NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been looking at the presidential candidates and I really can't decide who to vote for. As different as they purport themselves to be the outcome seems the same. Four more years of machiavellian politics. Four more years of ruinously high spending we just can't afford. Four more years of the government riding roughshod over my rights, with the choice in candidates deciding whether it is predominantly economic or private. As of now I think I'm going to vote for a third party candidate like the libertarians, simply because I find his principles admirable. Can anybody make a good argument to sway me into either the republican or democratic camps?

I've been looking at the presidential candidates and I really can't decide who to vote for. As different as they purport themselves to be the outcome seems the same. Four more years of machiavellian politics. Four more years of ruinously high spending we just can't afford. Four more years of the government riding roughshod over my rights, with the choice in candidates deciding whether it is predominantly economic or private. As of now I think I'm going to vote for a third party candidate like the libertarians, simply because I find his principles admirable. Can anybody make a good argument to sway me into either the republican or democratic camps?

Voting "We'll take your money and shoot you." Republican: Who am I kidding? I can't think of any overwhelming reason to vote this way.

Voting "We'll take your money and your guns and give them to other people so they can shoot you." Democrat: No good argument for this other than that it won't be quite as bad as voting Republican.

You can write in a name, can't you?

You can write in a name, can't you?

Will I be throwing my vote away?

::vote independant::

because then if you want to have more REAL choices next election.

Part of me wants to vote for the lesser of two evils if I can even figure that out, but in the words of Badnarik, if you vote for evil you'll keep getting evil.

You shouldn't vote for one of the main two just because many others do - politics requires careful thought, not following the crowd.

The problem is, our government is going to be two party until the death of the political system as we know it, or at least a long long time. If you look its become so far entrenched that our political system has grown up around it. Think of how much undue power the executive branch would gain in a multi party system? Executive veto could pretty much destroy all but the purest of non-partison legislation due to fighting between everybody. And getting a president elected would include so much deal making between parties they would be political hostages to a thousand demands.

Terran, I will present my argument here in a few. It's forthcoming.

Why don't you vote for Christopher Reeve, or Rodney Dangerfield? Dead guys sometimes do pretty well in elections.

To clarify I'm only thinking of voting for 3rd parties as a form of protest, not because I believe they will win now or in the next five or so elections at least.

This election poses a terrible dilemma for me; you see I cannot really stand either of them. However, the issues dictate that a decision be made and the lesser of the two evils be chosen. Therefore, based on the following concerns of mine, I have decided to support Kerry.

1.) I do not like the erosion of civil rights that has transpired under Bush. For Example, the arrest and detention without due process.

2.) A tax break for the wealthiest 2%, while attempting to deny overtime benefits to skilled labor. His attempt to sign this measure into law was denied by the democrats.

3.) Iraq need I say more, this war was not about WMD (Weapons of mass destruction) but about oil!

At this time, I will limit my response to three items as I see that the red light is on and my turn is over…
I reserve the right of rebuttal on future responses…

Remember as a esteemed colleague so eloquently put it “Only love is spoken here” and be nice.

This election poses a terrible dilemma for me; you see I cannot really stand either of them. However, the issues dictate that a decision be made and the lesser of the two evils be chosen. Therefore, based on the following concerns of mine, I have decided to support Kerry.

1.) I do not like the erosion of civil rights that has transpired under Bush. For Example, the arrest and detention without due process.

2.) A tax break for the wealthiest 2%, while attempting to deny overtime benefits to skilled labor. His attempt to sign this measure into law was denied by the democrats.

3.) Iraq need I say more, this war was not about WMD (Weapons of mass destruction) but about oil!

At this time, I will limit my response to three items as I see that the red light is on and my turn is over…
I reserve the right of rebuttal on future responses…

Remember as a esteemed colleague so eloquently put it “Only love is spoken here” and be nice.

While close, the Iraq war is no longer about oil. Originmally it was and Kerry voted for that bill to pay for our troops with that oil. But Bush saw that polls were against oil and had his loyal repubs vote against it.

