 |
| |
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Though I will be a half a year too young from voting, I can't decide who I would vote for-Kerry or independent. If Bush hadn't been elected in 2000, the world would be a much better place. But for the next four years, I don't see much difference between Kerry and Bush. Both are controlled by big businesses, and I don't see any differences in how they handle Iraq in the future. Both will make sure American oil companies are top priority, both will keep puppet regimes in power in Iraq and Afghanistan. And both will continue to make sure that American economic interests abroad are protected, by any means necessary.
Kerry tries to look like a man of the people, but he's not. He went to the same prestigious, elitist university that Bush did, and he's part of the same upper class that Bush is from. And he serves the same type of corporations that Bush does. He won't raise taxes for the wealthy or resdistribute our nations wealth in any way. He might give tax cuts to middle class Americans, but he won't raise the taxes for the corporations that sponsor him. So all he'd be doing is just making our national debt worse.
Kerry will be like any other American president-his administration would be leadership of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
So, Kerry supporters, prove to me that I should vote for Kerry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
johncmcleod,
I agree with pretty much all of what you say. The one key reason to consider and the reason not to vote for Bush is that his faction of the wealthy backs wars for questionable reasons. That means that the common man will be off fighting the wars of the wealthy all over the globe in the name of peace, justice and the american way. Meanwhile, the rich will be back home watching their dividends grow.
In any case you should support the faction that gives you the best deal. What's most important to you tax cuts or no war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
There is a great issue of integrity and honesty at stake here.
Bush lies and deceives a lot more and in much worse ways than Kerry. Bush's administration is not only in the pocket of corporations, but they ignore scientific and other sources of information that they don't like.
Kerry on the other hand, while not anti-big business, is certainly not the pawn of big business. He *is* going to raise taxes on the wealthy, he *is* going to work on giving middle and lower class people more benefits (better health care for one). He has consistently voted against issues that one-sidedly favor big business. There is also the issue of fiscal responsibility. Bush wants to keep current tax cuts or even give out more while increasing how much we spend by quite possibly more than 2 trillion dollars. Kerry wants to be careful and make sure that any money proposed to be spent has a guaranteed source of funds for it specifically.
If you believe in better health care, more honest politicians, a President whose administration that is open to unpleasent truths, an administration that will work with foreign leaders and has a more global perspective, and progressive domestic policies balanced by sensible fiscal ones, then you have to vote for Kerry. From a purely practical standpoint, Kerry getting elected will have a much greater impact on U.S. policy for the forseeable future than a vote for a third party candidate.
So, yeah, if you feel comfortable not directly oppossing the re-election of an administration that claims a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" doesn't mean that Bin Laden is determined to attack within the United States, and that evidence of Al Qaeda terrorist cells in the U.S. can be safely ignored, then by all means vote for Bush. (Those are some pre-9/11 facts that the Bush administration totally ignored, as they tend to ignore or silence everyone that disagrees with them).
So, yeah, if you somehow think that Kerry is just the same as one of the worst Presidents in the history of the U.S., then I guess you could vote for a third party. Pretty short-sighted though, if you ask me. You must bear in mind the great practical considerations here. Kerry isn't the best candidate ever, but he's par or above par for the job. Bush and his administration is horrible for it, and they can't handle terrorism at all because they truly do not understand it and what causes it. Bush has increased the numbers of terrorists, not decreased them.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
You're right, John: Kerry will be like any other president, or any other politician who wants to be president.
I can't convince you to vote for Kerry. Hell, I'm not voting for Kerry. I'm voting against Bush, and I consider removing Bush from the White House to be the most urgent political cause of my lifetime.
Bush is the perfect Bad President. He combines the detached incompetence of Ulysses Grant, the naked cronyism of Warren Harding, and the arrogance and rabid paranoia of Richard Nixon. He is easily the worst president since WWII, and quite possibly the worst president since the Civil War. He must go.
If anyone else had been president, our economy would still be doing what it's doing; our health care system would still be fubarred; our minimum wage would still be too low and our teen pregnancy rate too high.
But if anyone -- anyone -- other than Bush had been president, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Over 1000 GI's would not be dead; thousands of reservists wouldn't be trapped in a war they can't win but can't leave; millions of people all over the world wouldn't hate us so much. (Americans like to pretend that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us, but any American working overseas -- whether a government official like me or a corporate exec -- will tell you that Bush's contempt for the world has made all of our jobs much, much harder to do. And we're Americans, out here in the service of the natiuonal interest; what kind of President deliberately f*cks such people around?)
That, and that alone, is the legacy of Bush's tenure to date. How could anyone want more?
Do I wish there were a choice other than Kerry? Hell yes. But there's not. And forget 3rd parties. I've voted for 3rd party candidates before myself, but the stakes are too high this time. Bush must go. Only Kerry can push him out. That's the whole argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Speakin' as an outsider I would say...
... Leave out the foreign policy bits. Decide which is best for the future of America. Which is going to deliver the domestic policies that get more jobs, better pay and conditions?
And why does Bush make so much money from high oil prices?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I endorse Mr. Firefly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm a dues paying member of my party, MrFun. Do you pay dues to the Democrats? Are you a member of the Democratic Party? I'm not about to let a fellow comrade betray his principles by voting for a capitalist. |
Che,
Even if you are a Communist, why not pool your power were it will gain you the most. Isn't that what communism is all about. Sharing resources.
This country is set up so that until you have a large number of Communists, your vote won't matter. Recently, groups that had voted on principle or refused to vote on principle are coming out to vote. I would recommend that you take a page from the Communists in Vietnam. Gain influence into a party to effect the most change.
GOOD LUCK.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-10-2004 09:20
.
|