidly homophobic as the Constitution Party is, they saw that amendment as government just stepping on religion yet again, overstepping it's bounds yet again.

As for economic issues, you are still correct. Neocons still advocate free-markety lassez faire type capitalism, while liberals are into government regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.

Here is a copy of my Case Against George Bush. I lay out in concise terms why I think why I do:

Please feel free to distribute this letter to anyone that you wish. Thank you.


My fellow Americans, my fellow Ohioans...in three weeks the nation heads to the polls to choose the next President of the United States. We stand at a crossroads the likes of which the country has never seen, and we must choose wisely the road we wish to tread. We stand at the very brink of catastrophe, and yet hope remains that America will make the right choice on Election Day.

Four years ago, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, I was disappointed that George W. Bush was victorious, but at the time I was not overly disturbed. Bush had seemed like a compassionate and moderate Republican, just like his father. Although I did not agree with his social and economic priorities, I DID give the Republican high marks on national security and international affairs. I advocated a strong hand to deal with the threats of the new century, and I believed that George Bush was the man do it.

After the 9-11 attacks, my convictions regarding George Bush's actions crystallized. I strongly supported his invasion of Afghanistan, and then his invasion of Iraq. When he told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I did not need any proof. When he told us that Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together, I needed no proof. The word of President George W. Bush was enough for me.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

I began to hear whispers and see small, telltale signs that Bush's actions did not entirely match his words. People were arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act and imprisoned without charge, without access to lawyers, without contact to the outside world, for however long the Bush government deemed it "necessary" to hold them. John Ashcroft, Bush's own Attorney General and the leader of the Justice Department, has been cited at least twice already for using the Patriot Act in ways that Congress had not authorized. Many of those detained were never charged with any crime at all, much less terrorism.

The war in Iraq began to go wrong. A top United States general who insisted that we needed more troops in Iraq was forced into retirement by the Bush Administration. Intelligence reports from the State Department surfaced suggesting that U.S. policy in Iraq was flawed....reports that President Bush ignored. I was horrified to hear that Bush had rushed into the war with Iraq -so- quickly that large numbers of U.S. soldiers did not even have body armor to protect them. Their parents had to go shopping on the internet to buy suitable armor and MAIL it to their sons and daughters serving over in the Middle East. And through it all, the Bush Administration kept assuring us that we were winning the war...even as terrorists launched attack after attack and allied nations began to leave the country. I continued to BELIEVE in President Bush's word on Iraq.

Then the reasons for going to war against Iraq began to change after the fact. First, we invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we did not find any WMDs, we invaded because Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. When that claim was decisively disproven the new reason was, "To bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". 1,000 American fatalities later (not to mention the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who have so far been killed), large tracts of Iraq are no longer under U.S. control. Bandits roam freely creating a climate of lawlessness, and American soldiers are no longer the hunters....they are the hunted.

Do not mistake my purpose. The soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are some of America's best, and not even the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib can tarnish that completely. They fight for their nation even as their president flip-flops from one war rationale to another. They fight even though George W. Bush sent them in with insufficient equipment, intelligence, and numbers. It is not John Kerry who denigrates the soldiers in Iraq. but rather George Bush. Neither the President nor Dick Cheney are admitting the truth to the American public...either they can not or will not acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Indeed, they will not recognize the situation for what it is anywhere else in the world, either. In Afghanistan, the "free" elections Bush trumpeted in his second debate on Friday have already suffered a major setback...most of the candidates running for office there have withdrawn from the race, citing massive election fraud. Al-Qaida and the Taliban remain active in the southern parts of the country. Bush's speech on Friday illustrated his ignorance regarding the situation when he claimed to have "killed or captured 75% of Al-Qaida's leadership". Al-Qaida has surely appointed NEW leaders to replace those who have been taken out. And in this lies the very heart of the problem with George W. Bush's War on Terror.

