What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[tharkûn]

Wake up Mr. Rip Van Winkle, he is pushing for a theocracy.

So what? Can he institute a theocracy without the backing of the rest of the government? No. If the rest of the government wants a theocracy can John Kerry stop them? No. I have faith that 2/5ths of the electorate and their representatives don't favor a theocracy and won't let it happen.

The only thing a theocracy gets him is mobilization among the religious right who vote overwhelmingly in his favor and pisses the hell out of the secularists in the rest of the electorate.

And you still present no cogent case for arguing that the ones who failed to do enough to stop him deserve punishment more than the guy who actually did all of this.

They don't; withholding votes from BOTH parties, punishes BOTH parties. The reason the democrats are the ones who are punished is because they are the ones I think will lose come november; if Bush goes down in flames with a significant third party turnout then the lesson will for the republicans. A Bush win with a strong protest vote is going to speak to the democrats primarily, and to a much lesser extent the republicans. The message is going to be most keenly felt by the loser.

They BOTH deserve to be punished, voting protest deprives BOTH of your vote. The only way it rewards Bush and punishes Kerry is if people are stupid enough to beleive that Kerry is entitled to certain votes regardless of his position ... which is exactly the stupidity in the current system that needs to be kicked in the balls.

For the idiot brigade who screech how we should reform the democrats! REFORM THE DEMOCRATS! why should we not vote against Bush to reform the Republicans from their present path of neocon retards who are steadily obliterating America's place in the world?

A vote for Not Bush, Not Kerry is a vote against Bush and Kerry.

[Darth Wong]

Wake up Mr. Rip Van Winkle, he is pushing for a theocracy.

So what? Can he institute a theocracy without the backing of the rest of the government? No.

Irrelevant. If the rest of the government is necessary to keep a loose-cannon psychopath under control, it doesn't change the fact that he's a loose-cannon psychopath.

And you still present no cogent case for arguing that the ones who failed to do enough to stop him deserve punishment more than the guy who actually did all of this.

They don't; withholding votes from BOTH parties, punishes BOTH parties.

No, it punishes whichever party does not get into power. Did the Republican party act chastened when they barely snuck into power in 2000? NO!

I'm tired of your bullshit non sequiturs: first you say that the best way to punish incompetence is to reward the incompetent guy so that the other guy is punished for not stopping him, then you say that you punish both parties equally by allowing one of them to win. You've clearly lost your grip on reality.

[Durandal]

You’re missing the point. Germany and France had already declined to support us before Bush went ahead without them. It wasn’t our unilateralism that pushed Germany and France away; it was their refusal form the outset that prompted our unilateralism. Bush didn’t “break” anything.

Bush is driving a wedge between the US and Europe, with European citizens holding an increasingly unfavorable view of America. The recent "revelations" that Iraq was a complete non-issue in the War on Terror and not even a threat to anyone only serve to reinforce Europe's opinion. If you refuse to believe that Europe doesn't hate us and is less likely to give us support on an international level at this point, you're just burying your head in the sand.

Kerry’s stance on stem-cell research isn’t enough to win him my vote.

You already know I stand with Bush on the notion that the United States needs to bring democracy to the Middle East. We’ve discussed the stagnation of that region of the world before, and the horrible self-perpetuating circle of violence it’s produced. As for that Jesus Christ shit, it’s just you and Mike Wong circle-jerking over Darwin’s grave.

Oh please. We all know that Bush thinks that God wanted him to be president; he's said so. Don't pretend that his religious delusions of righteousness are irrelevant in his decision-making.

And yes, I think it's a dumb-shit idea to try and bring democracy to the Middle East, and Iraq is proof enough of that. Not only did Bush embark on fool's errand, but he embarked on that errand with no discernible plan for how to get it done. Would Kerry have done the same thing? I doubt it. He voted to give the president authority to go to war, but I have a hard time believing that he would've just started looking at a way to invade Iraq out of the blue the way Bush did.