But one would think when you make a mistake you admit it. Bush has yet to admit it. Not being sorry is anti-Jesus so one would wonder where is loyalties lie. (Note: Bush has the lowest church record of any President)

I can't exactly believe I am saying this, considering what I was taught in school and what I supposedly believe in. But I'm so desperate to prevent George W. Bush from being elected to a second term that many of my previous political operating conditions have been suspended. I hope that signals just how dangerous I think that Bush is to America.

In addition, I've never volunteered to aid a political campaign before in my life. I'm now working with the Kerry campaign here in Ohio, donating little bits of money that I can free up from my college budget and putting in hours where I can sneak them in. Again, a sign of how wrong I think Bush is on the issues.

But aside from that, I've had the fortune to meet Senator Kerry during an unscheduled campaign rally in Troy, Ohio. He told the buses to stop, walked out through reeds and God-knows what else, and began shaking our hands. There must have been 1,500 people there, but he went down the length of the line, shaking our hands. He has this power about him to electrify a crowd that doesn't quite make it through his TV appearances. I can easily see the man as President of the United States.

Aside from that, I believe in the Kerry platform. I think that America should be able to fund schools, health care, and protect the environment. George Bush claims we can't do it, but it was HIS decisions that made this whole situation possible. And most importantly, I don't buy the line of thought that says only Bush can protect us. Kerry is a former soldier, and despite the vicious attacks on him by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bus...I mean Truth, I still believe in the Senator.

Part of me wants to vote for the lesser of two evils if I can even figure that out, but in the words of Badnarik, if you vote for evil you'll keep getting evil.

That makes the assumption that Badnarik and the Liberts are good.

Even the Demos and Repubs point the finger at each other and scream EVIL!!!!!!

Vote Libertarian - they are big on both economic and social freedoms.

That makes the assumption that Badnarik and the Liberts are good.

Even the Demos and Repubs point the finger at each other and scream EVIL!!!!!!

Oh lord knows if the libs ever got full control of the government it would be.... interesting. But I think well checked by congress and the courts Bad could do little harm and in many cases alot of good. I dont agree with his Iraq plan in particular, which advocates a 14 day withdrawl from Iraq. Needless to say what would ensue would be one of the most horrible civil wars the area has seen in a while, and probably an eventual fall back into a religious dictatorship. We owe the Iraqi people more than that, whether we should have gone there or not. But again, he wont win, so its a non issue at least for the time being.

As for other peoples arguments.... you're really not making many good ones sorry to say. Alot of it seemed to focus around 2 things. The first is character. This is telling of candidates but I certainly would not rely on it. Stalin was charismatic, so was Saddam Hussein. Hitler was one of the most charismatic men of the twentieth century. Dangerous charismatics often lead entire countries to ruin. As for Bush's policies on Iraq, its no longer an issue. While they wont admit it, both their exit strategies are very similar in the end. I'm interested mainly in the fiscal policies they will pursue, and it isn't looking good.

I know I've beaten this article I wrote to death, but here it is in case you missed it. It's my big gun. ;)

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

I'm interested mainly in the fiscal policies they will pursue, and it isn't looking good.
Even as a Bush supporter I'll say that both Bush and Kerry's plans don't look good at reducing the deficit. Bush wants to extend all the tax cuts, Kerry wants to raise taxes back to previous levels on the riches but give a cut to the other 98% of Americans, no matter what partisans on both sides say about plans to "reduce discretionary spending" or "cut waste", neither is going to have a balanced budget.

Voting "We'll take your money and shoot you." Republican: Who am I kidding? I can't think of any overwhelming reason to vote this way.

Voting "We'll take your money and your guns and give them to other people so they can shoot you." Democrat: No good argument for this other than that it won't be quite as bad as voting Republican.

LOL. Yeah thats basically how it is.

Vote Libertarian - they are big on both economic and social freedoms.

Sure they're the next best thing to anarchy. Just more organized and controlled.

Ideological libertarians go too far for me, but I think they have the right idea. The federal government has gone too far. Bureaucratic redundancy and consumption has become shockingly large. The government continues to bail out failing businesses that aren't even vital to national infrastructure. We continue to make it the government’s job to provide services to people the private sector could do better and cheaper. And you get the bill.

