How Will Kerry Be Any Different As President?

I suffered through Bush as governor here in Texas. At least Kerry:

1) has REALLY seen combat and didn't wimp out. This is important in deciding military strategy, because historically the "armchair generals" (upper class men who were appointed and never served in the ranks) were disasters as military strategists.
2) has no need to grandstand (ala Bush "flying in" to an aircraft carrier. Bush's ego needs the stroking and to be seen as a hero.)

***3)*** READS THE MATERIAL GIVEN TO HIM. Bush doesn't like to read (as has been proven many times.) Nor does he like impromptu speaking since he tends to make a fool of himself (because he doesn't read up on issues.)

4) Couldn't possibly be as bad as George "The Big Corporations Are My Buddies" Bush on the environment. In fact, Bush's record on the environment is the worst in 30 years or so: www.johnkerry.com...

5) And how about Bush's "no child left with a behind" axing of health care for poor/handicapped here in Texas and knocking down Head Start funding? These are the kids who most need help... but Bush and cronies needed the money to help relieve corporate suffering.

6) Could he do worse in Iraq than Bush? This isn't "peace and democracy" in Iraq -- it's turning into a bloodbath of everyone against everyone else.

At this point, I'm a "Yellow Dog Democrat." Folks, if they put a mongrel hound on the ticket to run against Bush, I'd vote for the dog.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
everyone should vote Nader or Kunich just for the hell of it.

You mean re-elect Bush, "just for the hell of it?"

I hate to say it but Bush has probably been as MODERATE as he can get in his first term because he doesn't want to scare off voters. Once the Nadar voters and abstainers hand him another selection, it's on.

Appointing wacko judges, outlawing reproductive rights, trampling civil rights, culture wars in full effect, and granting ANYTHING Wall Street wants at the expense of the common worker. Do we even need to discuss his foreign policy once he has another guaranteed four years? What difference would it make? The domestic situation would be in shambles (unless you're a megacorp or stockbroker).

For crying out loud... the BS speculation over character thirty years ago, secret society ties, puppet masters, blah, blah, blah... and I mean on both sides.

Just pick an issue and vote on it.

If you're for civil rights including sexual preference and reproductive rights VOTE KERRY.

If you don't care about anything, and I mean ANYTHING but upper income and corporate tax breaks then vote Bush. I won't fault you.

But for the love of GOD if BUSH is going to win again, let him win. Vote for him if you're going to put him in office again. None of this...Oh everything sucks, I hate Bush...but I voted for Nadar.

NO. You voted for Bush. Another selection of the corporate religious right wing by a MINORITY of voters...allowed by third party/indy voters.

And once you have time to figure out what you've done and regret it...too damn bad, and too late. Your job is in India, your kid is in Syria, your income goes to healthcare and pharmeceuticals, you no longer have control of your body... I mean you have nothing. NOTHING.

And all "just for the hell of it". Indeed.

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by worldwatcher
everyone should vote Nader or Kunich just for the hell of it.

(snip)

But for the love of GOD if BUSH is going to win again, let him win. Vote for him if you're going to put him in office again. None of this...Oh everything sucks, I hate Bush...but I voted for Nadar.

In other words, worldwatcher, vote for the two party system that many of these fools find intolerable; vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote against your conscience. Vote to defeat the purpose of voting. Well, the latter may have been enacted long ago.

RANT, what's with your statement, "vote for him if you're going to put him in office again? Let's not forget the 2000 election.

www.fec.gov...

Bush: Popular Vote--50,456,002
Gore: Popular Vote--50,999,897

Bush: Electoral Vote--271
Gore: Electoral Vote--266

Let's say worldwatcher voted Nader in 2000, do you think it really would have made a difference in terms of Bush getting elected? Even if you add Nader's votes in the amount of 2,882,955 to Gore, you're still left with Gore having the most popular votes. What does it matter when the electoral college ultimately determines the President of the United States?

Edited to add: Vote for whom you think is the best candidate!

[Edited on 4/22/2004 by Bangin]

Bangin I just saw Nadar being interviewed on CNN about 2000.

Florida was just ONE of the states where Nadar's vote difference would have given the electorates to Gore.

There were a few.

Nadar cost electorates, not just votes.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Nader needs to be bitch-slapped for his idiocy. He used to be a decent guy. Now he seems to just be an egomaniacal twit.