To what fucking end, you blithering moron? To foster international cooperation on an issue in which only we are interested? It’s not gonna’ happen. To foster international cooperation on an issue in which all parties share some interest? It’ll happen anyway. Get it through your thick fucking skull: unless you can prove Europe is purposely holding back something in the War on Terror just to spite George Bush, your arguments about how Kerry will accomplish things that Bush cannot are purely wishful thinking.

The UN refused to support us on Iraq, and the point is that Kerry won't ask them to support us on dumb-shit crusades like that, or even start such idiotic endeavors. Whether or not Kerry can get Europe to support us on Bush's little pet project is a non-issue. He can't. No one can.

But can Kerry bring America back into a more favorable light internationally and improve our chances of getting support for other international endeavors? Yes, he can. Bush cannot.

[Cairber]

I dont see anything wrong with an "Anyone But ____" stance. Voting is YOUR choice and YOUR opinion and what YOU want. IM not one to attack another on their vote, even for their motivations.

[tharkûn]

Irrelevant. If the rest of the government is necessary to keep a loose-cannon psychopath under control, it doesn't change the fact that he's a loose-cannon psychopath.

Let's grant that he is a loose-cannon psychopath for the moment, if he can't bring a theocracy into being what is the difference if he's fanatic Christian or fanatic secularist or an average American? The fact that the government does keep him under control moots the harm that comes with a theocracy.

No, it punishes whichever party does not get into power. Did the Republican party act chastened when they barely snuck into power in 2000? NO!

Yes and if Kerry wins and there is a large protest vote then it punishes the republicans, thank you for argeeing with me. Protest voting punishes both parties and punishes the losers more.

The point of a protest vote is to place strain upon the system. One side or the other is influenced and either shapes up or is destroyed. The democrats are the mostly side, in my opinion, to do the shaping up at first.

then you say that you punish both parties equally by allowing one of them to win. You've clearly lost your grip on reality.

I take you beleive that Kerry is simply entitled to some votes then?

[SirNitram]

The point of a protest vote is to place strain upon the system. One side or the other is influenced and either shapes up or is destroyed. The democrats are the mostly side, in my opinion, to do the shaping up at first.

What evidence is there that 'protest voting' works at all?

[Beowulf]

Newsflash! France hasn't really been an ally since they pulled out of the NATO command structure!

Newsflash! France and Germany had oil contracts with Saddam Hussein!

Newsflash! Kerry the Diplomat has called the countries in Iraq "the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced," has gotten 240 of his fellow officers so pissed off at him that they created a group to attack him, and has had his sister going about Australia saying that being an American ally is not in their best interests.

[tharkûn]

What evidence is there that 'protest voting' works at all?

It destroyed the whig party and actually got abolistionists into power, the prohibition party was co-opted and the cause given sufficient power to amend the constitution, Perot nailed the coffin shut on old economic liberals ...

[Stark]

Newsflash! France hasn't really been an ally since they pulled out of the NATO command structure!

Newsflash! France and Germany had oil contracts with Saddam Hussein!

Newsflash! Kerry the Diplomat has called the countries in Iraq "the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced," has gotten 240 of his fellow officers so pissed off at him that they created a group to attack him, and has had his sister going about Australia saying that being an American ally is not in their best interests.

Um, big chief... its NOT in AUs best interests to be take it up the ass from America, laughable-FTA-style. Thinking Australians know this.

And hey, they sure LOOKED like they were bribed and coerced to me.

What do you do when a friend starts acting a bit chilly to you after a long relationship? Thats right, you fuck them in the ass and insult them internationally! That'll put the love back in the relationship! The 'France didn't like us anyway' attitude is juvenile; there's this thing called 'diplomacy' that I'm glad you're not involved in.

On topic, I don't see how people can not understand the OP. Bush has failed. Kerry hasn't; now I'm in AU and I don't follow your election, but Kerry seems pretty underwhelming to me personally. But he hasn't already got a history of abject failure, so he'd be my choice. 'Protest' voting doesn't work; you're not going to reform a political system without a sizable slice of the country behind you, which isn't likely to happen.

