I can understand that someone who is not interested in how his nation is governed is not intersted in using his right to vote.
I do not understand if someone who does not vote nevetheless seems to feel that he must “support the president” he did not bother to vote for (or against) just becaus “he is the president”.
Can you explain this concept (that is as alien to me as if it came from Mars) ?
See above.
In addition: now that you know what he is capable of, would you still give him the benefit of the doubt? Because if it is how you explained, that is then what MadSam is doing, no?
How can you give “the benefit of the doubt” to someone who has proved over and over again to be a murderous criminal?
What’s so alien about it? I believe in practically every country, a significant number of people feel a certain loyalty to the acknowledged national leader simply because he/she is the acknowledged national leader, regardless of what kind of leader that person is or how he/she attained the position.
In the case of someone who does not vote, “support” of the president, or “opposition” to the president, doesn’t make much difference anyhow, because a person who does not vote is probably not exercising significant public influence in any other way – not even writing letters to the editor, which takes a bit more effort than voting.
Really? Where do you detect such a thing from my posts?
Hate is something I have never felt. It is the most intensive, most destructive, most all-consuming and blinding of all emations humans are capable of.
I most certainly have reasons to feel that way about a fex persons but lucky for them they are dead and I don’t see much point in investing emotions in dead people.
Criminals like Bush and his ganster team are not capable to provoke anything even remotely coming close to such a dep emotion.
I have no idea about what a person John Kerry might be. So why do you come to the idea that someone I have no idea about would be able to provoke any sort of sentiment or emotion with me?
I am most certainly not an American. I am a citizen of a nation situated in the very region where the criminals that form the US government (and with them far too much of their fellow citizens) practice invasion, massacre, colonisation, exploitation, and the art of threatening other sovereign nations in that same region.
I didn’t mean to attribute any negative emotions to you, A. I meant “hate” in the, you know, electoral sense – i.e., if you were an American citizen, you probably wouldn’t want to vote for Bush or Kerry – you’d see nothing to choose between them.
Not in my view. I do not blindly support anyone just because he is in some position. Why should I feel “loyalty” to someone I feel nor have any affinity with at all?
If someone wants my loyalty, it must be deserved. Especially when it goes about someone who is not even family. You can count the people who have my unlimited loyalty on one hand. (Add my children to it and you need also two fingers of the other hand.)
Well, I ifnd it always difficult to understand why people who make use of the English language use this word lightly as if it is not describing what I said it represents.
(It is. There must be other words you can use instead)
And you can bet on it that if I would be US citizen I would most definitely not throw my vote away but give it to Kerry.
They are all wrong. At this point not voting for Kerry is voting for Bush, because even if you vote for a chanceless “other party” candidate, the non-vote Kerry receives because of this is the equivalent of a vote for Bush.
Voting for Bush is acting like a braindead, which is not as bad as acting like someone who shall be perceived by the rest of the world as openly supportive for a team of shamless, lying murdering criminals.
Salaam. A
We do have some conservatives on this board. It’s strange that nobody in this thread has yet stated a case for voting for Bush. Come on, where are you, Brutus? pervert? Evil One? Razorsharp? RikWriter? Abbie Carmichael? Sam Stone? (Actually Sam’s a Canadian, but he could still give us an informed opinion.)
I can’t vote for an administration of true believers among whom the only firing offense is to ask too many questions. I can’t vote for an administration that actually spouts insane stuff like this, as bad as any fanatical zealotry:
I could never vote for this (from the same article):
I could never vote for a man who, when Kerry argued that our use of military force must be justified not by opinion but by facts not only grossly and knowingly distorted what Kerry said, but responded by basically arguing that we should never submit our decisions to the universal standard of truth
Instead, we must simply trust what the gut of a pretend-Texan tells him, one who’s gut has clearly been wrong many many times but who still refuses to ever question any of his own decisions EXCEPT for those times when he appointed someone who asked him too many critical questions.
I CAN vote for a man who sincerely cares about the US over and above politics, a man who wants to hire critical thinkers and to hold them accountable for more than just loyalty. Whatever anyone else says, I know that John Kerry is more than just a decent human being: he’s a statesman. He has values. He’s fought for the rights of gay people like no major politician ever before. He cares about protecting the environment not in a goofy pomo lefty way, but in a way that reminds me of the conservatives who used to care about conservation and public goods. He’s a hawk, but a judicious one. He understands the difference between the sort of patriotism that should flourish in a democracy vs. the sort of jingoism that’s more fit for a monarchy.
More than that, his win will do many things that will enrich the country:
-it will reform the Republican party, giving the moderates and fiscal conservatives that I actually respect more of a say in its direction, and thus the country’s
-it will bring back divided government, which seems to be the best for our country on virtually every issue
-it will force the left to take ownership of the war on terror: someone ostenisbly on their end of the spectrum will be responsible for it. This, more than anything else, will serve to bring the sort of national unity that Bush could never acheive. The right might pretend to hate Kerry even more than Clinton, but the fact is both of our parties would finally be able to be on the strong resolute side of the line in the war on terror without partisan criticism being slandered as hating America
All in all, Kerry in the White house will be good for everyone, even conservatives. He’s the right way forward for this country: he’s the one who will bring us to the ideal I’ve always held for it: a society whose pre-eminent values are liberty and equal justice for all, who is an example for the rest of the world.