I may vote for Kerry - just to vote against Bush. Never thought I'd stoop to such shyte. But these are, indeed, strange times.

Why the F**K can't Republicans think for themselves? It's all blinde flag-waving and rhetoric. I am so disgusted with them I can't stand it. I am going to register as either unaffiliated or Independent.

I used to think Republicans were a smart bunch. Now I just see them, for the most part, as a bunch of brain-dead zealots.

It's a vicious circle facilitated by money, those who have it and those who want it. For the most part, the only way to get elected nowadays is with huge corporate donations. Well, when you're in office it's time to say thank you. Want to stay in office, accept more money and more obligation.

I know there are some candidates who pledge to forgo corporate funds when they are campaigning but how many are actually elected? How many are re-elected? How many maintain that promise?

Didn't GW promise something along the same lines?

I appreciate the interest in this discussion.

Still don't know if I can even stomach voting this time around. There's a little thing called going against my conscience. And I've heard all the arguments for and against voting for Kerry to oust Bush. Damn it anyway! Everyone has a right to vote or not vote. No one should be criticized either way. Maybe I cannot stand the thought of four more years with a dictator; but maybe I cannot stand the thought of voting for yet another puppet who just happens to be more smooth.

I do appreciate the fact that Kerry actually did serve. And I think that's important. However, there's alotta water - and money - under the bridge since. I see him as being just as bought off and controlled as Bush. Sorry - for those of you who disagree. It's a fact. Both parties are controlled. A third, fourth, fifth (and so on) party is desperately needed. (Even if it is futile to say that at the moment.) That's the only way we can ever break the monopoly of power the plutocrats hold over us.

Megapatriot, It's a pretty safe bet the Bilderbergers had a hand in the selection process. They chose Bill Clinton, afterall.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Damn it anyway! Everyone has a right to vote or not vote. No one should be criticized either way.

Yes, but I don't expect to see those people coming to ATS Political Scandals everyday posting away as if waging a war... not that I'm complaining mind you.

Just disappointed. What's it all for ECK?

Like it or not there's only one man that can oust Bush. His name is John Kerry. If you can't get on board with him, I understand... but you really are spinning wheels continuing to enlighten the world to Bush hypocrisy and crimes if you aren't even willing to do the one thing that will help send him packing...meaning vote for Kerry.

I guess I just don't understand. You won't vote against him, but you'll probably spend the next four years bitching about everything he does? Would it surprise you to learn that's not only doing NOTHING against Bush but helping him? You've already bought all his ads about Kerry obviously enough to not vote Kerry...so you've become one of those "useful idiots of the left" that the Reicht Wing laughs about in closed rooms. (I know you're not a lib, but trust me they don't care.)

If you won't vote to oust Bush, then you should know all your constant commentary on him does is endear the man more to his core constituency. Just my opinion. Nothing personal. Just consider it.

I didn't vote for Elizabeth Dole, either (nor her opponent Erskine Bowles). Dole's a 'yes man' and Bowles was a Clinton crony. I just couldn't do it. And I'm glad I didn't. Because of the first ammendment, I have the right to speak my mind. I do vote when there's someone running that I can stomach.

Bush and Kerry are BOTH Skull & Bones puppets of the elite. It's maddening. Some days I think, ok, I'll go ahead and vote for Kerry to get rid of Bush; but then I think: when President Kerry continutes the elites' globalist agenda by allowing another major terrorist attack and he declares martial law... It's a no win situation and my problem is, how the hell can I support either one of them? And I know.. people jump on me and say Kerry is nowhere as bad as Bush... How do we really know that?

It's a terrible situation we're facing. But then again, if those diebold voting machines kick in the way the GOP probably hopes.. Kerry won't have a chance anyway.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I didn't vote for Elizabeth Dole, either (nor her opponent Erskine Bowles). Dole's a 'yes man' and Bowles was a Clinton crony. I just couldn't do it.

It's hard to find anyone in NC willing to admit voting for Libby Dole now...though I've seen her on a Where's Libby milk carton. Stinking carpetbagger.

That race was pretty disgusting. Dole/Bowles once again set records for spending on a senate race. Aren't NC politics fun?

Bush is here every couple months now to soak up that Winston-Salem cancer stick money and pose for pictures with Jesse Helms :shudder:

So you're a Fayettenam graduate and STILL won't vote Kerry/EDWARDS?