As DW and Durandal have said, to many people internationally (Australians included) Bush PERSONALLY has dragged down American prestige. AU has a history of mindless loyalty to the US, and even that has been eroded substantially by Bush's bullshit attitude. I point you to the historical fact that Australians walked into machinegun fire for King and Country; yet Bush has created a major change in public opinion over here.

Can someone explain Coyotes 'stay or change' statement about voting Bush/Kerry? Does he see voting as some kind of team effort? Is he a member of Bushes party? Do people attach their ego to political alliegiance in America?

[SirNitram]

What evidence is there that 'protest voting' works at all?

It destroyed the whig party and actually got abolistionists into power, the prohibition party was co-opted and the cause given sufficient power to amend the constitution, Perot nailed the coffin shut on old economic liberals ...

I'll look more into those incidents, thank you. Most of the time getting actual evidence and accounts of such things is like pulling teeth..

However, is it really at all sensible to do this while the nation could still fall into the hands of someone who is proven to be fucking it up? Kerry, faced with the likely majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, would be a powerless figurehead, and thus a safer time to issue such protests.

[Alan Bolte]

More than likely I'm going for Kerry now and protesting later. I honestly believe that Bush has done enough damage and is capable of doing so much greater that even someone who does less damage rather than fixing anything is going to be the better choice. Furthermore, I agree with the parties that say nothing is going to convince the Republicans to change tactics if Bush wins, even if there's such a large protest vote that he wins with 30-40% of the popular vote. They may well 'stay the course' even if he loses. The GOP relies far too heavily on the theocratic movement, and even on the less rabid Christians who will bloc vote for them no matter what and make up a very substantial fraction of the voting public. I admit that that fraction might be smaller this round with the larger number of registerred voters, but that jump is something of a wild card from what I can see. As for the Dems, there's always next election; it isn't exactly imperitive that they change now. They aren't likely to field someone worse than Kerry with all the shit he's taking this time around, and of course if he wins then you've got a sitting Dem to knock out with who knows what kind of GOP candidate. Hell, there's even the possiblity that Kerry will do pretty well. We know that honesty isn't exactly imperitive in these campaigns, and that how well the campaign is run ins't necessarily a good indicator of the future gov't. But let's not get our hopes up.
One protest vote means nothing, it's a large % protest vote that matters, and that just isn't happening this election. If you think the nation isn't so polarized that we have a binary choice you're fucking blind. Not a binary choice of winners - that's obvious. But one for voting. Hell, last election was the time for a protest vote, and did we get that? Hell no.

[The_Last_Rebel]

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:13 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Irrelevant. If the rest of the government is necessary to keep a loose-cannon psychopath under control, it doesn't change the fact that he's a loose-cannon psychopath.

Let's grant that he is a loose-cannon psychopath for the moment, if he can't bring a theocracy into being what is the difference if he's fanatic Christian or fanatic secularist or an average American? The fact that the government does keep him under control moots the harm that comes with a theocracy.

Yes. Checks and balances.

A lot of people who fear the US could become some sort of tyranny, both the militia-type nuts and the liberals here, forget this country was set up in a way to prevent it. Anyone who joins the U.S. armed forces takes an oath to defend and preserve the Constitution , not the politicians in power, nor the land, but the Constitution.

Then there's the Second Amendment. You know one of the big scares by the Militia Movement, back in the 90s was that the Black UN Helicopters Of DOOM (TM) were going to sweep across America and drop foreign troops on any home where a gun owner lived and take our guns away and ship anyone who protested against Clinton off to a concentration camp.

Then I heard there were something like 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S.

That's more people than most armies in the world. Think of the logistics and manpower required.

Then there's the amount of trouble to even get the Constitution amended to allow such changes.

And there's the 14th amendment, which guarentees everyone equal protection under the law, regardless of race, gender, creed, etc, etc.

I like I said, the proof of Bush wanting a theocracy is about as real as Iraqi WMDs.

[The_Last_Rebel]

Shit, I screwed that up.

[Agrajag]

As for the ICC, Bush is totally correct. It’s for nations that don’t have global interests and who can’t police their own. We’ll persecute our own criminals, thanks very much.

I think you mean prosecute, right?