Don't let the speeches fool you. Bush and Kerry both are going to spend money we don't have. They'll rant about fiscal responsibility, but when it comes down to it they'll fall back on what they both did in the past, spend. And they've done it in spades. Bush has presided over one of the biggest increases in government size and spending in recent history. Kerry has continually backed high taxation and deficit spending to fund his grand social plans. So when they make all these promises to you, just keep in mind what it will cost.

Well, part of the way Kerry is proposing to pay for his programs is to reduce beaurocratic redundancy. He has also stated, quite clearly, that if it comes to a choice between eliminating some of his pet projects and working towards a balanced budget (no one thinks it can be done in the short-term,) he's be willing to let his projects slide.

I can not recall Bush ever saying anything like this, though I may be wrong.

Well, part of the way Kerry is proposing to pay for his programs is to reduce beaurocratic redundancy. He has also stated, quite clearly, that if it comes to a choice between eliminating some of his pet projects and working towards a balanced budget (no one thinks it can be done in the short-term,) he's be willing to let his projects slide.

I can not recall Bush ever saying anything like this, though I may be wrong.

They both say that will not raise taxes or deficit spend. They're also both lying. Look at Kerry's record of spending outside of the precious few examples of fiscal responsibility he cites constantly such as voting to balance the budget in congress. He has always been a hardcore liberal fan of big government. His plan involves cutting the deficit 500 billion dollars while simultaneously implamenting his 895 billion dollar medicare plan. And thats not a "pet project" he's serious about it. How's he going to close the gap? Well, he says he'll save 139 billion by repealing Bush's drug laws, which is highly suspect to begin with. But assuming it is true, he still has a mighty big gap to close. Somethings gonna give, he'll either abandon his plan to slash the deficit, or he's gonna tax the pants off you. Business taxes, estate taxes, income taxes. When asked about how he could pull off all his outrageous claims a campaign advisor for Kerry was quotes as saying, "John's not the president yet. When he becomes the president he'll send up a whole budget.". Not exactly the assurance I'm looking for. I dare you to find a comprehensive plan from john kerry that includes all figures and balances out.

They both say that will not raise taxes or deficit spend. They're also both lying. Look at Kerry's record of spending outside of the precious few examples of fiscal responsibility he cites constantly such as voting to balance the budget in congress. He has always been a hardcore liberal fan of big government. His plan involves cutting the deficit 500 billion dollars while simultaneously implamenting his 895 billion dollar medicare plan. And thats not a "pet project" he's serious about it. How's he going to close the gap? Well, he says he'll save 139 billion by repealing Bush's drug laws, which is highly suspect to begin with. But assuming it is true, he still has a mighty big gap to close. Somethings gonna give, he'll either abandon his plan to slash the deficit, or he's gonna tax the pants off you. Business taxes, estate taxes, income taxes. When asked about how he could pull off all his outrageous claims a campaign advisor for Kerry was quotes as saying, "John's not the president yet. When he becomes the president he'll send up a whole budget.". Not exactly the assurance I'm looking for. I dare you to find a comprehensive plan from john kerry that includes all figures and balances out.


It is true that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes...based on the same way of calculating that the Republicans used, Kerry voted to lower taxes 650 times. This is the side Republicans don't tell you. Labels, as Kerry said, don't always fit.

I've been looking at the presidential candidates and I really can't decide who to vote for. As different as they purport themselves to be the outcome seems the same. Four more years of machiavellian politics. Four more years of ruinously high spending we just can't afford. Four more years of the government riding roughshod over my rights, with the choice in candidates deciding whether it is predominantly economic or private. As of now I think I'm going to vote for a third party candidate like the libertarians, simply because I find his principles admirable. Can anybody make a good argument to sway me into either the republican or democratic camps?

Voting for a third party candidate would definitely be a good idea. If you're liberal, go for Nader or Cobb. If you're conservative, go for Peroutka. If you want a microscopic government that leaves people the hell alone, go for Badnarik. If you want more massive spending, interventionism abroad, huge government, etc., vote for Bush or Kerry.

