John Kerry, why him? Share with me

I'm interested to hear out opinions on this issue because Frankly, I don't get it. I know that the backbone of Kerry's supporters are really just disgusted with Bush so I'm interested to hear from my fellow members on the board why and how this man would make a better president. Ofcourse, you're probably saying to yourself, "Sounds like a guy who's already made up his mind." and yes, it's true. I am going to vote for Bush. I'm not gonna get into why because I don't want this thread to be an argument. I just want to know why other people think he's a good candidate. I want a second opinion on him not from the media or my friends as to what his strengths are. And don't think I don't know anything. I know a lot about Kerry. But I'm sure many of you know a lot more.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

I shook John edwards hand today

and i got pics and his signature!

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

i dont think he would make a better president. hes always chaging his mind about things. to tel you the truth i dont like any candidates that are running this year

__________________
Evil lives...

If most of Kerry's supporters are honest with themselves, they like him because he's not Bush. Judged on his own, he's a very unimpressive candidate.

Yeah. This is true.

I'm voting for Kerry for two reasons 1.) He's the lesser of the two evils 2.)Edwards seems like a nice guy.

I'm sure Edwards is a very nice guy. But he's anti free-trade, which is completely absurd.

Like I said lesser of the two evils. You have anti free trade on one side..and on the pther side you have a VP who tells senators to **** themselves.

USA together with the entire Western World is anti free trade since their protectionism stops the 3rd World from getting their cheaper products out on the market. This makes it impossible for the 3rd World to "help themselves", a mantra that conservatives goes to sleep mumbling. Contradictory? You tell me... Then tell me how John Edwards is anti free trade compared to the Bush administration, the people who seem to think oligopoly and monopoly wasn't such a bad idea after all.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Brazil's done a good job of taking both the US and Europe to the WTO 'courts' over this, but who knows if anything will come out of it. The recent meeting of international minds finally produced a promise to tackle the problem, but again with no details or time frame, so i doubt much will happen. (The only positive trend seems to have stemmed from the UK - who are basing subsidies on ecologically-based, sustainable, criteria [which reduces some of the unjustifiable mass-industrialised production which damages world trade so much, while increasing product quality])

That said tho, i reckon the Clinton admin were on stronger economic ground than these new guys. I'm still hoping some of this 'stop-outsourcing' talk from Kerry will turn out to be vote-winning rhetoric or that he'll just realise it's impractical without yet another form of subsidising.

I don't know enough about Edwards's stances.

Their international policies however promise a return to some of the better aspects of the Clinton admin. If they use the US's influence as effectively and wisely as the Clinton admin frequently did, i suspect we'll see a wiser approach to the Middle East and world collaberation in general.

At the end of the day tho, the Bush admin is partly to blame for an election fought more on 'war credentials' and population-manipulating platforms than on sound policy discussions. By fostering an environment of rhetoric concerning some of the big issues, and by refusing to enter into genuine debate with their broad use of the "you're either with us or against us" self-righteousness, they've damaged the democratic process.

They've approached too many issues in this manner, and it stems from their dubious use of the 'war' on terror. (You can take the recent 'orange alert' as an example of it [see my signature ]. You can take Cheney's consistant repetition of discredited fear-mongering info as another.)

If they want to use fear-manipulation as a basis for obscuring debating subtleties and promoting hysteria, then they'll get what they deserve.

IMO

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Given that economic growth is not impeded by Cheney saying a bad word, I don't really give a damn. I think it's tremendously silly to pretend that a vulgarity is on par with a ludicrous policy choice.


You've said this before, but I believe you have yet to support it. Opposition to oppressive business regulation isn't even in the same universe as oligopoly or monopoly.

It's simple: John Edwards is anti free-trade because he's under the mistaken impression that American workers need to be protected from global competition. Bush believes otherwise. Now, I don't know if the free-trade debate in your country is further along (if so, consider yourself fortunate), but in America, the argument is still over whether or not global competition is a good thing, and Bush is one of the few major candidates who recognizes that it is.

How do you figure that? Bush is, for the most part, as free-trade as Clinton was, and his economic track record since his tax cut went fully into effect is quite strong. This is in SPITE of a major terrorist act and a recession which he didn't create. Economically, Bush is right up there with Reagan and Clinton.

He's more vehemently anti free-trade than Kerry, from what I've heard from him on the issue.


I agree. Funny how there was so much fuss over NAFTA in the early 90s, yet a decade or so later, we've got 20 million more jobs to show for it. How anyone can still oppose this sort of thing is unfathomable to me. It's a completely untenable position, yet this November two anti free-trade candidates are going to garner at least 40 million votes. Unbelievable.


Alright, this is pretty far-out. Damaged the democratic process? A close-minded administration is not capable of damaging the institution of democracy itself based on some vague "environment of rhetoric." There's not a modern campaign today that doesn't create such an environment.

As for debate; it's there. Just not as often as you'd like. Bush has said some of the same things I have. That Iraq had demonstrable ties to terrorism, for example. He just knows that you can't build a campaign on the defensive, and that you need to frame issues if you want to connect with voters. To suggest that this is even unusual -- let alone damaging to democracy -- is a pretty indefensible position, in my opinion.

I dislike Cheney a WHOOOOOLE bunch, but I say bravo to him for telling that idiot off. Still not voting for the Reps though Aww, did someone get offended by his remark. People need to stop getting offended so much....

