What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[Iceberg]

Historically voting spoiler is the most effective way to reign in the parties. It happened with Perot, with Teddy Roosevelt, with John Fremont, and to lesser extents with Weaver, Fisk, and the like.

Voting spoiler will have no effect on THIS president. Or have you forgotten that he was elected with a minority of the popular vote - only the fourth president to do so - and proceeded to act as if he had been elected with a massive popular mandate. The only way to affect THIS presidency is to remove it from office.

[Durandal]

That is the crux of it in this case. It assumes that the guy being sent in to replace one bumbling nitwit is smarter or better qualified. But what if the only other person who shows up for the job interview is just as much of a bumbling nitwit, only in a different way? Or has some other flaw that precludes his taking over with a clean conscience?

This argument has been addressed over and over in this thread. You take a risk in replacing him, but that risk is not as big as letting the current guy stay and continue fucking things up.

From my point of view, replacing one dimwit with another isn't going to solve the problem. I don't like Bush but Kerry has not convinced me he would do better.

Please explain what makes you think that electing Kerry is as big a risk as letting Bush continue his disastrous first term. Seriously. I can understand maybe not liking all of Kerry's proposals, but there's no way any sane individual could possibly think that the country would be worse off with him or even just as badly off. His stances on stem-cell research alone vault him ahead of Bush.

[Darth Wong]

That is the crux of it in this case. It assumes that the guy being sent in to replace one bumbling nitwit is smarter or better qualified. But what if the only other person who shows up for the job interview is just as much of a bumbling nitwit, only in a different way? Or has some other flaw that precludes his taking over with a clean conscience?

For the umpteenth time, since his abilities as President are as-yet untested, he is a safer choice than a known lying incompetent shitstain. The management analogy still works. You would have to show that there is something in his record which conclusively shows that he would be even worse, and questioning his decisiveness or arguing that he can't come up with a miracle-plan to completely erase the mistakes of his precedessor hardly qualifies. If you have only doubts rather than hard facts, then the hard facts about the incumbent preclude re-electing him unless you're an idiot.

[Coyote]

Please explain what makes you think that electing Kerry is as big a risk as letting Bush continue his disastrous first term. Seriously. I can understand maybe not liking all of Kerry's proposals, but there's no way any sane individual could possibly think that the country would be worse off with him or even just as badly off. His stances on stem-cell research alone vault him ahead of Bush.

His stance on stem-cell research is better than Bush's, but that is not as pressing an isue right now as the war, and on that issue Kerry's stance has come across to me as little more than "status quo + allies"-- and he has offered no realistic plan on how he would get these allies to come join us in a war they didn't want any part of before-- and it is not just because of GW Bush.

If I thought Kerry offered abetter choice in the war, I'd vote for him and ignore his gun-control stances, for example-- I'd give a hundred bucks to the NRA and let them hire the lwayers to keep up the fight like they always do.

Again, don't take my dislike for Kerry as an automatic guarantee of support for Bush. My stance so far is that I'm not voting for either of them because they haven't earned it.

But Kerry talks like he's going to have Europe eating out of the palm of his hand. Isn't part of his platform based on protectionist tariffs and trade barriers for his Union base? That won't go over well in a Europe already PO'd by Bush-- it'll pour gas on the fire.

And his intent to go it alone and cut a seperate deal with North Korea, screwing the neighbors, is the same unilateralism he claims to deplore.

So, yeah, I don't see any improvement with Kerry just because he's "not Bush", and I believe I see potential for further damage in areas that have so far been left out of the argument.

[BoredShirtless]

And his intent to go it alone and cut a seperate deal with North Korea, screwing the neighbors, is the same unilateralism he claims to deplore.

That's a lie. He wants to include unilateral talks.

[Coyote]

And his intent to go it alone and cut a seperate deal with North Korea, screwing the neighbors, is the same unilateralism he claims to deplore.

That's a lie. He wants to include unilateral talks.

He hammered direct, bilateral talks with N Korea in the debate, then later said that he wanted to do both direct talks and the group talks. But it would be counter-productive. Why have both? If you have one, what is the point of the other?

In a set-up like that, the US and NK discuss terms, then they'd go to the group and argue about what got discussed. But the US and NK would be setting the tone of the discusions, the other partners would only be reacting to what the two powers decided to talk about.


