Politician choice

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-05-29 10:53pm

I am a registered Democrat...but where would I go to find out where Kerry/Bush actually stand. I cannot realy tell the difference between where they both stand. I keep hearing they are about the same, and Kerry just likes to waffle...So I really don't know. I don't like Bush...but I don't think Kerry is much different from what I am told.

What do you think?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-29 10:55pm

Kerry isn't pushing for Patriot 2. That's enough for me.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-29 11:03pm

I think I'm voting third party. I'm convinced a Presidency of either one is likely to be a train wreck.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-05-29 11:08pm

Kerry isn't pushing for Patriot 2. That's enough for me.

Ahhh thats good then. I was not sure about that.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-05-29 11:58pm

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvo ... nyway.com/

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-30 12:11am

The problem I'm wrestling with is that any vote that isn't for Kerry is a vote for Bush. I don't like him, but I don't like Bush more.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-30 12:12am

Stormbringer wrote:I think I'm voting third party. I'm convinced a Presidency of either one is likely to be a train wreck.

So do your part to be sure one of them is elected, possibly the worse one! Score!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-30 01:42am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I think I'm voting third party. I'm convinced a Presidency of either one is likely to be a train wreck.
So do your part to be sure one of them is elected, possibly the worse one! Score!

Sorry, I'm not a pathetic, paranoid and totally obessed liberal that'll vote for Kerry just because he's the Democratic nominee. If Kerry can't convince me to vote for him that's just too fucking bad for him.

And by the way, I'm not at all sure that Kerry will be the lesser evil.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-30 02:20am

Stormbringer wrote:Sorry, I'm not a pathetic, paranoid and totally obessed liberal that'll vote for Kerry just because he's the Democratic nominee. If Kerry can't convince me to vote for him that's just too fucking bad for him.

Too bad for your strawman I'm rather conservative fiscally, and I think a lot of Kerry's domestic plans, especially energy, are brainfucked, and I think his foriegn policy is a bunch of vague noncommital shit.

Stormbringer wrote:And by the way, I'm not at all sure that Kerry will be the lesser evil.

Care to explain why?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-30 02:31am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Sorry, I'm not a pathetic, paranoid and totally obessed liberal that'll vote for Kerry just because he's the Democratic nominee. If Kerry can't convince me to vote for him that's just too fucking bad for him.
Too bad for your strawman I'm rather conservative fiscally, and I think a lot of Kerry's domestic plans, especially energy, are brainfucked, and I think his foriegn policy is a bunch of vague noncommital shit.

Okay, so replace with liberal with not-conservative. The fact is you're still harguaning me because I'm not going to vote Kerry.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And by the way, I'm not at all sure that Kerry will be the lesser evil.
Care to explain why?

1) I have a bad feeling that his 'solution' to the Iraq problem is going to be effectively to pull out. That's about the worst thing that could be done because while people are plenty willing to support Spain and others when they pull, the US will catch hell from the Islamo-fundies and the Euro-liberals.

2) His economic plans sounds like it's going be mostly protectionism and subsidies. Not something I really am interested in seeing.

3) Despite his talk, I don't except he'll do much to promote a less fundamentalist social agenda. I suspect he'll simply give the bullshit, sit on the fence answers he has and do nothing.

So I'm not at all sure he will be better than Bush.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-30 02:38am

1) I have a bad feeling that his 'solution' to the Iraq problem is going to be effectively to pull out. That's about the worst thing that could be done because while people are plenty willing to support Spain and others when they pull, the US will catch hell from the Islamo-fundies and the Euro-liberals.

Absolutely false, Kerry is completely opposed to a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

I'm not voting for him either, for the record. If the Dems wanted to capture the disillusioned Republican vote they should have run someone without a voting record more liberal than Ted Kennedy's.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-30 03:04am

Stormbringer wrote:I think I'm voting third party. I'm convinced a Presidency of either one is likely to be a train wreck.

Voting libertarian? Hehe

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-30 03:47am

Welcome to the early 1800s of foriegn policy.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-30 04:47am

Joe got the first one, might as well get these two...

Stormbringer wrote: 2) His economic plans sounds like it's going be mostly protectionism and subsidies. Not something I really am interested in seeing.