I honestly dont give a rip what the republicans will say. Both their numbers are painfully skewed.

I honestly dont give a rip what the republicans will say. Both their numbers are painfully skewed.

Well, what do you want to talk about then? Help me out here. What are you zeroing on to here to help you decide?

If you like how things are going based on what you know, go with Bush.

If you want a change, even if it's minutely infintesimal, vote Kerry

If you want to stand on principle and reject the major parties, vote for your ideological match in the hope of promoting third parties at the expense of your vote helping to determine who gains the Whitehouse.

If you are disgusted by politics in general, don't vote.

If no one meets your requirements, resolve youself to run in 2008 (or whenever you qualify.)

If you like how another country does things, move.

Did I miss anything?

No, not change. A reasonable facsimile of change. Same policies, same problems. I think I'll stick with badnirak.

Lets see what old johnny's been up to in the budget and finance catagory this year (which is to say nothing of all the other catagories he votes to enlarge).

Didn't vote on the three major budget bills in 2004

In 2003 he voted no to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

In 2003 he voted no to pass a bill that would reduce taxes by $350 billion in fiscal 2004.

In 2003 he voted no to adopt the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would establish broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years.

In 2003 he voted no to adopt the concurrent resolution to approve an 11-year budget plan that calls for a 10-year package with $350 billion in tax cuts, a $400 billion Medicare overhaul and $791 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2004.

In 2003 he voted yes to pass an amendment that would strike or remove, language in the resolution, S.ConRes 23, that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

This is all from Kerry's record at www.vote-smart.org if anybody wonders. It looks like poor Johhny isn't doing too well. Maybe if we look back farther....
2002... uh oh.
2001 Not a whole lot better. Voted to increase the salaries of legislative employees (gee, wonder how that happened).
2000 Attempted to shoot down most tax reduction bills and ammend them when they passed.

I didn't check back further but (as Kerry himself has said) he is not a flip flopper, and I trust he held a standard position.

I can't exactly believe I am saying this, considering what I was taught in school and what I supposedly believe in. But I'm so desperate to prevent George W. Bush from being elected to a second term that many of my previous political operating conditions have been suspended. I hope that signals just how dangerous I think that Bush is to America.

In addition, I've never volunteered to aid a political campaign before in my life. I'm now working with the Kerry campaign here in Ohio, donating little bits of money that I can free up from my college budget and putting in hours where I can sneak them in. Again, a sign of how wrong I think Bush is on the issues.

But aside from that, I've had the fortune to meet Senator Kerry during an unscheduled campaign rally in Troy, Ohio. He told the buses to stop, walked out through reeds and God-knows what else, and began shaking our hands. There must have been 1,500 people there, but he went down the length of the line, shaking our hands. He has this power about him to electrify a crowd that doesn't quite make it through his TV appearances. I can easily see the man as President of the United States.

Aside from that, I believe in the Kerry platform. I think that America should be able to fund schools, health care, and protect the environment. George Bush claims we can't do it, but it was HIS decisions that made this whole situation possible. And most importantly, I don't buy the line of thought that says only Bush can protect us. Kerry is a former soldier, and despite the vicious attacks on him by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bus...I mean Truth, I still believe in the Senator.


On the stop part, both candidates do that sort of thing. I have run across 'em both on these "unplanned stops", the secret service, who guards both candidates, would never allow a truly unplanned stop, unplanned stops are just optional things they do if they have enough time.

I also contest the soldier part, but on a different ground. Service in the military is a minimal factor in most elections. Bob Dole served the hell out of his right arm in WWII, and Clinton, a draft dodger got elected (not necessarily a bad thing). Military service often will cloud a presidents judgement actually. They will think of the military in terms of their service time, often times superimposing their memories of their service over what is currently happening (and past experience rarely applies to warfare). On the same note, Bush's national guard service also is a detriment of sorts.

Admittedly, with military service a president is able to put himself in the shoes of the soldier, but once again I think that is possibly a bad thing, because then the CIC cannot objectively view a situation, and may attempt to spare lives in skipping a potentially vital objective.