Other things to consider-- Kerry said he'd "cut a deal" with Iran to give them nuclear fuel for their reactor, then take back the waste so they can't re-process it into weapons-grade material. How does he know he'd cut a deal with Iran? What if the Mullahs say "no", which I believe they already have? Kerry's plan is dead in the water, which makes Bush's plan (unrefined empty rhetoric) no better or worse one way or another.

A lot of Kerry's promises rest on the assumption that the world just can't wait to buy tickets to kiss his ass. That's not logic, that's wishful thinking.

[Beowulf]

And his intent to go it alone and cut a seperate deal with North Korea, screwing the neighbors, is the same unilateralism he claims to deplore.

That's a lie. He wants to include unilateral talks.

Thank you for proving his point!

Oh, and Coyote? The Mullah's have rejected the deal already.

[BoredShirtless]

But it would be counter-productive.

How?

Why have both? If you have one, what is the point of the other?

Why not have both? Everyone wants it like that except the United States. Maybe you should just turn up and see what they want. Does it hurt anybody to listen to what they want to say? Does listening hurt?

In a set-up like that, the US and NK discuss terms, then they'd go to the group and argue about what got discussed. But the US and NK would be setting the tone of the discusions, the other partners would only be reacting to what the two powers decided to talk about.

And? You seem to bealive terms discussed in any 2 way talks would replace or overwrite those in the 6 way ones. How? And why?

[BoredShirtless]

And his intent to go it alone and cut a seperate deal with North Korea, screwing the neighbors, is the same unilateralism he claims to deplore.

That's a lie. He wants to include unilateral talks.

Thank you for proving his point!

Don't be an idiot. The word "include" is not a synonym for "replace".

[Durandal]

His stance on stem-cell research is better than Bush's, but that is not as pressing an isue right now as the war, and on that issue Kerry's stance has come across to me as little more than "status quo + allies"-- and he has offered no realistic plan on how he would get these allies to come join us in a war they didn't want any part of before-- and it is not just because of GW Bush.

Which war? The War on Terror? Or the occupation of Iraq? I don't realistically expect anyone else to send troops into that shit-hole, but I'd trust Kerry to be able to get Europe to work with us in fighting terrorism abroad more than I'd trust Bush. "Status quo + allies" is better than "status quo."

If I thought Kerry offered abetter choice in the war, I'd vote for him and ignore his gun-control stances, for example-- I'd give a hundred bucks to the NRA and let them hire the lwayers to keep up the fight like they always do.

The Iraq occupation is a lost cause. Leaving Bush in charge of the War on Terror means that the US will be stuck on its own because everyone's so pissed off at that little Wonder Chimp. We need a change in leadership if we ever hope to have other countries help us in fighting terrorism. More importantly, we need an administration which can differentiate between the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror.

[Beowulf]

That's a lie. He wants to include unilateral talks.

Thank you for proving his point!

Don't be an idiot. The word "include" is not a synonym for "replace".

Tell me, how useful will it be to have one on one talks with N. Korea at the same time as multi-lateral talks? Answer: Not at all, because only one of them will actually be used. In fact, it's counterproductive, because if the talks disagree, then N. Korea will choose whichever one helps it most.

[Coyote]

But it would be counter-productive.

How?

Because it would be aduplication of efforts. The NK and the US decide what gets talked abut and put on the table. The Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese get no say until after the fact-- yet they are the ones directly affected. The Russians deserve a say too because they have long had ties with North Korea. Many people have astake in this.

Why not have both? Everyone wants it like that except the United States.

No, only North Korea wants it that way. I think South Korea, Japan, China and Russia deserve to have direct input since they will be the ones dealing with the direct results. Many in Asia feel that by cutting out the neighbors, the US will once again be putting its own interests over the concerns of the locals.

Maybe you should just turn up and see what they want. Does it hurt anybody to listen to what they want to say? Does listening hurt?

Listening is very good and can help solve a lot of problems. I got to this point in my views by listening to others. I used to believe we should e ngag in direct talks if that was what it took to undue the impasse... but then I began to realize that a direct US-NK deal would basically be one more decision America makes with some dictator and then imposes on the rest of the region.