Bush is very good at finding and killing current terrorists. Yet, that is only half the game. Terrorism is not a physical object, it's an idea...and no force in the course of human history has ever been able to completely destroy an idea. Bush CANNOT win the War on Terror simply by dropping bombs. You must address the underlying problems that spawned terrorists in the first place...and George W. Bush has shown NO interest in doing that. Take for example Saudi Arabia; we buy tons of oil from that country every year to fuel our economy and our gas-guzzling SUVs. Would it surprise you, then, to know that some wealthy Saudis are helping to FUND terrorists? Indeed, Osama Bin Laden himself is a former Saudi citizen. Every time you drive over to the gas station and fill the tank, you may unwittingly and indirectly fund terrorists. And what has the Bush Administration done to fix this problem? Nothing. It fought tighter vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It has done nothing to rebuke Saudi Arabia for supporting those terrorist organizations. It has also done nothing to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. This is not the liberal media attempting to deceive you, these are facts....policy statements made by the Bush Administration and a matter of public record.

Also a matter of public record is the growing anti-Americanism spreading over the globe. George Bush has, from the very beginning of his presidency (before AND after 9-11), consistently thumbed his nose up at the international community. He withdrew unilaterally from the Kyoto Treaty. He withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Nuclear Treaty. He invaded Iraq unilaterally. Bush claims to this day that he "worked with the UN" before going into Iraq. Yet, he would not have done so at all if it had not been for a large outcry both internationally and in Congress. Even the highly conservative Pat Buchanan noted, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do." George W. Bush has consistently pushed away other nations (even our allies and friends) at the EXACT time he should have been working to form closer bonds in order to prosecute the War On Terror. The United States CANNOT be everywhere in the world at once hunting terrorists. In order to direct a truly comprehensive and effective strategy to win the War On Terror, we MUST have the cooperation of our allies and friends abroad. Former presidents, like Ronald Reagan and the FIRST President Bush understood this. They understood that in order to achieve the objective (whether it was defeating the Soviet Union, repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or fighting global terrorism) that you need the cooperation of other nations because the sheer scope of the problem defies the efforts of any single nation to solve it. The United States did not attempt to contain the Soviet Union alone...it forged powerful alliances like NATO to ensure victory in the Cold War. By extension, the United States should not try to fight the global war on terror alone, either.

This argument lies at the very heart of the case against President Bush. His mistakes in Iraq, combined with his earlier behavior on the world stage, have completely alienated the United States. Longtime allies are refusing to support us because they have extreme difficulty working with George Bush. He is unwilling to admit his mistakes, unable to devise a plan to correct them. President Bush's credibility around the world (and by extension the credibility of the United States) is at an all-time low. Bush claimed during the Friday debate that being President means that you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes. That's true, but a President also has to take responsibility for his decisions, both good and bad...and the fact is, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror. When Kerry has pointed this out, Bush has accused him of "wanting to leave Saddam in power" which he KNOWS is nonsense. Saddam Hussein is an evil, vile, rapacious man...this is beyond debate. BUT HE WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The sanctions had effectively destroyed his ability to create weapons of mass destruction, as the final report to Congress regarding Iraq states. Even if Saddam still wanted to develop those weapons again once sanctions were gone, there were clearly other (and FAR less expensive) ways to keep him under control. Sanctions COULD have been reinforced by the United States. There are many tools available to the President other than the military with which to craft foreign policy. After 9-11 and before the Iraq War, Bush could have used the enormous worldwide goodwill to ask for new measures to contain and control Saddam Hussein short of war, thus leaving U.S. forces free for other anti-terrorist operations around the globe. But Bush didn't. He rushed into war for whatever reason, and now we are mired in Iraq with no clear exit strategy.

