Convince me to vote for Kerry

[snermy]

You can focus on the “increase the military” (lib kneejerk bad) or on the “increase gov’t services” (pub kneejerk bad) but here’s a press release about Kerry’s position on the size and running of the military: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0317.html

Basically proposes

1)increase the size of the military (albeit temporarily).

2)military family bill of rights exempting hardship duty pay from cuts, broader healthcare coverage, etc.

All you can do is read what they say, and evaluate what they do.

And the evaluate what they do category is whyfor all the anti-bush, because if one perceives massive cock-ups in Bush’s performance so far, it will make one more willing to take an untested* candidate.

All non-incumbent candidates in recent memory have been untested in the sense that they have no record as POTUS.

It isn’t mindless Bush bashing (well, not always) to use examples of what you consider bad leadership to promote the new guy. You’re not going to have comparable examples of how Kerry is running the Iraq war for example, since he isn’t.

*Personally, I think he’s a lot more tested, considering his life experiences vs GWB’s but YMMV.

[jshore]

@Debaser

This is exactly the sort of crap you get when one asks about the Patriot Act. Nowhere in the act does it even say anything about libraries or bookstores. Please point out where the word “library” or “bookstore” even appears in the act. Have you even read it?

Here is what the American Library Association has to say about the Patriot Act’s provisions regarding library information:

Enhanced Surveillance Provisions Affecting Library Confidentiality

Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)

* Allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, and computers with hard drives.
* Permits the FBI to compel production of library circulation records, Internet use records, and registration information stored in any medium.
* **Does not require the agent to demonstrate “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Instead, the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities, a very low legal standard.**
* Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.
* Overrides state library confidentiality laws protecting library records.

…

(bolding mine)

Yeah…I guess you’re right. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with library records.

You notion that government will crack down on people who don’t “think correctly” is real tin foil hat territory. This simply is not the case.

Oh, of course, our bad. There’s no such dangers like this. Governments never do that sort of thing…Now, if the government was restricting our rights to carry around assault weapons, that would be a different story. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jshore]

Note that those opposing the Patriot Act (or at least some provisions of it) include conservative Republican Congressman Bob Barr.

[pervert]

Do you know how many of these sorts of search warrants were already allowed for use against organized crime?

[jshore]

@Debaser

I seems to me from looking at these numbers that the bulk of this growth government contractor jobs is due to defense. I know that many on this board are in denial that we are in a war, but sadly this is not the case. Right now this country is fighting a war on terrorism. Wars are expensive.

Besides the fact that “war on terrorism” is an ill-defined concept that has already been bent entirely out of recognition by our invasion of Iraq, the fact that wars are expensive is the reason why in the past they have usually been accompanied by tax increases on those who can afford to pay more. This current “war” is being paid for on our national credit card.

[Atticus_Finch]

@Cardinal

…That’s a pretty good point, and along the lines of what I had been thinking. However, I knew a lot of that, and what I’m looking for more are reasons for voting for Kerry, and a lot of what I’m getting is “Bush sucks”. That can be a pretty powerful argument if it’s true, admitedly, but it if it’s the only reason, then it means the Dems could run an aardvaark for president and it would be preferrable.

Ok, but it’s not really fair to put Kerry into the ‘aardvark’ category. Sure, there are yellow-dog Democrats and Republicans who love their party or hate the other party enough to always vote the same way, regardless of how crappy their candidate is. But that’s not the case here. Kerry’s a viable candidate with reasonable policies, given that he’s a Democrat.

Sure, his public speaking skills are a bit rough, and he’s tall and gangly. Kerry seems like a reasonable and honest man to me. Given that his policies have to be based on core Democratic values, I don’t think they could be any more reasonable. To me, his policies seems a step to the right of Clinton and more likely to garner swinging voters and disaffected Republicans.

Of course, Kerry’s policies tend towards the Democrat base. If you can’t accept some of the Democratic platform, but are pissed off at Bush’s version of the Republican platform, I guess the principled thing to do would be to vote for a third party, possibly the Libertarians.

[Cardinal]

If the aardvark is the better choice, then you should vote for the aardvark.

Yes, but that’s what I’ve asked to be shown. It’s kind of saying, “but if I’m right, then I’m right…” It’s self evident, except for that “If” in the front.

My point in this is that I think it’s been forgotten that many people and many governments have lost sight that however much you may dislike something, the alternative may be worse. Jumping for change because you can’t take it any more may put you from losing fingers to losing limbs.

Snermy and Pervert, thanks for the attempts. I’ll try to actually wade through that.