You have every right to your opinion but bear in mind, you may need to listen as well, from time to time.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way two years ago, the same people who said "who gives a shit what other countries think?" are now admitting "OK, it would have been good not to shit on other countries two years ago ... but now that's water under the bridge, and what difference does it make now? So who gives a shit what other countries think?"

What's that line about those who fail to learn from the lessons of the past?

[Coyote]

Which war? The War on Terror? Or the occupation of Iraq? I don't realistically expect anyone else to send troops into that shit-hole, but I'd trust Kerry to be able to get Europe to work with us in fighting terrorism abroad more than I'd trust Bush. "Status quo + allies" is better than "status quo."

True, but again I don't see any realistic hopes of getting any allies on board. They turned us down because they thought the whole venture was unethical-- not because of a personal dislike of GWBush. They will not embrace Kerry and go to war simply because it's Kerry.

The Iraq occupation is a lost cause. Leaving Bush in charge of the War on Terror means that the US will be stuck on its own because everyone's so pissed off at that little Wonder Chimp. We need a change in leadership if we ever hope to have other countries help us in fighting terrorism. More importantly, we need an administration which can differentiate between the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror.

You see, I actually agree with you-- that is why I am not arguing for GW Bush and I won't shed a tear if he loses. I am not worried about a Kerry victory-- I just don't think he's actually the better choice people think he is.

And I won't celebrate his potential or eventual victory because I just don't see how Kerry's prescence in the Oval Office is suddenly going to get Europe, Russia, and Asia to go along with our plans and agree wit everything he says.

Yeah, Bush is a loser. But that doesn't make Kerry a winner by default. As I posted before, there is potential that he could open a trade war with the EU and further poson things. Remember the spats over steel tariffs, bananas...? What will Europe do then when Kerry comes to them, hat in hand?

[Darth Wong]

Coyote, your worst fears could come true and Kerry would still do no more damage than Bush did. Or have you forgotten that Bush instituted some of the largest tariffs in history when he became President? It is virtually inconceivable that Kerry could piss off Europe more than Bush has. All of Europe is looking at sharply more violent and fanatical terrorists thanks to George Bush stirring the pot for them, and those terrorists are living on Europe's front door.

[Agrajag]

His stances on stem-cell research alone vault him ahead of Bush.

I loved listening to the former Prime Minister in Canada on Bill Maher's show a while back. She said something to the effect that in her country any candidate who still questioned evolution couldn't get elected to an entry-level position.

[Agrajag]

BTW, as I said before, the unspoken reason (though his subordinates have said it) that Kerry can get the allies involved in Iraq is all because of MONEY.... He will allow participating countries to share in the wealth of rebuilding Iraq. Bush has handed off nearly all of that to Halliburton and friends. Kerry is going to send many of those groups packing when he gets in and that leaves a lot of room for everyone else.

[tharkûn]

Historically voting spoiler is the most effective way to reign in the parties. It happened with Perot, with Teddy Roosevelt, with John Fremont, and to lesser extents with Weaver, Fisk, and the like.

Voting spoiler will have no effect on THIS president. Or have you forgotten that he was elected with a minority of the popular vote - only the fourth president to do so - and proceeded to act as if he had been elected with a massive popular mandate. The only way to affect THIS presidency is to remove it from office.

Thank you captain obvious, the whole point of voting spoiler is to affect the democrats so we can get a real candidate out of them. Possibly the RNC might pull its collective head out its collective ass in light of a large spoiler vote, but that would just be icing on the cake. Voting spoilor is not directed at GWB, it is directed at Terry McAuliffe.

[Axis Kast]

Coyote hit the nail on the head as per the possibility of new bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Attempt to hold both bilateral and multilateral discussion concurrently, and North Korea will simply stonewall one series of talks by attempting to renegotiate with each change of venue. Why give North Korea an outlet to hijack the multilateral process by rehashing every issue with the United States alone? Certainly we’ve already made attempts to “go the bilateral route” – only to be tricked in bad faith out of tens of millions of dollars in aid.

[Durandal]

Which war? The War on Terror? Or the occupation of Iraq? I don't realistically expect anyone else to send troops into that shit-hole, but I'd trust Kerry to be able to get Europe to work with us in fighting terrorism abroad more than I'd trust Bush. "Status quo + allies" is better than "status quo."

True, but again I don't see any realistic hopes of getting any allies on board. They turned us down because they thought the whole venture was unethical-- not because of a personal dislike of GWBush. They will not embrace Kerry and go to war simply because it's Kerry.