I agree with Badnarik's statement. Read up on Badnarik, Nader, Peroutka and anyone else on the ballot. If you find yourself agreeing with them about 65% of the time, then vote for them. It won't get them elected this time, but in 4 years, they might receive enough votes to qualify for federal funding and be able to put out more ads, get more attention and get more votes in the next election, and continue this cycle. So, don't be a pessimist about third party candidates. Think of the future, and fight for tomorrow. About this, I shall paraphrase Ben Franklin.

I saw a man on a doorstep with his son next to him and a crowd gathered around him. The man was railing against the Revolution saying "Peace in my time". I looked at his son and though, he who wishes for peace in his time over his childrens time, deserves tyranny.

That was probably the most compelling post in my view. Its just a pity all it did was reaffirm my intentions.

That was probably the most compelling post in my view. Its just a pity all it did was reaffirm my intentions.

Do what you intended to then. No one knows better what you want to do than yourself.

Look at Kerry's record of spending outside of the precious few examples of fiscal responsibility he cites constantly such as voting to balance the budget in congress. He has always been a hardcore liberal fan of big government.
In 2003 he voted no to adopt the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would establish broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years.

In 2003 he voted no to adopt the concurrent resolution to approve an 11-year budget plan that calls for a 10-year package with $350 billion in tax cuts, a $400 billion Medicare overhaul and $791 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2004.

...

It looks like poor Johhny isn't doing too well.Both of those are votes against spending increases. You complained about him not being fiscally responsible enough and then complained about two votes against increasing spending and some other votes against decreasing revenue. If you want a fiscally responsible president, the votes you sited make it look like poor Johnny is actually doing well.

Here are your choices:
Kerry--meh
Bush--this fucker's gonna get us all killed
Badnarik--can't win, but at least I'm not voting for one of the others
Nader--I'm a shadow of my former self, so stroke my ego and make me happy
Cobb--his motto seems to be "Vote for me if it won't fuck Kerry."

I know there are other candidates, but that's as far as I'm going. :D

I've been looking at the presidential candidates and I really can't decide who to vote for. As different as they purport themselves to be the outcome seems the same. Four more years of machiavellian politics. Four more years of ruinously high spending we just can't afford. Four more years of the government riding roughshod over my rights, with the choice in candidates deciding whether it is predominantly economic or private. As of now I think I'm going to vote for a third party candidate like the libertarians, simply because I find his principles admirable. Can anybody make a good argument to sway me into either the republican or democratic camps?

Your current plan is the best one. Neither Bush nor Kerry is going to ruin this country, but they're not going to make it better either. A vote for either one is a wasted vote.

Both of those are votes against spending increases. You complained about him not being fiscally responsible enough and then complained about two votes against increasing spending and some other votes against decreasing revenue. If you want a fiscally responsible president, the votes you sited make it look like poor Johnny is actually doing well.

Yes, in this case he is being fiscally repsonsible, but he's doing it through a policy of continually raising taxes. His irresponsability comes more in his bloated social plans, which while well meaning and noble, are often far too ambitious for their own good. High taxation is the other thing about kerry that irks me. My train of thought is getting a little eratic but try to stay with me when I randomly change rants. ;)

That was more in the context of my conversation with Gymoor about how Kerry plans to balance the budget.
Somethings gonna give, he'll either abandon his plan to slash the deficit, or he's gonna tax the pants off you.

Will I be throwing my vote away?

If you don't want to vote for Bush or Kerry, vote for Nader. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not because he has no chance of winning. However. The more votes he gets the more of a statement is made, and the more the Coke-or-Pepsi part will feel like they have to actually pay attention to what the people want.

Anyway, I urge you to vote against Bush. Right now, the only effective way to do that is to vote for Kerry. True, he's weak on shoving their shit back in the Republican's faces, and he's too nuanced and thoughtful and not articulate enough (or simple enough) to get his views accross to a lot of people. However while he might not make a great president, he will certainly make a much better one than Bush. There comes a time when third party supporters have to look at the possibility of the greater of the two evils winning and put priniciples aside temporarily for survival.