If so, when will we be starting? Seems to many of us like what we do is persecute (now I mean persecute) our soldiers and allow the truely guilty to avoid any form of prosecution. Anyone who has served knows that soldiers don't just do this sort of thing on their own, especially in such critical environments. These tactics absolutely were handed down from above but all we hear about are a couple of soldiers and they're stuck out there and made examples of in order to appear as if we've done something.

[Axis Kast]

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about rejection of the treaty if the US was otherwise committed to reducing its waste emissions, but it isn't, so you'll not get a free pass with this copout.

I see no reason for the United States government to hog-tie its own industry when nobody else will. Playing by the rules simply because they are the rules doesn’t work on the international level.

That does not change the fact that Bush's handling of the ABM issue caused a lot of ill will. He was downright insulting about it. Whether the treaty is relevant anymore is beside that point.

I don’t see why this is worth getting all hot and bothered about. Remind me of the tangible negative consequences again? Oh, wait. That’s right. You can’t.

The US has so far demonstrated a total inability and lack of will to investigate demonstrated crimes committed by its soldiers, or even to investigate if such crimes have taken place. So you can fuck off with that particular lie.

Tell that to Lyndie England.

Bush is driving a wedge between the US and Europe, with European citizens holding an increasingly unfavorable view of America. The recent "revelations" that Iraq was a complete non-issue in the War on Terror and not even a threat to anyone only serve to reinforce Europe's opinion. If you refuse to believe that Europe doesn't hate us and is less likely to give us support on an international level at this point, you're just burying your head in the sand.

Nobody’s denying that Bush’s abrasive style of diplomacy has made Europeans dislike him. Nobody’s denying that American unilateralism has sparked resentment from people around the world who feel that their lives are impacted by decisions they don’t help make. But to say that Europe will deny the United States support on issues in the future solely because the majority of Europeans dislike George W. Bush is baseless. Unless you can cite an example where George Bush couldn’t get support for an issue that another leader might have, you know you can just go and shove it.

Oh please. We all know that Bush thinks that God wanted him to be president; he's said so. Don't pretend that his religious delusions of righteousness are irrelevant in his decision-making.

Newsflash: his religious sentiments are largely irrelevant if he can’t pass laws to enforce them. Not that I think he’s nearly as religious as he makes himself out to be; it’s an excellent campaign strategy, though. This country has become far more conservative over the past several years, and he’s appealing to a conservative voter base.

And yes, I think it's a dumb-shit idea to try and bring democracy to the Middle East, and Iraq is proof enough of that. Not only did Bush embark on fool's errand, but he embarked on that errand with no discernible plan for how to get it done. Would Kerry have done the same thing? I doubt it. He voted to give the president authority to go to war, but I have a hard time believing that he would've just started looking at a way to invade Iraq out of the blue the way Bush did.

The alternative was stagnation. To let the Middle East continue to fester while we did nothing to address the problem of rogue states, or the world’s fast-waning interest in containing leaders like Saddam.

But can Kerry bring America back into a more favorable light internationally and improve our chances of getting support for other international endeavors? Yes, he can. Bush cannot.

WHAT endeavors? NAME something Kerry will gain Europe’s support on that Bush can’t or couldn’t. Go ahead and actually SUBSTANTIATE your case. Hand-waving won’t do it for you.

[Graeme Dice]

Nobody’s denying that Bush’s abrasive style of diplomacy has made Europeans dislike him.

Bullshit. You've denied it in this very post.

WHAT endeavors? NAME something Kerry will gain Europe’s support on that Bush can’t or couldn’t. Go ahead and actually SUBSTANTIATE your case. Hand-waving won’t do it for you.

And there you go denying it. Why don't you make up your mind about what you actually believe.

[Graeme Dice]

Because as you keep ignoring the point isn't to replace Bush, reward Bush, or anything else. It is to punish the democrats in a manner that can't be ignored.

I'm sorry, but what, exactly, do the democrats need to be punished for? It's not like they are the ones that are responsible for the last 4 years.

[Ma Deuce]

And hey, they sure LOOKED like they were bribed and coerced to me.