As for there having been “tons” of good reasons, I’ve gone back and looked, and up to that point, there had been

1. A decent point about gay marriage bills
2. A few from BobLibDem and others on taxes
3. A few mentions of America’s reputation around the world
4. A pretty decent point about reliance on bad intelligence
5. A hotly debated proposition that the Patriot Act is awful beyond words.
6. All the rest of the stuff from BobLibDem.

So, about 5 or 6 of those (BobLibDem hit about 4) are actually targeted at why one should vote for Kerry. The rest are really just against Bush. The rest of the “reasons” are essentially name calling.

Yes, because conservative hatred of Clinton was totally about policies and not about his sexual practices or other meaningless nonsense…

Of course a lot of the hate had to do with his sexual errors. But calling them meaningless is an opinion, you know that, right? But yes, a lot of the targeted hate on that issue was just because some people wanted any method possible to bring Clinton down.

I think you just started this thread so you can whine.

Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean. I’m in my happy place…

I asked for rational reasons, pointedly asked for no name calling, and hoped that even SDers could present a form of calm speech about why they liked Kerry. But of course, the desk-pounders came in anyway. And I’m including in that anything that attaches a bad-sounding name to something without bothering to explain what exactly happened or trying to honestly examine the subject, and not just put a label on it that works for their side.

Just to say it again, Savage, Limbaugh, and Hannity do the same things to differing extents, and it’s not good there, either. I don’t like to admit any association with them for the most part. But it doesn’t make it fair to do it because, unlike them, you’re actually “right”.

I’m sorry if this has turned into an exercise in having a calm discussion. I feel like I’m back teaching HS in Lynwood, CA. I’m not your teacher, and I can’t exert much influence or control or anything around here, but it would still be a good lesson for this board to learn.

[Zagadka]

@Cardinal

As for there having been “tons” of good reasons, I’ve gone back and looked, and up to that point, there had been

1. A decent point about gay marriage bills
2. A few from BobLibDem and others on taxes
3. A few mentions of America’s reputation around the world
4. A pretty decent point about reliance on bad intelligence
5. A hotly debated proposition that the Patriot Act is awful beyond words.
6. All the rest of the stuff from BobLibDem.

So, about 5 or 6 of those (BobLibDem hit about 4) are actually targeted at why one should vote for Kerry. The rest are really just against Bush. The rest of the “reasons” are essentially name calling.

How many reasons do you need, exactly? If taxes, economic policy, international policy, domestic liberties, security and intelligence, and personal rights aren’t your “hot button” issues, what are?

Maybe you should tell us a little more about what your interests are, so we can better answer your OP?

You asked people to list why you would theoretically vote for Kerry, and they did. Your response has been a childish, “that’s all? Hah, you suck!” with a condescending smile.

[erislover]

@pervert

Do you know how many of these sorts of search warrants were already allowed for use against organized crime?

No, do you? And would that make the Patriot Act a better idea for it, or an increase in the use of bad ideas?

[erislover]

@Zagadka

Maybe you should tell us a little more about what your interests are, so we can better answer your OP?

We’ve already been told. The GOP platform. You’re fishing in a swimming pool.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Thanks, pervert. That was a fair review of a big chunk of Kerry’s tax plan, particularly the repatriation of foreign investment of American dollars. One of the reservations I have about Kerry’s plan is what its impact on the world economy would be. It will certainly be better for America to have the money and the jobs back here, but this must come at the expense of investment in other countries. Still, it seems like a good idea to eliminate the incentives that exist for companies to take their investments overseas.

@Cardinal

I’m sorry if this has turned into an exercise in having a calm discussion. I feel like I’m back teaching HS in Lynwood, CA. I’m not your teacher, and I can’t exert much influence or control or anything around here, but it would still be a good lesson for this board to learn.

With all due respect, comments like these make you sound like a patronizing, pedantic boor. You have not provided enough illumination to pass yourself off as a teacher here. Please read or don’t read, learn or don’t learn, think or don’t think, but, again, no offense intended, spare us, or me at least, the finger wagging.

[Atticus_Finch]

@Zagadka

You asked people to list why you would theoretically vote for Kerry, and they did. Your response has been a childish, “that’s all? Hah, you suck!” with a condescending smile.

Zagadka, pull your head in. I think Cardinal is legit, so no need to be rude.

And Eris, sure his values coincide with the traditional GOP platform. That doesn’t mean he can’t be moved away from voting for Bush – after all, Bush and his neo-con advisers aren’t exactly the protectors of GOP values they say they are.

[Zagadka]

@lambchops

Zagadka, pull your head in. I think Cardinal is legit, so no need to be rude.

I got quite a different tone from his post.

