posted
Because he believes in my belief of the need for a separation of church and state. I don't believe that Bush believes in my definition of the separation of church and state.
I believe in more rights of the invidivual than Bush seems willing to grant.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I make no bones at all about the fact that I oppose Bush and only loosely support Kerry. It's my opinion that the Dems nominated one of the worst possible candidates -- but, of that whole field, there wasn't a one of 'em who'd have been as bad as Bush.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in all fairness, if that's the reason that Tom is voting for him, then how else could he respond?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because John Kerry does not see things in black & white/them or us. He understands the subtleties and is willing to work with them.
Because he is pushing for benefits for the great majority of people who are not the wealthy.
Because he is willing to compromise and seek the middle ground when it is best for the country, such as his attempt to bring John McCain into his circle, and when that didn't work, his willingness to bring John Edwards, a one time opponent, on as Vice President.
Because he is open minded.
Because when he says Bi-Partisan, he means Bi-Partisan, not Republican and no choice but the Democrats agree or be shut out.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because he went to war when the country needed him whereas those in power went to war when the country didn't need it. And, er, because he is not from Texas.
posted
What Dan_Raven said. John Kerry's a good speaker, for one thing, he seems sensible, yet at times like some democrats he bothers me. Like saying even if he knew then what he knew now he'd still vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq... That statement bothered me a bit. I dislike it when Democrats try to act like baby Republicans, or like low carb, low fat Republicans. I want to vote for a Democrat because they believe in different things from Republicans in terms of economics and the environment.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because he and John Edwards actually recognize that there are people like me out here, and that we are good for more than paying taxes and working in low-paying, dead-end jobs.
Because when the Democrats controlled the White House, I didn't have any trouble finding a job. But with the Republicans in charge, I can't.
Because Kerry didn't run away and hide behind daddy and money, but went to Vietnam, while Bush not only joined the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam but then skipped out on a lot of his Guard obligations.
Because Bush always seems like he's about to break out in a big smirk.
And because the idea of Bush and Cheney being re-elected makes me physically ill.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whats strange about the idea that "A vote for Kerry is really a vote against Bush" is that President Bush is doing everything in his power to turn it around, and say "A vote for President Bush is a vote against that lawyer-loving, tax fiend, evil Kerry."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support Kerry because he's got an established record of personally commiting war crimes. Kerry understands that when you're in a war zone, it is a good opportunity to kill innocents for fun (and profit). Kerry also needs extra consideration because...well, you've seen the man, he needs our support (unlike some people running for office).
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
whoop dee doo... Ya can always air tapings of uninformed folks if ya throw out answers that don't show cluelessness.
JayLeno makes it a regular part of his show. Momentary fame being a driving passion of some, it would be unsurprising to find that many folks are cued -- through knowlege of the camera crew's employer -- to deliberately give incorrect answers in hopes of appearing on national TV.
Same with SeanHannity's "people are stupid" videos. Heck, most of those broadcasted answerers coulda been Hannity fans: neo"conservative"Republicans and pro-Bush folks who just wanted to be on his television show.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because John Kerry is well-versed in foreign affairs. From his speeches, and the fact that one of his closest advisors is Richard Holbrooke, I get the impression that he will not alienate the United Nations or sidestep them, violating a nation's sovereignty in the process.
Because Democrats have a much better record on being fiscally conservative. Our debt is going incredibly high, and our deficits are the worst ever. Yet the Republicans want to make tax cuts permanent. This makes no sense. But the numbers are too large, the debt is too abstract for the public, and they are easily swayed by the paltry sum they get back from the government. Only fiscally responsible leadership will change this. This was also a factor in the '92 election, and one of the major platforms for Ross Perot.
Because Democrats have a better record on the environment. I'm not saying that things will get better with a Democrat in office. I'm just saying that Democrats will appoint people who care more about the environment and will damage the world ecosystem less than with a Republican in office. Republicans tend to favor big business over the environment.
Because I think Democrats do a better job of separating Church and state. I don't mind if our leader is religious - I just don't want him restricting possibilities (some might say freedoms) for many Americans who do not believe as that leader does, like the possibility that gay Americans can have civil unions. The Republican platform now opposes this. They do not want to let the states make the decision. And I think the basis for this is religion. This upsets me.
Edit: misspelled Holbrooke's name and put better link to him...hmmm, for some reason the background does not mention that he was also Amabssador to the United Nations.