That may be so, but it doesn't help Kerry when he's also talking about "getting our allies more involved in Iraq"...

[Graeme Dice]

That may be so, but it doesn't help Kerry when he's also talking about "getting our allies more involved in Iraq"...

Well, let's put it this way. Bush has destroyed any chance of ever getting international support for virtually anything he might want to do in the future. Kerry hasn't yet done that. That means that he actually has a chance of obtaining international cooperation.

[Edi]

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about rejection of the treaty if the US was otherwise committed to reducing its waste emissions, but it isn't, so you'll not get a free pass with this copout.

I see no reason for the United States government to hog-tie its own industry when nobody else will. Playing by the rules simply because they are the rules doesn’t work on the international level.

Well, if you feel that American industry should have a free pass at polluting your environment, that's your problem. Unfortunately, it's also everybody else's problem because airborne polution is not confined to the US, it is carreid by winds and diffuses into the atmosphere and fucks over everyone else. Your country has 5% of the world population and produces 25% of the pollution, so I'd say the US has a responsibility to do something to reduce it.

That does not change the fact that Bush's handling of the ABM issue caused a lot of ill will. He was downright insulting about it. Whether the treaty is relevant anymore is beside that point.

I don’t see why this is worth getting all hot and bothered about. Remind me of the tangible negative consequences again? Oh, wait. That’s right. You can’t.

A quite tangible negative consequence was the lesseining of international cooperation, which happened when that spat was going on. September 11 is the reason why the attitudes changed, and I haven't heard a peep about ABM since.

The US has so far demonstrated a total inability and lack of will to investigate demonstrated crimes committed by its soldiers, or even to investigate if such crimes have taken place. So you can fuck off with that particular lie.

Tell that to Lyndie England.

Oh yes, after weeks of controversy they prosecuted her and a total of less than a dozen soldiers, the highest ranking of whom was a staff sergeant, iirc. Never mind that there is a document trail and army reports that show that the orders came from as far up as Lt. General Sanchez and that he was receiving instructions from the Pentagon and Rumsfeld himself. So fuck off, nobody with any real responsibility has been brought to account. Then there are the infamous sub incident off the coast of Hawaii and the 1995 cable car incident in Italy that I have brought up in the past. Lynndie England's prosecution means fuck-all in the face of overwhelming evidence of the US not even trying to punish its soldiers who commit crimes, intentionally or unintentionally.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

And there you go denying it. Why don't you make up your mind about what you actually believe.

My argument is that Bush’s style of diplomacy hasn’t cost us dear, you twit, not that it’s warm and fuzzy.

Well, let's put it this way. Bush has destroyed any chance of ever getting international support for virtually anything he might want to do in the future. Kerry hasn't yet done that. That means that he actually has a chance of obtaining international cooperation.

Like what? Are you suggesting that so long as Bush is no power, Europe will purposely veer from a course of doing what most befits their interests, just to flip us the proverbial bird? Are you suggesting that Kerry could persuade Europe to do what is not in its interest if he were in the White House?

Well, if you feel that American industry should have a free pass at polluting your environment, that's your problem. Unfortunately, it's also everybody else's problem because airborne polution is not confined to the US, it is carreid by winds and diffuses into the atmosphere and fucks over everyone else. Your country has 5% of the world population and produces 25% of the pollution, so I'd say the US has a responsibility to do something to reduce it.

I’m saying that the solution can’t lie in imposing unilateral disadvantages on American business.

A quite tangible negative consequence was the lesseining of international cooperation, which happened when that spat was going on. September 11 is the reason why the attitudes changed, and I haven't heard a peep about ABM since.

In what? The liberals on this board just love to bandy around the “international cooperation” bullshit – and then uniformly shut the fuck up whenever they’re actually asked to provide clear examples. A lessening in cooperation on which issues resulted because of our withdrawal from ABM? Non-proliferation? Treaties have always been worthless anyway; it’s the carrot-and-stick negotiations behind him that actually get things done.

