This thread has nothing new.
<yawn>
Thanks, acsenray, that’s what I needed to know. I’d seen Nader as one of my heroes, but you gave me good reasons “why not Nader.” Although I admire non-compromising figures like Ralph Nader & Jimmy Carter, I understand now why other people won’t vote for him, & why he would have severe difficulty governing.
That makes no sense. YOU’RE the one saying you might vote for Bush because you think he’s more ‘principled’ than Kerry. You cited an instance where Bush sticks to a position even though you admit the position is wrong. I explained how sticking to a wrong position is not a virtue. That in no no way says or implies that Bush and Kerry are the only choices, and I have no idea where you got that idea.
Wow, that clears it up. :rolleyes:
Since you mangled my paragraph in your citation, I’ll post it again:
“What words did I put in your mouth? I’m trying to get at the reason why you are concerned with Kerry’s “yes” vote on the Iraq resolution. Is it because you (1) believe he will get the U.S. into an unnecessary war if elected president, or is it because (2) you won’t vote for a “flip-flopper”, or is it (3) because of a third reason? You seemed offended when I suggested either of the first two reasons, so I’m asking you, what’s the reason? I invite you to put your OWN words in your mouth.”
Why are you afraid to answer this question?
blowero: I can’t think of anything else to say that I haven’t already said. I think I’ve answered your question, and you don’t think I have. We are clearly just talking past each other, so it’s probably best to just agree to disagree and let it stand at that.
Never. But I try to pay attention to substance instead of making judgments based on ads.
If you don’t even give enough of a fuck to find out, where the hell do you get off starting a debate about it? Are you TRYING to give me an aneurysm?
Oh, well, they went to the same school, they MUST be the same. It’s not like people from the same place can have different ideas, right? Naw. That’s crazy talk.
Weren’t paying attention in 2000, were we?
That explains their differences on social, economic and foreign policies. :smack: Nice political analysis there.
Are you seriously asking this? It’s because he isn’t fucking going to win the fucking election. It’s going to be either Bush or Kerry, wrap your head around it. Don’t vote for either of them if you don’t want, but at least come up with a good reason for doing so instead of this made up “bush lite” horseshit.
Well John, I’m sorry you want to dodge my question. Since you brought up Kerry’s voting for the Iraq proposal, I think it’s reasonable to ask you why it’s a concern of yours. All you have offered is that you claim not to “know where he stands”, yet you balk at answering why that concerns you. You got mad when I suggested you’re just buying into the “Kerry is a flip-flopper” Republican party meme, yet you refuse to explain why that’s wrong.
You might be interested to know that, in spite of what he claims now, Bush hasn’t always been pro-life.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3263/view/print
I guess I just don’t understand how, for some people, the “flip-flop” charge seems to stick to Kerry, but slides off Bush.
I’m very comfortable with the answers I’ve given you, and will leave it up to the other readers of this thread todecide whether or not I’m dodging anything.
I didn’t bring it up. I was responding to someone else who did.
You might be interested to know that Bush did not become a “born again” Christian until he was 40, ie, in 1986. If he was once softer on abortion, it shouldn’t be any surprise that he would change his position after 1986.
I guess I just don’t understand how, for some people, every discussion about Kerry has to revert back to Bush.
So it’s o.k. for Bush to change his mind, but it’s not o.k. for Kerry?
Yeah, I don’t understand it either - YOU’RE the one who did it:
Those are your words, my friend. In fact, until you went there, we were talking about Kerry vs. NADER. Voting for Bush hadn’t even entered the discussion until you brought it up.
No, it would leave two options: Democrats, Republicans. Everyone else would be irrelevant. That’s how majoritarian government works.
Bullplop. Kerry has outlined a broad range of policies and initiatives. The Democrats had a convention that was largely focused on future policies and lofty ideals. His national campaign has, until now, largely avoided talking about Bush all that much, instead talking about Kerry and what his plans are.
The fact that you can claim only demonstrates how little attention you actually pay to anything other than a habitual cynicism, and exactly why no serious party need ever bother competing for your vote.
How do you suggest one does this, and how does not voting makes a difference?
Let’s frame it in conservative terms. Suppose the 2nd Amendment came up for a vote and you voted in favor of it. A few months later someone bought a gun and killed ten people. You’d certainly be upset that this tragedy had happened and you’d wish the shooter had not acted as he did. But if someone came up to you and asked you if you had to do it over again if you would still vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment knowing what you now know, you’d probably say you would.
So by the same token, John Kerry may have supported the President of the United States by voting in favor of giving him broad powers to deal with Iraq. But that doesn’t mean he has to agree with how George Bush handled the situation. Nor does it mean that he would never again offer a President the same support in a future situation.
Bush probably came out ahead on votes over the stem cell issue. Most of the voters he lost were people who were probably going to be lost anyway over other issues. But he strengthened his support among Fundamentalist Christian voters who, while unlikely to have voted for Kerry, might have defected to a third candidate or stayed home instead of voting for Bush if they didn’t think he had the “right” values.
Bush lost me back in 2000 over the death penalty issue. Texas as a whole is strongly in favor of the death penalty. As Governor of Texas, Bush had an unbroken record on the issue; he never overturned a single death penalty that came across his desk. But then he ran for President and some voters in other states oppose the death penalty. Bush suddenly backed off and said that he had very little to do with capital punishment in Texas; he claimed that as Governor he was essentially out of the loop on capital cases and was just carrying out the will of the court system. And then to show his open mindedness he overturned a death penalty for the first time in his administration.
Now I could respect Bush if he was a strong advocate of the death penalty and made a case for it. And I could support him if he was an opponent of the death penalty and made a case for that (especially in Texas where it would take a politician of strong principles to take up such a position). But Bush seemed to have no real commitment to either side of the issue; he was on one side for a state election and on the other for a national one. And even that’s not really true; he was really trying to sit on both sides of the fence when he ran for President. But he never seemed to grasp the idea that signing an execution order was an issue of core principles and something a person should reflect upon. Without even going into what my own opinions are on capital punishment, that’s when Bush lost my vote. I thought he was too shallow to be President and nothing I’ve seen in the last four years has shown me I was wrong.
I don’t see how that is analogous at all. There was no vote over whether or not the constitution should be changed to give the president the authority to delcare war-- it was only in this particular instance. Congress retains that authority. If some in the Congress thought Bush was getting out of hand, they should have initiated another resolution in Jan/Feb of '03 to rescind or restrict the authority of the president to use force against Iraq. As it is, we heard nary a peep.
The war against Iraq was clearly spearheaded bu Bush. He was the driving force. But, he did it with the full blessing of all those in Congress who voted for the original resolution. To say otherwise is simply ignoring reality. And if you think the Democrats voted for that resolution only because the Republicans framed the debate so that voting against it was portrayed as being unpatriotic, well so what? If the Dems can’t stand on principle and have to go along with the Pubs on critical policy like this in order to retain their seats, the what the hell goood are they?