Yes, they refused to help us in invading Iraq because we didn't present a compelling case for it being linked to al Qaeda or any kind of terrorism, it being a threat to any of its neighbors and it having weapons of mass destruction. And how could we have? It wasn't linked to al Qaeda, didn't have weapons of mass destruction and wasn't a threat to anyone.

But Bush's unilateral decision to invade created a personal dislike of him by many Europeans and their leaders. If you don't think that European leaders don't have a personal dislike of Bush, and it is because of that dislike that they snub him off, you're burying your head in the sand. To them, Bush embodies every ``ugly American" stereotype perfectly. He's cocky, arrogant, self-righteous, stubborn and above all, stupid.

So yes, Kerry being elected will help America out on the world stage immensely. No one likes Bush. No one wants to work with him. He's a joke. The rest of the world knows it, and hopefully the nation will come to that realization on November 2nd.

As far as the War on Terror, terrorism is a problem for everyone. Just ask the Spanish. I'd trust Kerry to foster international cooperation on fighting terrorism (real terrorism, not the ``anyone with brown skin who faces East a few times a day" brand that the Bush administration has concocted) before I'd ever trust Bush to.

The Iraq occupation is a lost cause. Leaving Bush in charge of the War on Terror means that the US will be stuck on its own because everyone's so pissed off at that little Wonder Chimp. We need a change in leadership if we ever hope to have other countries help us in fighting terrorism. More importantly, we need an administration which can differentiate between the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror.

You see, I actually agree with you-- that is why I am not arguing for GW Bush and I won't shed a tear if he loses. I am not worried about a Kerry victory-- I just don't think he's actually the better choice people think he is.

For every reason you give that he's not significantly different from Bush, I can find at least two that show that he's not only different, but better.

And I won't celebrate his potential or eventual victory because I just don't see how Kerry's prescence in the Oval Office is suddenly going to get Europe, Russia, and Asia to go along with our plans and agree wit everything he says.

Strawman bullshit. You're expecting a perfect solution to Bush's mess; please get an apartment in the city we call Reality. Kerry's not going to be some Messiah to lead us all into the Promised Land, but he's not going to drive us off a cliff like Bush has, either.

Yeah, Bush is a loser. But that doesn't make Kerry a winner by default. As I posted before, there is potential that he could open a trade war with the EU and further poson things. Remember the spats over steel tariffs, bananas...? What will Europe do then when Kerry comes to them, hat in hand?

What's the worst they could do? That's right: The exact same thing they'd do to Bush regardless. They'd snub him. You're still not grasping this concept of risk yet. So I'll explain, again. Keeping Bush onboard is a bigger risk than allowing Bush to continue. Therefore, Kerry is the better choice. He is not the perfect choice. He is not the Messiah. He is not Everything Coyote Has Wanted In a President Ever. He is simply the better choice. So live with it.

[Axis Kast]

Yes, they refused to help us in invading Iraq because we didn't present a compelling case for it being linked to al Qaeda or any kind of terrorism, it being a threat to any of its neighbors and it having weapons of mass destruction. And how could we have? It wasn't linked to al Qaeda, didn't have weapons of mass destruction and wasn't a threat to anyone.

Post prop ad hocter prop fallacy. Europe’s choice about whether to support the American invasion was already made even when their intelligence agencies were providing some of the basis for our assessments of Saddam’s potential stockpiles. Germany and France went so far to declare that they would not support any invasion of Iraq absolutely regardless of whether Saddam was found with no nuclear weapons, or with one hundred.

As far as the War on Terror, terrorism is a problem for everyone. Just ask the Spanish. I'd trust Kerry to foster international cooperation on fighting terrorism (real terrorism, not the ``anyone with brown skin who faces East a few times a day" brand that the Bush administration has concocted) before I'd ever trust Bush to.

Baseless conjecture. Support your argument with examples of Europe’s unwillingness to support the War on Terror. Explain what steps Kerry will take to coax more cooperation than already occurs.

For every reason you give that he's not significantly different from Bush, I can find at least two that show that he's not only different, but better.

Really? I’m eager to hear some.

Certainly it can’t be his doomed position on North Korea. Or his silly declaration that the chief focus of his foreign policy agenda would be secure nuclear waste disposal at sites in the former Soviet Union.

