posted
Alright, as an American citizen and registered voter, I should care about the upcoming election, the "war" and the fate of our nation. So why don't I? For me, it'll come down to figuring out who will be the least capable of the two and voting for the other guy. Frankly I think they are both incapable of the job. I don't agree with "the war on terror", but you know what, it happened, and we're in it. So we have to deal with it in the most effective and efficient way possible (easier said than done). Gay marriage is another issue that's been beaten to death on this forum. You know what? There's more to being president than gay marriage and "the war on terror". There are a lot of things that Bush has done as the current president that I don't agree with, not because of personal issues, but because of political ethics. Kerry, IMO, hasn't shown that he can do any better of a job. I guess what I'm getting at is, if we live in such a great country, why are we "settling" for a leader? Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Frankly I think they are both incapable of the job. I don't agree with 'the war on terror,' but you know what, it happened, and we're in it."
I agree that we are, in fact, stuck "settling" for a president at this point. But since you know you don't like Bush, and know you disapprove of his policies so far, why not take a chance on Kerry? At the very least, this might send a message to the Republicans that you disapprove of what they've been doing to the country -- which you clearly do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, knew there was more. it is called choking on snack food. not that GW did so or not.....or that he waved at Stevie Wonder.
I don't think Kerry can do that much better of a job to really make me want to vote for him. So I will vote somebody else in on the ballot. We can still do write in votes. It won't make a difference, but heck it is my right.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, how do you know Kerry won't be even worse?
He believes what Kerry claims obviously, which is fine.
I don't. I dislike Monday morning quarterbacking and Kerry does it alot.
We all know the kid that stands by and cheers on as his friend get beat up, then after it's done says, "If that was me, I would have kicked his butt."
Yeah right.
Whose to say he wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked worse? We don't know, and that is why I don't want to see Kerry in office.
Whose to say for all his tough talk that he won't tuck tail and run when confessed with a graver threat?
This is just my opinion. And I am well aware GWB's service, but Kerry was only in Vietnam for 4 months and took the first available opportunity to leave. And not only did he leave, but came back and used his 4 month service to pass himself off as an "authority" on the war itself, testifying of things he never saw or witnessed, but "heard" of.
Bush may be willing to say he "served his country", but I'm not that nice. Sorry.
He's just the wrong candidate, for the wrong country, at the wrong time.
I've seen how Clinton reaced to the WTC1 attacks, the embassy bombings, Iraq, etc.
And I don't a repeat of that which will lead to another terrorist attack in the future.
posted
"Tom, how do you know Kerry won't be even worse? Or do you think Bush is as bad as it gets?"
While I appreciate Chad's attempt to answer on my behalf, the simple truth is this: I do not. To be completely honest with you, Kerry was near the bottom of my list -- above only Gen. Clark and Mosely-Braun -- when the race opened. I suspect that you could throw a can of beer into a room full of art students and have an odds-on chance of hitting someone more qualified to be president. Even if they had all brought their pet basset hounds, who would most likely give more compelling press conferences.
Kerry would function in this regard as a puppet of the Democratic machine; he would surround himself with advisors who would, applying polls and their principles, steer his every move. In this, he would be a great deal like George Bush, who is similarly guided and dependent upon his staff.
However, I trust the Democratic machine more than I trust the Republican one. Leaving aside my personal opinion of Bush -- that even if the aforementioned can of beer struck the carpet, that the carpet would do a better job as a figurehead leader of the greatest country on Earth -- I think his administration has been crippled by a number of ideologues whose assumptions have been proven wrong -- but who refuse to admit it, and are determined to drag us over cliffs rather than admit to error. This is especially worrisome when you consider that a single party now controls the entire government; the argument can be made that it's wise to vote for Kerry just to prevent this state of affairs, thus maintaining a certain level of checks and balances without which the country has seriously suffered over the last two years in particular.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are a lot of things that Bush has done as the current president that I don't agree with, not because of personal issues, but because of political ethics. Kerry, IMO, hasn't shown that he can do any better of a job.
But in all seriousness, how COULD Kerry show he can do better, to your satisfaction? He is not president, after all. He can only talk about what he would do, not actually do it. To expect him to prove he can do a better job is unrealistic. The best we can expect from any challenger is that they can describe a course of action which, assuming it is what he'd do (which we have little reason to doubt), might give better results than the incumbant. He has offered some good ideas on how to fight a more sensitive, complex, strategic war on terror - but it's impossible for him to give proof that his ideas will work, and impossible for us to know he will actually implement them. Expecting him to is expecting a bit much.
And truthfully, if the last four years have shown us anything it's that you can't ever really tell how a person will govern through their campaign. Bush campaign as a "uniter" and a "compassionate conservative" - and yet has governed as the least compasionate divider we've had in modern times. We probably would not know what sort of president Kerry really makes until a whole year on the job is done.
There is, however, one good reason to think Kerry do better than Bush - and that's the fact that Bush has done things so ridiculously poorly. Kerry would have to work extremely hard to do worse than illegally invading a country for reasons that turn out to be falsities, turning a massive surplus into a massive deficit in four years, turning the world against us in hatred, encouraging the dehumanization of the enemy to the point where torture has become a tactic of Americans, and allowing the passage of legislation that has violated the civil liberties of muslims around the country. It's a bit like finding a new football coach - if your last coach lost every game of the season and barely scored a touchdown, you can probably expect the next coach won't be worse.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
At the very least, this might send a message to the Republicans that you disapprove of what they've been doing to the country -- which you clearly do.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