I dare you to find a comprehensive plan from john kerry that includes all figures and balances out.

I honestly dont give a rip what the republicans will say. Both their numbers are painfully skewed.

Um, maybe I'm missing something, but aren't these statements inherently contradictory? You want something from John Kerry that details his ENTIRE budget proposal, but that doesn't use Kerry's figures? I'm baffled. Gymoor asked you to zero in what exactly the standards for the information you're looking for are, and I think it seems like a fair question to ask.

Yes, in this case he is being fiscally repsonsible, but he's doing it through a policy of continually raising taxes. His irresponsability comes more in his bloated social plans, which while well meaning and noble, are often far too ambitious for their own good. High taxation is the other thing about kerry that irks me. My train of thought is getting a little eratic but try to stay with me when I randomly change rants. ;)

That was more in the context of my conversation with Gymoor about how Kerry plans to balance the budget.

It seems to me that the charges of high taxation are just the old conservative buggaboo that gets hauled out every four years to use against any democratic cantidate. The only thing Kerry has proposed adding to government (from what I have heard, feel free to correct me) is health coverage. Of course those in favour of little if any government aid for the poor are going to oppose this. But anyway, the poor are covered, at least a little. It is the lower middle class who cannot afford to buy it and do not qualify for government help.

It also seems to me that the conservatives' complaints of having to pay for health coverage for the middle class were what kept Clinton from solving the problem. (Again, I know some readers do not consider it a problem and think the government should not help people survive. To them I say: suck it.) That and that his very compitent wife was given the job, and there's still plenty of cheuvanists voting these days who think first ladies should just head charities. You remember Clinton? He failed to balence the budget too, you know. He ran a surplus! Bush has gotten us up to a four trillion dollar debt by running the biggest defecit ever.

So forget about those horrible overspending Democrats, puh-lease! All Kerry has proposed, to pay for this plan is to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the upper $200,000+ earners, which means making the rest permenent, btw. Of course the Swifties will tell you we can't trust his word. Well why not? We trusted George Sr's word when he said "read my lips", so it's not like the Dems are the ones with a record of promise breaking. Oh, and he also proposes doing this with a balanced budget by, if needed, if filled with pork, actually vetoing spending bills, something Bush has never done. The wars are costing a lot, Iraq and Terrorism, but a president who cut taxes while he never met a budget he didn't like (and he sure likes bacon!) is what has got us where we are, with the biggest debt and defecit ever.

George W. is not a conservative. Even Reagan knew how to send it back and say "less pork please", although he did give us a staggering debt, defecit and unemployment rate. George W. is a neocon. He believes that God has put him in office because Armageddon is in sight, and therefor the environment and the economy do not matter. He is dangerous, wicked and stupid. He just doesn't have time to worry about the debt, because the world will end soon anyway and he and his will ascend to Heaven while the rest of us are locked in the outer darkness for 1000 years, awaiting the Day of Judgement and the Lake of Fire.

He Must Be Stopped.

If you're not in a swing state, close your eyes and draw a name out of a hat.

If you're in a swing state, vote Kerry.

That's all.

There comes a time when third party supporters have to look at the possibility of the greater of the two evils winning and put priniciples aside temporarily for survival.

I see them both as pretty great evils, so I really think I'll stick with voting on principle. At least that way I know I'm not compromising my values to elect somebody whos policy I cant stand.

You want something from John Kerry that details his ENTIRE budget proposal, but that doesn't use Kerry's figures? I'm baffled.

I'd like to see the kerry campaign put forth any sort of viable proof that their budget plan isn't complete fallacy or nonexistant, from anybody, kerry included. Again, my skewed numbers comment was in the context of the two political parties attacking each other. Namely Kerry on lowering or raising taxes.

[rant]It seems to me that the charges of high taxation are just the old conservative buggaboo that gets hauled out every four years to use against any democratic cantidate. Ect ect.