I don’t think any conservative on this board can truly say the same about Bush with a straight face, and while they might not agree with me about Kerry, I can at least say it sincerely about Kerry: I can envision what might be with him as President, and I like it.
Still no pro-Bush posts! Have we really reached the point where some highly intellectual conservatives are about to make a voting decision that they cannot defend in words? That they’re just going to hold their noses and vote for W the Damned out of sheer loyalty to their cause? :dubious:
Come on, where are you, Shodan? Mr. Moto? Debaser? ivylass? mks57? xtisme? John Mace? Jeez, can’t anybody think of an arguable reason to vote for Bush? A one-sided debate is no fun!
*(I don’t know if all the Dopers named above are actually Republicans or would even self-identify as conservatives – I’m just inferring that from the general content of their posts.)
This reminds of an encounter I had Saturday night. I met a lady, violinist, articulate, well spoken, obviously educated, republican and blindly so. We were waiting off stage and I guess she decided to do a little stumpimg for Bush among us “less intellectual” types. Unfortunately, even the uneducated, even a border line idiot like myself, can easily silence the average Bush supporter. The reasons to get this guy out of office are so numerous and so obvious that even the most oblivious right wing sheep quickly resign themselves when faced with the simpliest of arguments. I don’t even concern myself with the lies, the war, tax inequities or conflicting interest. For me, it is and has been, one basic requirement that in and of itself should have disqualified Bush from the start: Basic and simple command of the English language, both written and spoken. It is beyond me how anyone claiming to be an itellectual can, in good conscience, vote to elect this man leader of the free world. It seems so very obvious to me that if you unable to speak and write with fluency in your native language and also have an aversion to reading in your native language then you do not posses the most basic of skills required to be the leader of the free world.
When faced with this, the average Bush supporter decides to talk about music or baseball.
Finish the story, Niceguy. How did the lady react when you (I infer) explained the matter to her in those terms? Did she change the subject to music or baseball?
Because this thread is not an ambush. I didn’t even state a preference in the OP. It’s an open-ended discussion on the relative merits of two candidates, and Bush supporters can take as much space as they want to state their case; and, of course, they know they’re going to get slammed, but they can slam right back. If more Kerry backers have posted so far, that might be just because there are more liberals than conservatives in the Doper community (a question often debated). But if that’s the reason, than any thread discussing the election would be an “ambush” from the conservative POV. Which doesn’t seem to keep the conservatives from posting.
I think Bush will probably be better for Israel. I think Kerry will probably be better for America. As someone who sees himself as an Israeli first, American second I should vote for the one who’s better for Israel. However, since I would be voting with my American citizenship, it would be wrong to use it against what I see as the better interests of America.
A paradox.
I put off applying for an absentee ballot until the deadline had past. On election night - morning, here - I’ll probably be rooting for Kerry, but I won’t feel too bad if Bush wins.
Since I’m not in a battleground state, I may dedide to vote libertarian. However, if I did live in a battleground state I would certainly be voting for Bush.
Bush isn’t perfect, but he is the smart choice vs Kerry. Jay Severen, a local talk radio host likes to say that this isn’t an election choice between Bush and Thomas Jefferson. It’s not a choice between Bush and George Washington. It’s a choice between Bush and Kerry. Bush is the smarter choice.
Kerry has made great efforts to convince people otherwise, but he is an internationalist. His deference to the UN and proposed international courts is unacceptable to me. This alone disqualifies him from ever getting my vote for the presidency.
Kerry is a liberal who will raise taxes and increase the size and power of the federal government. Bush hasn’t been great on this issue, but Kerry will certainly be much worse.
Bush has a real chance in a second term of getting some things done that will be great for the US. There is a real possibility of Social Security reform or privatization. This is the most offensive government program to me.
School vouchers could be implemented in a Bush second term. This has the best chance to fix our failing schools, IMO.
Bush will appoint constitutionalists to the courts, including possibly the SCOTUS. Liberal judges pushing an agenda is something I don’t look forward to if Kerry wins.
With Bush we may see even more tax cuts. Kerry will certainly raise taxes.
Bush will continue to defend the second ammendment.
That’s off the top of my head. There are issues where I agree with Kerry:
Abortion, Stem Cell research, etc. But, none of these issues are very important to me and none of them are things that the election hinges on IMO.
Sorry, yes she changed the subject quickly. My friend Kennon responded to her first with the general WMD stuff and she gave the standard “liberated the people from a cruel dictator”. I gave her what you saw in my first post. She then stated that she really didn’t like talking about politics because everyone was so divided, despite the fact that she started the conversation to begin with. So, we talked about music.