Oh yes, after weeks of controversy they prosecuted her and a total of less than a dozen soldiers, the highest ranking of whom was a staff sergeant, iirc. Never mind that there is a document trail and army reports that show that the orders came from as far up as Lt. General Sanchez and that he was receiving instructions from the Pentagon and Rumsfeld himself. So fuck off, nobody with any real responsibility has been brought to account. Then there are the infamous sub incident off the coast of Hawaii and the 1995 cable car incident in Italy that I have brought up in the past. Lynndie England's prosecution means fuck-all in the face of overwhelming evidence of the US not even trying to punish its soldiers who commit crimes, intentionally or unintentionally.

Actually, American soldiers are now being held responsible for the death of an Iraqi civilian – and face formal charges of murder.

The Abu Ghraib case is so unusual because most of the orders related to the torture came from the intelligence community, which is outside the Army chain of command.

Finally, that 1995 cable car incident resulted in a court-martial of the pilot and navigator of the aircraft, genius. We didn’t just walk away from what happened there.

Clearly, the United States takes its soldiers to task for their transgressions. Certainly we don’t need another farcical body to do it for us.

The dangers involved with an ICC - i.e. the possibility of arbitrary trials - are too great.

[Axis Kast]

Oh - and the 1995 cable car incident occured in 1998. I meant '98 in my original post.

[Iceberg]

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about rejection of the treaty if the US was otherwise committed to reducing its waste emissions, but it isn't, so you'll not get a free pass with this copout.

I see no reason for the United States government to hog-tie its own industry when nobody else will. Playing by the rules simply because they are the rules doesn’t work on the international level.

Well, if you feel that American industry should have a free pass at polluting your environment, that's your problem. Unfortunately, it's also everybody else's problem because airborne polution is not confined to the US, it is carreid by winds and diffuses into the atmosphere and fucks over everyone else. Your country has 5% of the world population and produces 25% of the pollution, so I'd say the US has a responsibility to do something to reduce it.

The United States has a disproportionate amount of the world's industry, though, even with outsourcing and all (not quite 25% but it's still quite a big chunk), which would make American pollution figures look more reasonable. I'm pretty sure industry has a much larger impact on pollution than does personal behavior.

[Coyote]

Can someone explain Coyotes 'stay or change' statement about voting Bush/Kerry? Does he see voting as some kind of team effort? Is he a member of Bushes party? Do people attach their ego to political alliegiance in America?

Well, voting is a team effort in a way, since it is the team that amasses the most amount of votes wins. Its the numbers that count.

It is my opinion that Kerry offers no significant improvement over GW Bush. He will do some things better and I think he will do some things worse, so basically I see no convincing argument why he is better, only that he is different. I have to ask myself: is he different in a way that I am willing to try him as a leader? I haven't decided yet.

I tend to vote Republican because I think that they are usually more realistic about trade, defense, and foreign relations. But Bush, I think, has handled these badly...

But as much as I don't want Bush I don't want Kerry either, just for different reasons. It seems to me that this electoral season the "Anyone But Bush" crowd simply embraces Kerry without putting any critical thought into the man's positions at all-- his only qualification is who he is not.

The Republican Party's hold on me is tenuous at best. I frequently vote for third-parties, independents, Democrats, and so on, if I like their ideas. There is too much religious influence with the Republicans and I don't like that. Sometimes I feel that if the Democratic party would just dump their gun-control hysteria and trade protectionism, I'd feel more comfortable there.

[Iceberg]

Can someone explain Coyotes 'stay or change' statement about voting Bush/Kerry? Does he see voting as some kind of team effort? Is he a member of Bushes party? Do people attach their ego to political alliegiance in America?

But as much as I don't want Bush I don't want Kerry either, just for different reasons. It seems to me that this electoral season the "Anyone But Bush" crowd simply embraces Kerry without putting any critical thought into the man's positions at all-- his only qualification is who he is not.

John Kerry happens to be a warm body to occupy the White House in lieu of George W. Bush. I don't think anybody has any delusions otherwise. If he fucks up, he'll be replaced in 2008, but I doubt this Democratic jackass can fuck up near as badly as the current elephant.