Re-edit: Wikipedia link to him this time. MUCH better. Wikipedia rewls.
posted
Well if he were Bush, it would be an awfully difficult choice.
Reasons are reasons because they differ on the subject. If they had the same opinion, then it wouldn't be a reason to support Kerry.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) He is going to allow me to feel better about America. It's associative good. He isn't going to make me richer or give me more stuff, but I think he is going to make me feel better about the government I associate with. I read a great paper about associative goods in higher education, and if anyone is interested, I'll try to find a link.
2) I think he is going to take a big whack at lowering health care premiums, which will help everyone.
3) I think he is serious about alternative energy sources.
4) I think he is serious about getting tough with the Sauds and Americans with their love of gas guzzling cars, and that is the kind of political courage I admire, and I believe should be modeled in our everyday interactions.
5) I think he is the best shot at lowering the national debt and strengthening the dollar.
quote: That's fair. Almost all of my reasons for voting for Bush could be recouched in "He's not Kerrey" terms.
I don't care about it. I was just thinking about Scott's stipulation. I've said that if I had to pick I'd pick Kerry because I know I can't trust Bush.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But I am also equally confident that there are many intelligent, informed people who are voting on issues they feel are legitimate."
To me, the removal of Bush IS a legitimate issue. You can practically define his politics and policies as "anything Tom Davidson thinks is ridiculously stupid and/or destructive." Ergo, it would take a real loser of a Democratic nominee -- I mean, a historically catastrophic loser -- for me to look at Bush and consider leaving him in office.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being pretty much 50/50 at the moment, I appreciate those who took the time to follow Scott's rules here. I hate all the negative campaigning. I would also like to feel like Bush's successor had more of a platform than "I can do better than he did."
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
...because the Kerry Administration would not contain the following people:
Paul Wolfowitz John Ashcroft Richard Perle Dick Cheney
George W. Bush himself I dislike to the same extent as Kerry. However, I suspect that Bush is going to win the election (and have suspected so since well before the whole process actually started). I realize I'm sort of ducking your rule, so I'll also give an answer within the parameters you set:
...because I believe that George W. Bush's tax cuts were a Very Bad Idea, and Kerry has said that he will correct that particular problem, repealing the high-end cuts but leaving the low-end cuts in place. Furthermore, the Kerry Administration MIGHT stem the tide of industrial deregulation that the present Bush Administration has started. Obviously the Bush Administration, were it to remain in power, would not stem this tide.
Edit: Keep in mind that a) I'm a pinko commie Canadian and b) I'm an engineer.
posted
Biggest reason: because he's a democrat and congress will still be mostly republican. I maintain that a split government is far, far better than one with both parties controlling the legislative and executive branches, that this has been a sound historical tendency.
Furthermore, I think Kerry might actually listen on occasion to science (a way of thinking Bush rejects as a foundation for policy, his administration routinely suppressing studies that disagree with their goals), which I think is a reasonable expectation for a fair and rational presidency.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of those were Bush related issues, and if we can't mentioned issues this might as well be...well, the RNC...
I dislike a lot of Bush's stances on a number of issues, and in fairness to the rule I will not bash Bush personally.
I am in favor of both pro-choice (reluctantly) and civil unions, and the republicans have made it clear that they are opposed to them. One of my biggest fears is the Supreme Court nominees that Bush would put forth would overturn most of the progressive reforms the Court has made over the last 50 years.
Also, I don't care how many minimum wage jobs are created, I don't like where the economy is heading under the Republican administration. Things are not any better for the middle class..as a matter of fact, even with both my wife and I working full time, we could probably qualify for food stamps....so I think Bush's plan to "change" (read eliminate) overtime rules is one of the worse ideas I have ever heard! A ton of people will become "Exempt" from the normal work week of 40 hours, and make less even though they are working more hours due to no more overtime pay or holiday pay...and only the companies will benefit from relaxing these rules, so they are free to create MORE 60 hour, non-overtime jobs...just what we need, right?
As long as your last name is Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft, things will only get better and better...