You seem to be arguing under the pretense that I'm a supporter of Bush. A review of my posts will show that nothing is further from the truth. I would support Kerry before Bush, but currently I dont support either of them. Bush will continue his trend of reckless spending. Kerry is still a toss up. He is going to either have to raise taxes, abandon some of his plans, or abandon his 500 billion def slash. I would be happy to vote for him if he'd just show me more than alot of soothsay and baseless plans with no actual framework for paying for these things.

If you're not in a swing state, close your eyes and draw a name out of a hat.

If you're in a swing state, vote Kerry.

That's all.

What a compelling argument. Did you read any previous posts?

As I've said before, Kerry did say, straight out, that if some of his programs got in the way of balancing the budget, that he would cut them.

Now, believe Kerry or not, but Bush has made no such pledge, and has never seen a spending bill he didn't like. This is fact.

It's the choice between uncertainty, or certainty of evil.

It'll never pass, but I really like the idea of the line-item veto, as long as it goes back to Congress for approval (since it's not the President's Constitutional duty to legislate.) This is something Kerry has proposed. Bush, again, has not. Why would he? His party is in power in all 3 branches.

More than anything, I fear all 3 branches being controlled by a single party. It means their partisan programs, whichever party they represent, go on unchecked.

It means their partisan programs, whichever party they represent, go on unchecked.
Like affirmative action and abortion?

Bush has made no such pledge, and has never seen a spending bill he didn't like. This is fact.

At least Bush admits to being a spendaholic and proud of it. Kerry is not being candid about his plans, and I have no respect for that. His "buy in" speech didn't really answer any questions about funding as I *think* it was intended to.

Like affirmative action and abortion?

...and faith-based initiatives and corporate welfare.

If you like everything the way it is, then vote Bush. You already know how he works and what his agenda entails.

If you don't like the way things are and want everything to be the opposite, vote for Kerry. He is almost the exact opposite of Bush.

If you don't like the way things are, but you don't completely agree with Kerry, then vote for Nader. Sure it's basically throwing your vote away because Nader has no chance in winning this time around, but at least it gives the Green party a chance to sit at the big table next time around.

No one really can tell you how to vote. It all depends on you and your views of how you think things should be. That's the beauty of this country. You have the right to your own opinions. Just figure out if you want things to stay exactly the same or if you want the country and world to be different than the last four years.

If you're not in a swing state, close your eyes and draw a name out of a hat.

If you're in a swing state, vote Kerry.

That's all.

No, I disagree. If you are not in a swing state, vote third party to give them more support.

If you're in a swing state, vote third party. But if you feel you have to cast a vote to one of two evils, vote Kerry.

At least Bush admits to being a spendaholic and proud of it. Kerry is not being candid about his plans, and I have no respect for that. His "buy in" speech didn't really answer any questions about funding as I *think* it was intended to.Did you consider that maybe the reason John Kerry doesn't say he's proud of being a spendaholic is that he really isn't a spendaholic? He has already supported pay as you go policies, voted against pork-laden bills, and supported a constitutional amendment to add a line-item veto. Now he's promising to veto pork-laden bills and give up his own earmarks in order to reduce the deficit. His record says he'll cut spending; his promises say he'll cut spending. If you think John Kerry will increase spending by $2.2 trillion and has voted 350 or 98 times to raise taxes because George W Bush says so, get ready to regret it like the people who believed Bush when he said that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.

I'm personally for Senator John Kerry, but I don't really believe it's going to be "Freedom Armageddon" if George W. Bush wins. Why? Here's why:

-How much has freedom really gone down? Okay, there's The Patriot Act, but do people "disappear" at night if they're caught not agreeing with Bush?

-Last time I checked, abortion was still legal in the U.S. I have reason to believe, with the issue being divisive, that it still will be well into the future, as no one will want to touch the issue lest a massive protest ensues.

-Unreasonable declarations/actions happened before Bush. It was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who initiated the Kosovo strikes, and it was under Clinton that the (silly) debate over video game violence and their relation to the Columbine massacres occured.

-Kerry's no friend of same-sex marriage either

-Last, but not least, Bush has to allow Dick Cheney to get elected. The last thing he'd want to do is anger even more people so as to render a Cheney campaign hopeless.