Oh please, he has said repeatedly that he has no intention of trying to raise trade barriers but that he intends to bring back jobs through business tax adjustments. And Bush is the one with a much worse track record with regards to both protectionism and subsidies.

3) Despite his talk, I don't except he'll do much to promote a less fundamentalist social agenda. I suspect he'll simply give the bullshit, sit on the fence answers he has and do nothing.

You are going to use election year speeches to try to derive social agendas? Come on, it's well known that Democrats have to be as neutral as possible with their social agendas because otherwise they don't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. Clinton had several advantages here (being from Arkansas and supporting the death penalty) but Kerry is from fucking Massachusetts, he can't play the same sort of partisan agenda Bush can.

Besides, Kerry isn't going to be promoting legislation like the Patriot Act and he won't have John Ashcroft as his Attourney General. Those two facts right there shoot down your belief of Kerry maintaining the Bush fundementalist agenda.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-30 12:41pm

Joe wrote:Absolutely false, Kerry is completely opposed to a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

I know he's said that. But with all his talk of turning more over to the UN I'm not at all sure his definition of premature and the rest of the worlds are the same. If it goes badly I have a very bad feeling that he will indeed pull out.

The Kernel wrote:Oh please, he has said repeatedly that he has no intention of trying to raise trade barriers but that he intends to bring back jobs through business tax adjustments. And Bush is the one with a much worse track record with regards to both protectionism and subsidies.

The way I see it, giving out subsidies and lowering tax rates with regards to foreign companies is protectionism. I know that Bush has a worse track records compared to what Kerry is proposing but given Kerry's rhetoric I don't trust him for a minute to hold to that.

The Kernel wrote:You are going to use election year speeches to try to derive social agendas?

I'm going by what I've heard the man say and what his actions have been. Both of them show that he's unwilling to take a solid stance and the closest he comes is to half ass it (see his 'support' for seperate but equal civil unions).

The Kernel wrote:Come on, it's well known that Democrats have to be as neutral as possible with their social agendas because otherwise they don't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. Clinton had several advantages here (being from Arkansas and supporting the death penalty) but Kerry is from fucking Massachusetts, he can't play the same sort of partisan agenda Bush can.

Frankly, if the man won't take a principled stance now I'm not going to count on him taking one when he gets in office.

The Kernel wrote:Besides, Kerry isn't going to be promoting legislation like the Patriot Act and he won't have John Ashcroft as his Attourney General. Those two facts right there shoot down your belief of Kerry maintaining the Bush fundementalist agenda.

I didn't say that he'd support it. I think he'll just sit by and hem & haw while others do it. (Again see his behaviour with regard to trying to duck taking a stance for gay rights).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-30 01:21pm

So you think Kerry might do all the bad stuff that Bush is doing, so therefore you're not voting for him?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-30 01:41pm

I'm hoping one candidate or another goes into election day with a huge majority in the opinion polls here in Jersey, so I can vote third party with a clear conscience.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-30 02:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:So you think Kerry might do all the bad stuff that Bush is doing, so therefore you're not voting for him?

Not all the things Bush done but some Bush probably won't. Enough to convince me I can't really vote for him in good conscience.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-05-30 02:53pm

I'd vote for a reanimated Richard Nixon if I thought it would get Bush (and subsequently, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld) out of office.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-05-30 04:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Joe wrote:Absolutely false, Kerry is completely opposed to a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
I know he's said that. But with all his talk of turning more over to the UN I'm not at all sure his definition of premature and the rest of the worlds are the same. If it goes badly I have a very bad feeling that he will indeed pull out.

The truly worrisome thing is that, given the historical record of post-war occupations, "premature" basically means "anytime within the next 30 years." Hell, we're still "occupying" Germany and Japan from WWII.

The Kernel wrote:
Oh please, he has said repeatedly that he has no intention of trying to raise trade barriers but that he intends to bring back jobs through business tax adjustments. And Bush is the one with a much worse track record with regards to both protectionism and subsidies.
The way I see it, giving out subsidies and lowering tax rates with regards to foreign companies is protectionism. I know that Bush has a worse track records compared to what Kerry is proposing but given Kerry's rhetoric I don't trust him for a minute to hold to that.