And you are a fundamental Christian...no separation of Church and State to speak of...
posted
Alexa-- I created this thread because I wondered if anyone who was supporting Kerry was doing it on the man's own merits, and not on their perception of Bush's faults.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
WEll, I think he has a better plan than what we are doing now...does that count? I am not going to vote for him just because he isn't Bush....although that sure doesn't hurt :;....but because I don't like his economic, enviromental, judicial, or religious stamces, and I think Kerry holds values closer to my own.
posted
And I'm quite glad that so many are, Scott. Of course, given, say, the choice between Stalin and "anybody else", I'd most likely go with anybody else, not knowing who it was. I'm not saying Bush is Stalin, but neither is Kerry anybody else. He's a fairly successful Senator who's not particularly extreme in any of his views, and has a long track record which shows he can think through issues and change his mind over time based on that (oddly, many examples Bush's team have come up with of Kerry "flip flopping" have been just Kerry voting differently in completely different situations on similar bills, such as with gasoline prices). Whereas Bush has a short record that some may find good in some areas, but definitely includes "say I'll support stuff, then ignore/try to cut funding on it shortly thereafter and just not mention that" (which, btw, the Dems should be hounding him on: clips of his state of the unions where he supports some program, then images of his proposed budgets which cut those programs), and suppressing science all over the place to a far greater extent than any recent administration, two rather large problems.
On Tax Cuts Kerry believes "the first thing we have to do is to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." Source: Issue2000.org
Gay Marriage Kerry will not support a federal constitution amendment to ban gay marriage.
Death Penalty Kerry opposes the death penalty other than in cases of real international and domestic terrorism.
Environment John Kerry on the environment: "We have to encourage the use of hybrid vehicles and invest in research and development. We have to set a goal by 2020 that 20 percent of our energy will come from renewable fuels." Source: Issue2000
Free Trade Kerry on free trade: "I will order an immediate 120-day review of all trade agreements to ensure that our trading partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America's workers. I won't sign any new trade agreements unless they contain strong labor and environmental standards." Source: Issue2000
Gun Control Kerry supports the Brady Bill.
Social Security Kerry will not privatize social security, cut benefits, or extend the retirement age. Source: Issue2000
Edited: spelling.
[ September 07, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Beren's check list, I definitely oppose Kerry for 3 of them, for 3 I don't clearly agree or disagree, and definitely agree with only 1 of them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, by the way, conspicuously absent from my list are two very important issues: Health Care and Iraq.
We've had plenty of Iraq threads so we won't revisit those arguments. Suffice it to say on that topic, I'm still waiting for Kerry to articulate his position.
As for health care, I'm SOOOOO confused. Kerry promises to make health care a right and not a privilege. Great. I support universal health care. But is he going to present an overly ambitious plan to tie down his presidency like Clinton did in his first term?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I created this thread because I wondered if anyone who was supporting Kerry was doing it on the man's own merits, and not on their perception of Bush's faults.
And now you know that there are.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I support Kerry because he's got an established record of personally commiting war crimes. Kerry understands that when you're in a war zone, it is a good opportunity to kill innocents for fun (and profit). Kerry also needs extra consideration because...well, you've seen the man, he needs our support (unlike some people running for office).
I'm going to assume this is a joke, but it stuck out in this thread to me, and I wish someone had addressed it. I'm offended on the behalf of the Vietnam vets I know that you assume that service in Vietnam automatically includes killing innocents. That's a harmful attitude to foster and I am offended by it.
And as for me, I am voting Kerry chiefly because I support his stance on civil unions and separation between church and state. If he isn't elected, I fear that my friends and family will be harmed by the policies of his opponent.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry is criticized for flip/flopping on his issues because he changes his mind as new information surfaces.
This is compared to a certain, unnamed sitting president, who flip/flops on the reasons he does things despite any new information that surfaces.
Example:
We should invade Iraq because-- 1)They have WMD 2)They support Terrorism 3)He is a really bad dude 4)To promote Democracy in the Mid East 5)To save the poor Iraqi people.
Whenever some one brings up facts that disprove one of these reasons, this person mentions another.
Example:
Tax Cut, especially designed to relieve the tax burden of those who give the most--the wealthy.
In 2000 When the Economy was booming: We have a surplus, so that Tax money needs to be returned.
In 2001 When the Economy was verging on ending its boom: We need to give a tax cut so we can avoid a recession.
In 2002 When we were in a recession, or close enough to one not to reall matter: We need to give a tax cut so we can get out of the recession.
In 2004, as we begin to recover from a recession: We need even more tax cuts to build the economy.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan -- it sounds like you are saying that it is wrong to have more than one motivation behind a single action. Or am I missing what you are criticizing?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm reading him correctly, he's saying that Bush just likes tax cuts and is willing to make up reasons to justify implementing them.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem ironic that someone who changes his mind based on new information is considered LESS reliable than someone who, upon receiving new information, simply changes his reasoning for supporting his original course of action.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