__________________

I wasn't offended, I was laughing my ass off actually. But, in my opinion, someone of that stature, should restrain himself.

Right. I like Kerry better because he's not Bush. I don't consider myself a very "political" person. But I know that I blame 9/11 on Bush (he was on vacation at the time and even got a warning that Osama Bin Ladin was going to attack by hijacking planes). I'm also mad at him for starting the war on Iraq (he KNEW they didn't have nuclear weapons... he just wanted to make it look like he was doing something.) And he is just a stupid person.

I don't know very much about Kerry. But I do know that Bush is the lowest of the low and the only reason he got president in the first place was because of his dad. Putting my cat as president would be a step up from Bush.

__________________
"I'd give up forever to touch you."

Everyone ready for one of my infamous dissections?

Bush was not on vacation at the time. I presume you believe that he was thanks to Fahrenheit 9/11. That film, however, didn't accuse him of being on vacation when it took place; just of being on vacation too often leading up to it.

The film claims he spent 42% of the time period between his inauguration and the attack on vacation. What it neglects to mention, however, is that this number includes weekends; without them, it drops to 13%. More importantly, no modern President is ever truly on vacation. All they do is work somewhere other than the White House.


Bush didn't claim they had nuclear weapons; just that they'd made efforts to accquire them. But I presume you meant to refer to weapons of mass destruction (rather than nuclear weapons, specifically), in which case there was no way he knew they didn't have them.

Why? Well, because the Clinton administration thought they had them. Both Republicans and Democrats thought they had them. Foreign intelligence services thought they had them. Bush told then-CIA head George Tenet that he was unconvinced, and Tenet told him it was a "slam dunk." What's more, no major political campaign is stupid enough to repeatedly emphasize claims it knows are false.


Right. A multimillionaire Yale graduate who is currently the most powerful person in the world...and he's a "stupid person." What's more likely: that he's reasonably intelligence, but merely inarticulate, or that he's the luckiest person in the history of the entire world?


There have been 54 Presidential elections and 43 Presidents in United States history; Bush is only the second son of a President to hold the office. A famous name will help, sure (the Kennedys are a perfect example), but no one gets into the White House without hard work, a well-run campaign, and genuine appeal to voters. You can't win the most sought after position in the country with a last name alone.


If I'd read this first, I might not have bothered to try to convince you of anything else.

and your gonna stop two planes from running into a building how?

Ha, well I won't attempt to out do you, but here goes something.

The egg falls on both sides, though. The film also doesn't count the time he WAS in office, just not doing work. There are numerous times when President's are technically 'in office', but not actually doing anything but enjoying themselves. George Washington did it, Abe Lincoln did it, Clinton did it, and now Bush is doing it too. This is not to say that 43% has been exaggerated a bit, but it isn't a mile and a half away from the truth either. BUT, regardless of all of this, the point Moore was making was that, even if Bush spent 100% of his time doing nothing but being 'in office', he still obviously didn't do a good job of living up to his predecssors, any one of them.


Bush did actually claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and if you want me to, I'll pull out one of his adresses and highlight it for you, ask to and I'll do it. But say he hadn't even said it outright, he was still misleading the american people, and was making it out to be quite a bigger deal that it actually is.

But, so many other important figures said they didn't have them. It was Bush's choice to chose sides, not anyone elses.

Thats irrelevant. Look up Yale's class profiles. It'll say 'mean gpa is 3.?' some really high number, but what they dont tell you is that year after year graduates actually pay their way through college to get A's, buy off professors, steal notes and tests, cheat, and still be complete dumbasses and graduate top of their class. Not saying Bush did any of this, but just because he graduated from Yale, it doesn't mean its back support for him. He is without a doubt the least capable of any of our presidents, and we have had some horrible ones in the past. I wish people would stop using the Yale excuse, it isn't a free ticket to be as dumb as you want, and having people think you're still smart.

I concur.


Chris, for one second, let down your love for the president, and answer this honestly. Aren't you dissapointed in him? Sure you may not want to vote him out, but can you honestly and with all of your heart NOT be dissappointed and outraged by some of his actions???



I certainly am. Just my .02

Yes, it was because of Fahrenheit 911. OK. I believe you're right about that part. But the movie did say that he was reading stories to elementary school children when he heard the news and did not leave but stayed right there. Maybe he wasn't trying to frighten the children, but he could have left due to "presidential business."


Bush in earlier addresses did not think that they had them. What made him change his mind? Because the people were waiting for him to do something. This one really bugs me because I have family in the army scheduled to depart for Iraq at the beginning of next year. And for what? ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING.


Yes, he is the luckiest person in the world. His family had powerful associations. That's why he is A) a multimillionare B) went to Yale.

Yale being an Ivy League school relies on several factors for admission. Ivy Leagues turns down valedictorians. Probably the most important factor in going to an Ivy League is who your family is.

And, yes, he is a stupid person. Have you listened to any of his speeches lately?

OK, I know it wasn't the name alone. But I don't think that he would have even gotten into the election without his name.


It was an analogy.

How about... make sure to check everyone for weapons and bombs before entering the plane?

We have more security now. Why didn't they do that before when they had the threats instead of wait until the damage was already done?

That was a dumb question.