My big concern with Bush's economic plan is that it makes little sense. The "trickle-down" effect has never been shown to be effective; in fact, economic theory and empirical evidence both suggest it the ass-backward approach to the economy. The poor spend far greater percentages of their income, compared to the wealthy, so any tax cut to the poor actually generates greater spending than a comparable (dollar-amount) tax cut to the wealthy. In fact, the last trickle-down tax cut attempted was Reagan's '80 economic plan, which was a factor (though not the only one) in the recession of the early '80s. The last successful tax cut (economically speaking) was Kennedy's, which accentuated the progressive style of American taxation, and was also carefully analyzed according to Full Employment Budget Theory.

The Kernel wrote:Come on, it's well known that Democrats have to be as neutral as possible with their social agendas because otherwise they don't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. Clinton had several advantages here (being from Arkansas and supporting the death penalty) but Kerry is from fucking Massachusetts, he can't play the same sort of partisan agenda Bush can.
Frankly, if the man won't take a principled stance now I'm not going to count on him taking one when he gets in office.

While I sympathize with the sentiment, there's not one politico I can think of who does take a definite stand when they're running in a major election(unless their opponent's popularity is in the single digits). Bush had all this namby-pamby nonsense about "compassionate conservative" when he ran against Gore, when he was quietly courting the extreme Christian Right.

The Kernel wrote:
Besides, Kerry isn't going to be promoting legislation like the Patriot Act and he won't have John Ashcroft as his Attourney General. Those two facts right there shoot down your belief of Kerry maintaining the Bush fundementalist agenda.
I didn't say that he'd support it. I think he'll just sit by and hem & haw while others do it. (Again see his behaviour with regard to trying to duck taking a stance for gay rights).

[/quote]That particular issue is the only one I know of where's he's been wavering, and that's largely due to the lack of support in key states for any strong legislation that limits the right to persecute gays. If he came out in favor of full gay marriage, he'd lose every Southern state (there'd be no need for a Florida recount; Kerry would be lucky to get 10% of the vote) and would lend firepower to the Bushite cry of "Massachusetts liberal". I want to hear an actual plan from Bush on anything. All I can recall hearing from his camp is "we have a plan." That's nice; want to let the American public know what it is so they can do their part?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-30 07:15pm

The poor spend far greater percentages of their income, compared to the wealthy, so any tax cut to the poor actually generates greater spending than a comparable (dollar-amount) tax cut to the wealthy.

This will only clear out existing inventories, it doesn't really send a message to investors and businesses to invest in new capital. The best thing to do is usually to let the economy recover on its own.

Of course I would support a tax cut for lower income people at any time regardless of this, provided it is accompanied by a spending cut.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-30 08:31pm

Joe wrote:
The poor spend far greater percentages of their income, compared to the wealthy, so any tax cut to the poor actually generates greater spending than a comparable (dollar-amount) tax cut to the wealthy.
This will only clear out existing inventories, it doesn't really send a message to investors and businesses to invest in new capital. The best thing to do is usually to let the economy recover on its own.

Of course I would support a tax cut for lower income people at any time regardless of this, provided it is accompanied by a spending cut.

The poor have to pay something enable for it to be cut. At this point there isn't much left to cut except FICA or perhaps Gas TAX, with all the exceptions out there for low income.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-06-02 01:39pm

The Dark wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Joe wrote:Absolutely false, Kerry is completely opposed to a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
I know he's said that. But with all his talk of turning more over to the UN I'm not at all sure his definition of premature and the rest of the worlds are the same. If it goes badly I have a very bad feeling that he will indeed pull out.
The truly worrisome thing is that, given the historical record of post-war occupations, "premature" basically means "anytime within the next 30 years." Hell, we're still "occupying" Germany and Japan from WWII.

Although, in both cases, the US was present to defend against the Soviets. Given that Turkey is close by, not sure if it makes a great base - it would be a lousy naval base due to the Persian Gulf bottleneck.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-06-02 02:22pm

Registered Republican, voting for Kerry. Bush was never qualified to be President, and in almost four years has done everything to prove my questioning of his abilities and loyalties correct. I just hope that Bush's approval ratings stay low throughout the summer, he'll be screwed if that is the case.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-06-02 02:35pm

See sig. Click sig. Read site. Vote accordingly. Watch as economy improves, international tensions abate, and the whole world sings the tootsie roll song in unison.