Other reviewers have called said such things as “With all due respect, comments like these make you sound like a patronizing, pedantic boor” and “you’re fishing in a swimming pool,” so I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that Cardinal’s tone was a wee bit snide. Pardon me for being a little jaded when Republicans ask to be convinced to vote for a Democrat who disagrees with them on basic concepts, then says, “wow, you haven’t shown me very much! And you need to learn how to be calm and rational like me!”

Maybe he is legit, but he can’t expect to agree with everything. Even by his count, we listed 6 rather major policy points, neverminding the ones where we aren’t allowed to mention Bush’s name, as in, “he has an actual plan for concluding our Iraqi Adventure” would not be permitted under his rules, since it is a Bush Policy that we aren’t allowed to discuss.

[Cardinal]

You asked people to list why you would theoretically vote for Kerry, and they did. Your response has been a childish, “that’s all? Hah, you suck!” with a condescending smile.

I defy you to point out where I said that they suck.

If I have given that impression, then I take it back. I’m going to do whatever it takes to be the reasonable one here.

What I meant is that there haven’t been “tons” of reasons. There have been some decent ones that were actually attempts to address the point. Thank you, those of you who participated in that. If anyone has further elaboration of any of them, I would appreciate it. Treat this as Kerry 101, as honestly, my knowledge of him at this point is kind of “Democrat = bad”, which is exactly what I’m trying to address.

It’s become close to impossible to discuss the point without discussing the tone of the thread, because a lot of my point was that I was looking for reasons without the tone. Having the tone be calm was half my entire point. It’s hard to trust someone who’s screaming at you. Imagine the difference between “conversing” with someone yelling Bible verses on the street corner, and talking to a knowledgable, trained pastor who actually sees your points and is willing to admit them even as he has an answer for them. They’re worlds apart.

As for my seeming pretentious or whatever, I suppose it probably can. I find it so hard to believe that adults can’t have a calm discussion that sticks to the point and admits others’ points without trying to twist them, that I get very disappointed when it doesn’t happen.

he can’t expect to agree with everything.

I never expected to. What I wanted was actual reasons, and to leave the name calling alone.

Even by his count, we listed 6 rather major policy points, neverminding the ones where we aren’t allowed to mention Bush’s name, as in, “he has an actual plan for concluding our Iraqi Adventure” would not be permitted under his rules, since it is a Bush Policy that we aren’t allowed to discuss.

Come on, you know that’s not true. This is totally what I’m talking about. I never said anything like people couldn’t mention Bush, and you know it. What I asked for was good reasons for voting for Kerry, not ones for voting against Bush.

Elaborating on Kerry’s plan for Iraq and its supposed benefits is EXACTLY the kind of thing I was looking for, and I can’t really imagine that you don’t know it, after all this.

[pervert]

@erislover

No, do you? And would that make the Patriot Act a better idea for it, or an increase in the use of bad ideas?

Oh, clearly it would make the patriot act a continuation of some pretty bad policies. But it would also make something other than broad new powers. It would not change it from wrong to right. But it might change the tone of the debate over it.

[Marley23]

Cardinal, I haven’t seen any comments from you about Bush’s handling of the whole terror thing (or perhaps I’ve missed them). Enough people are already quoting Kerry’s site, so I won’t do that. Do you feel he’s doing a good job at that? It’s certainly a major part of Bush’s campaign, and today it was announced that contrary to previous State Department claims, there was a sharp increase in terrorist attacks worldwide last year. (I’ve been trying to figure out if there’s a thread topic in that.) I realize that your primary interest seems to be the fiscal/government side of things, but I figured I’d throw it out there.

[pervert]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Thanks, pervert. That was a fair review of a big chunk of Kerry’s tax plan, particularly the repatriation of foreign investment of American dollars. One of the reservations I have about Kerry’s plan is what its impact on the world economy would be. It will certainly be better for America to have the money and the jobs back here, but this must come at the expense of investment in other countries. Still, it seems like a good idea to eliminate the incentives that exist for companies to take their investments overseas.

I’m glad it looked ok to you and blowero. I am trying to change my posting habits, and chose that as a first attempt. Sort of a reverse meltdown if you will.

I’d also like to add that I like very much that you expressed doubts about Kerry’s plan. That is very helpful.

I have philosophical problems with “targeted” tax cuts. But those cuts proposed by Kerry do sound interesting. I especially like the wa the “Tax Holiday” sounds. I’m not at all sure it is sound economic policy. But it really sounds cool.