This isn't leadership. This is a mixture of George W. Bush's ignorance and impulsiveness coming home to roost. He has not made America more safe. In fact, he's made it LESS safe. He's made America less safe because: A.) He has wasted money and military strength in Iraq, leaving us unable to react to threats elsewhere. B.) He's inflamed anti-Americanism all over the world, creating vast new pools of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, and C.) He's severely damaged U.S. credibility and relations abroad which we NEED in order to fight the War On Terror. And worse yet, he's not trying to FIX these problems. He's instead attacking John Kerry, trying to paint him as a flip-flopping pacificst who would be worse at the job than Bush himself is. John Kerry may be many things, but he is NOT what Bush has tried to make him out to be. John Kerry is a Vietnam VOLUNTEER whose courage and determination is noted by both his commanding officers and his shipmates. John Kerry understands what is needed to win the War On Terror, and he understands that there is a difference between decisive leadership and plain old stubborness. This is why many former military commanders back his candidacy....it's because John Kerry has laid out a solid, cohesive, and logical plan for winning the War on Terror. George Bush has not. The ONLY reason Bush is not in deep trouble is because he's been running on 9-11. He can't exactly claim success on the economy...here in Ohio we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs under him. He can't claim success in foreign relations...Nixon went to China, but Bush only goes to Crawford. In light of that, he claims "catastrophic success" in the War on Terror, tries to hide the details of what is going on from the American public, and wages a ceaseless smear campaign against Kerry/Edwards. It's NOT right! America deserves better than -this-. Even members of the President's own party in Congress have said that his performance in Iraq is, and I quote, "Pathetic". Bush has made the centerpiece of his campaign, "You don't change horses" in the middle of a war.

Let me tell you something. If MY horse is galloping over the edge of a cliff, I am gonna move my ass to a new one. Quickly. I urge the rest of you to seriously consider doing the same.

-Written by an Ohioan

Message me if you go from being undecided to "decided". I'd like to know the outcome.

it seems people are confused about the views of little sub-sections of political ideology, so here goes,

facism - conservatism - libralism - socialism - communism

then theres anarchism (which is stupid and pointless) which isnt really anywhere on my handy diagram.

sadly, no parties really stick to these outlines, its all down to their personal opinions. I dont like to label myself, but if i had to choose id say liberal.

btw: im aware that i have probaly missed the point of this thread

Then you have the Libertarians, which defy categorizing.

They are mostly socially liberal, but very economically conservative (well, conservative in the American sense, which is the classical liberal sense).

Dear SARS Monkey,

This is an interesting idea, but so far I do not see many people making an argument, i.e. mustering facts in support of a particular political view. I imagine the reason is that, despite the labels freely lobbed around - liberal, conservative, progressive, neo-con - most Americans have not taken the time to formulate a coherent political philosophy. This especially applies to those who proudly "vote for the man, not the party."

While Ralph Nader, the Greens, the Libertarians, and others outside the two party system make excellent points about the similarities between the Democrats and Republicans, this year’s election does offer a contrast between two competing philosophies.

On one hand you have a traditional left-of-center Democrat in John Kerry. Kerry supports many of the ideas touted by American progressives for the past 30 years, including protection of the environment, entitlements for the middle class, and tolerance for diversity, as well as the more fiscally conservative ideas of the New Democrats, as represented by the Clintonian promise to balance the budget. Kerry’s foreign policy is fairly traditional – using the threat of a clear and present danger as the measure for committing U.S troops in foreign adventures, as well as a traditional reliance on building a strong coalition of allies.

On the other hand, however, the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, has broken from what have been traditional Republican, conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

While I have problems with the Democratic candidate, especially his early support for the war on Iraq and his vote for the Patriot Act, those concerns are outweighed by the dangers presented by the current administration. The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad makes this administration the most dangerous in American history and this election the most important in our lifetime.

Sincerely,

Kitango arap Teresit
chief of The Free Land of Ogiek

Other - vote Libertarian

They are a party which advocate both social and economic freedoms.

While I really do hope that third and forth parties take off in the new Century, I don't currently support voting for a third party candidate at the moment unless you were initially planning on supporting Bush. As I see it, none of the candidates on the alternate party ticket have a ghost of a chance at winning right now, and voting for them may deteriorate the focus from the bigger picture. Which of the two likely presidents do you align yourself more closely with? That's the bottom line. If you really don't identify with either of them or have any remote preference for either of their policies, go ahead and vote for someone else, otherwise you'll spend the next four years kicking yourself for throwing away your vote. Trust me, I should know.

Neocons still advocate free-markety lassez faire type capitalism, while liberals are into government regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.
Your post was right up to this point. Neo-cons are not really free-marketeers because they are heavily in favour of corporate welfare.

Your post was right up to this point. Neo-cons are not really free-marketeers because they are heavily in favour of corporate welfare.

They are? I need to do more research. I'm a Poli Sci major, this stuff is fascinating.