I seriously hope you wouldn’t contemplate trying to tell me his protectionism could result in anything remotely positive for the American economy.

And let’s not get started on the issue of whether Kerry will somehow oblige Europeans to close this magical “cooperation gap” you and other supporters of his keep claiming exists in the War on Terror, irrespective of Iraq. Surely you’re not claiming Europe’s been cutting its nose just to spite its face.

In fact, the only thing one can commend Kerry on are his social goals. Of course, given that he’ll never meet them anyway (the country on the whole is far, far too conservative), and that they’re secondary to the economic and defensive well-being of the nation, there’s even less reason to vote for him.

[Iceberg]

Thank you captain obvious, the whole point of voting spoiler is to affect the democrats so we can get a real candidate out of them. Possibly the RNC might pull its collective head out its collective ass in light of a large spoiler vote, but that would just be icing on the cake. Voting spoilor is not directed at GWB, it is directed at Terry McAuliffe.

And that will not change the problem, which is that George W. Bush is fucking the entire world with a railroad spiked telephone pole with no fucking lubricant. Fixing the Democratic Party's problems can wait until the world's most destructive chimpanzee is safely removed from office.

[tharkûn]

Icerberg: Remind again what is Kerry go to do differently? His Iraq plan is all but a carbon copy of Bush's. His plan for North Korea I think is WORSE than Bush's, and that takes some doing. His creeping protectionism sounds as bad or worse than Bush's creeping protectionism. The ICC, not going to get past congress regardless. Kyoto, it failed by 90+ votes in the senate. Both of them intend to bleed red ink as far as the eye can see and both oppose gay marriage.

Kerry is Bush-lite, the difference between what he plans to do and what Bush plans to do are not all that large. The difference between what either of them have a hope in hell of getting past fillibuster is even less.

For all the talk of Bush screwing the world over, the debate is about how much less would Kerry screw it over ... and I keep coming back to "not all that much less".

The US needs to reign in the parties more than it needs to get rid of Bush.

[Darth Wong]

Kerry is Bush-lite

Yet again, you completely ignore the fact that two managerial candidates for a failing plant would probably present very similar plans for fixing the mess because once a situation gets bad enough, your options narrow considerably. But for the umpteenth fucking time, no one in his right mind, given two similar arguments from two candidates, would pick the guy who got them into this mess in the first place. I'm sick of saying this and then seeing you ignore it so you can repeat your broken-record argument.

As for your assertion that Kerry would not be much different from Bush, that's just plain and simple bullshit. You can point to certain key policy initiatives, but one of the most important things is what he will lack, which is Bush's rabid determination to turn America into a Christian theocracy and his remarkable ability to piss off other countries. You're saying that he can't magically make them pour troops into the American-Iraq meat grinder; that may be true, but he won't continue pissing them off the way Bush will, and that will have long-term benefits.

Like it or not, George W. Bush is Al-Quaeda's recruiting poster boy, and if America re-elects him, it sends a message to the rest of the world: "we don't give a fuck what you think, we still support our monkey-boy, his agenda, and his actions."

[Agrajag]

Darth, I think at times we're talking to a wall.

Every excuse is being made to allow Bush to stay in office. It's a joke.

Kerry is NOT Bush-lite. Bush is Bush-lite. He says he'll do something and then it gets done poorly if at all.

Even if Kerry does the same job as Bush, which I doubt, I would not look back and say, "Damn, we could have just left Bush here." Bush has to go and, in the event that Kerry does no better, he will have to go, but when you find yourself on the wrong path, you MUST make a change if the person doing the driving refuses to see the problem. Your hope is that at least Kerry would see the problem and try anything different.

I also can't believe someone would see their positions on gay marriage as the same. hahahahaa. Kerry is a typical politician in that regard. His stance is the typical middle-of-the-road, try not to offend anyone too much. I doubt actual gay marriages bug him at all. When Mass was having them, he didn't say a word. BUSH, on the other hand, CLEARLY despises them or caters to a following that clearly hates them. There's a big difference here when one candidate openly talks about a need for a consitutional amendment!

One candidate is entirely about removing choice (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, patriot act freedoms, etc.) and the other is about embrasing choice. America is supposed to be about choice and in this area, Bush has been a HUGE failure.