If you vote for George Bush:

The upper 2% of Americans will continue to recieve a tax break.
These are people that earn over 200,000 dollars a year.
The same people who simply have more money.
The idea behind this is that if these people are given a tax break, then they can afford to hire more workers, and more jobs are created.

The problem is that these people are greedy.
Thats how they got rich in the first place.
They arent going to waste that money by paying more workers.

Another nation or two will be invaded.
Possibly including, but not limited to:
Syria.
N. Korea
Iran.
Pakistan.(This would probably be allowed by the Paki Gov.)
Bush will continue to spend billions waging war.
Education will continue to be underfunded.
The economy will steadily decline, as the administration bankrupts the nation.


If you vote for Kerry.

Stem Cell research will be funded.
The tax cut will be given back to the middle class, like under Clinton.( Keep in mind that under Clinton, the U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, EVER.)
Education will be better funded, but not nesesscarily better.
No other nations will be wrongfully invaded at the cost of over 1,100 American lives, and tens of thousands of Foreign lives.
The U.S will begin to make freinds with the rest of the world again.
We can restore our Foreign Policies.
The U.S will not pre-emptively strike another nation without U.N support
The average household will make more money than they did the previous year.


Wich one sounds better to the sane person?

-Kerry's no friend of same-sex marriage either

True.
But at least Kerry wants it to be a state issue, and not a Federal one.
That means that it will come to a vote.

Can anybody make a good argument to sway me into either the republican or democratic camps?

Yes, I believe I could make a good argument for why you should vote for George W. Bush. However, I don't think it's my place, or anyone else's, to make up your mind. Do your research on the candidates (even the smaller parties and independents) and make your own mind up. Here's why: pro-Bush people are going to give you all the great points about their guy. They'll boast about the good things and sugarcoat the bad things. As for the pro-Kerry contingent, they'll give you all the great points about their guy. They'll boast about the good things and sugarcoat the bad things. See my point? Either way, you're not going to get a true picture unless you get the facts for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Do I hope that would lead you to a Bush vote? Of course. But that's for you to decide.

BADNARIK!



...or just stay home.

And read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north311.html).

True.
But at least Kerry wants it to be a state issue, and not a Federal one.
That means that it will come to a vote.

Does anyone even get why Bush took it to a Federal level? The states weren't upholding what was on the books. Mass., Calif., etc. were letting gays/lesbians get married despite the state laws. So the states weren't living up to their end. Therefore Bush brought it to a Federal level. Do I agree with it as a Federal issue? No. But, do I agree that something needed to be done when state laws were being blatantly broken? Yes. (FYI - I actually support gay unions.)

It'll never pass, but I really like the idea of the line-item veto, as long as it goes back to Congress for approval (since it's not the President's Constitutional duty to legislate.) This is something Kerry has proposed. Bush, again, has not. Why would he? His party is in power in all 3 branches.

I strongly encourage you not to support a line-item veto. The President is the most powerful of the 3 branches. If you let him cherry-pick from proposed legislation, it'll be even worse. When the President doesn't like an aspect of the a bill he can veto the whole thing.

I strongly encourage you not to support a line-item veto. The President is the most powerful of the 3 branches. If you let him cherry-pick from proposed legislation, it'll be even worse. When the President doesn't like an aspect of the a bill he can veto the whole thing.

Did you only read half my quote?

In a line item veto, doesn't congress have to revote on the bill as modified by the president?

Does anyone even get why Bush took it to a Federal level? The states weren't upholding what was on the books. Mass., Calif., etc. were letting gays/lesbians get married despite the state laws. So the states weren't living up to their end. Therefore Bush brought it to a Federal level. Do I agree with it as a Federal issue? No. But, do I agree that something needed to be done when state laws were being blatantly broken? Yes. (FYI - I actually support gay unions.)

Can you please tell me how the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision violates state law? The Supreme Court decision IS state law in concert with its state constitution (which, incidentally, only mentions marriage once and doesn't define what can and cannot constitute marriage). Please tell me why the federal government needs to butt in now.

Piss off a nazi, vote Kerry