Cardinal, if you don’t mind a suggestion, I’d like to propose that you stop responding to the posts which you do not think are well though out reasons to vote for Kerry. If a post contains more than lets say 60% of attack, or he’s not Bush sorts of arguments, then simply ignore them. Concentrate on asking more specific questions from those who did respond to the OP in the same tone of the OP. Just my $0.02.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Cardinal

Treat this as Kerry 101, as honestly, my knowledge of him at this point is kind of “Democrat = bad”, which is exactly what I’m trying to address.

Okay, we’re kind of shooting spitballs in a dark room here. You certainly can read Kerry’s website if you are honestly curious. You could then be more specific about why Kerry=Democrat=bad. My sense is that you realize that Bush is a shit who you can’t vote for, and want us to give you a Kerry peg to hang your hat on. Sorry, can’t really do that without feedback. Need the info. Throw me a frickin’ bone here.

You haven’t really commented on the points that have been raised yet, except to catalog them, or chastise the poster. I ask without malice: Do you want to be informed? Are you an adult? What do you agree or disagree with regarding the points that have been raised and discussed? How did you come to form the political opinions you already had (such that you would need others to guide you to opinions about Kerry)?

We’ve led you to some water, given you a straw, showed you how to purse up your lips and made sucking noises for you. At some point, you need to take over on the drinking part.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@pervert

I’m glad it looked ok to you and blowero. I am trying to change my posting habits, and chose that as a first attempt. Sort of a reverse meltdown if you will.

I’d also like to add that I like very much that you expressed doubts about Kerry’s plan. That is very helpful.

I have philosophical problems with “targeted” tax cuts. But those cuts proposed by Kerry do sound interesting. I especially like the wa the “Tax Holiday” sounds. I’m not at all sure it is sound economic policy. But it really sounds cool.

I like having a reasonable discussion about it, too. I am not an economist, so while these things sound good to me, I would like a more informed review of them as well. Unfortunately, when the discussions get to that point, I cannot really contribute and end up feeling less personally invested in the thread. But it is generally educational.

[pervert]

One of the things I really liked about Newt Ghingrich was his Contract with America. I really liked the idea that political parties would propose the actual steps they would take in the first days of a new administration. It is one of the things I truly enjoy about English politics that their parties routinely do this sort of thing. Unfortunately here, the parties craft “platforms” which contain every platitude in the world, and almost no substance.

In my continuing attempt to offer arguments to vote for Kerry, I would like to talk about his “Real Deal”. It is his plan for the actions he will take in the first 100 days of a Kerry presidency. Again, from his website he will:

Number 1
Propose a national education trust fund. This would, he says increase federal spending on education from 23 to 35 billion. If I am not mistaken, most of this would be to fund mandates handed down from congress without funding. That is to correct unfunded mandates. He also “would invest $25 billion to stop cuts and layoffs in education.”

I’m qouting this paragraph intact, because I really like the idea. “John Kerry believes that we cannot successfully improve public education without paying our teachers like the professionals that they are. Kerry’s proposal will provide higher pay for teachers in exchange for implementing higher standards. In order to qualify for funding, school districts will have to submit a plan that includes strong professional development plan for the district’s teachers; an aggressive plan to ensure that every teacher is qualified in his/her subject area; and a plan for increasing the number of master teachers and teacher mentors in schools.”

Number 2
Call on Americans of all ages to volunteer for community service.

Number 3
Appoint an attorney general who is not John Ashcroft.

Number 4
Roll back the changes Bush enacted on Clean Air and Clean Water acts. Also launch a plan to make America Energy independant of Mideast oil in 10 years.

Number 5
“Immediatly declare the Bush policy of unilateralism over…”

Number 6
“John Kerry’s first major proposal to Congress will be a realistic plan that stops spiraling healthcare costs, covers every child in America, and makes it possible for every American to get the same health care as any Member of Congress.” I did not find very many details on this proposal. Can anyone else explain it further?

Number 7
Change the corporate incentives for taking money and jobs over seas. I talked about this one in the last post. Although he added that he would apply RICO penalties to companies which defraud their customers and workers.

Number 8
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while protecting the cuts for middle class families.

Number 9
Put forth a budget with “sanity” that will cut the deficit in half in 4 years.

Number 10
Re-instate the 5 year ban on former government workers lobbying government officials. “requiring every meeting with a lobbyist or any special interest deal inserted into a bill by a lobbyist be made public.”

I’m not sure that this is exactly what I was looking for. It is an interesting set of policy points. Cardinal do any of these proposals appeal to you?

Also, as before, I would appreciate any feedback from Kerry supporters as to how I did characterizing his positions. Especiall Number 1. The others are more bullet points, so I’m not sure I could have messed them up. <Without trying, that is ;)>