I give up.

God forbid, but if Kerry were to be assassinated, I would still vote for him over Bush. Bush will not win 2004. Have no doubt.

In politricks there are always wheels within wheels...

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
So you're a Fayettenam graduate and STILL won't vote Kerry/EDWARDS?

I give up.

Actually, I'm a Screamin' Eagle. (Ft. Campbell, KY) I dunno Rant. If Kerry picks Edwards I might.

You're gonna have to work on me some more. I just have no faith in Kerry, period.

I personaly believe there should be more than two major parties. But since there isnt Im going to vote for... get this... BUSH. I think he's corrupt and a puppet but since the majority of voters all ready hate him he'll think twice. See Kerry wouldnt be a bad leader because he makes bad decisions hes a bad leader because he makes no desisions.

Not to mention I dont know Kerrys middle name. Do you?



DECIDE
www.johnkerry.com...




OR
www.whitehouse.gov...

Originally posted by Vegemite
I personaly believe there should be more than two major parties. But since there isnt Im going to vote for... get this... BUSH. I think he's corrupt and a puppet but since the majority of voters all ready hate him he'll think twice. See Kerry wouldnt be a bad leader because he makes bad decisions hes a bad leader because he makes no desisions.

Not to mention I dont know Kerrys middle name. Do you?



DECIDE
www.johnkerry.com...




OR
www.whitehouse.gov...

His middle name is FORBES, if I'm correct.

Kerry's military records (evals) were released today. By all accounts he had pretty good reviews. He was allowed to leave combat after 3 purple hearts. (I have nothing bad to say about that.) That's a lot of stress. And I know some say one of them was for a mere scratch. I do respect his military service. Something I CANNOT say about Bush. (And my view on Bush's service has changed drastically since 2000, for the record.) Only because I've learned much more about his record, followed by his actions while in office.

Bush is the Boy in the Bubble. Completely ill-informed. At least Kerry can form his own conclusions. I will give him that.

Thank you man, JFK John Forbes Kerry and JFK John F. Kennedy.

Both served in a major war.

Both went to the navy after they graduated.

Both are catholic.



A gotta do some reserch

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by Vegemite]

Growing up I couldn't stand John Kennedy. I bought all that shyte about him being a commie sympathizer and whatnot. But after doing a mountain of research, I found something quite different. The more I researched the more respect I began to have for him and disdain for all the official BS propaganda about him. The best place to start is Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." It's based on the conspiracy case New Orleans' DA Jim Garrison brought against CIA asset Clay Shaw.

For the more insight given by Mr. X in the movie (Played by Donald Sutherland) see Col. Fletcher Prouty's website (He's the real Mr. X):


Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first "Focal Point" officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. www.prouty.org...

Excellent thread ECK.

I myself have been 'unaffiliated' for years regardless of how I vote or if I vote for a main party runner.

Bad part is, registered unaffiliated means you are fair game for the door knockers.

Either way I have drifted to the position of voting on character of the past, and not medals or awards or richness.

Quite often I do not know my final vote untill near the election. Keep open ears and listen to the words, just like making freinds, if you cant trust them or a history of unreliability, or demonstrated being an issue monkey instead of sticking with his long term belief's, no chance for my chad!

Edwards was the worst monkey I have ever watched.
Bush seems to make the issues, instead of following.
Kerry I am still watching.
And yes, I am considering the lesser party runners too.

..

Originally posted by smirkley
Excellent thread ECK.

I myself have been 'unaffiliated' for years regardless of how I vote or if I vote for a main party runner.

Thanks, man. And thanks for your contribution. I think unaffiliated is definitely the way to go at this point. So long GOP.

Looking into Kerry's military records, I have to say, I gotta respect his service. His evals are excellent. And I was struck by his courage under fire. Maybe I'll vote for him based on that. It's a far cry from Bush's service. Maybe, just maybe reflection upon his own days in uniform and the experiences he went through in combat would play into any decisions he has to make as commander-in-chief. I could only hope so. But is he too far removed from it?

At least he has real combat experience, so he knows for himself how things go down.

Here's an article on it:

Kerry's Military Records Show a Highly Praised Officer
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 21, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Records of John Kerry's Vietnam War service released Wednesday show a highly praised naval officer with an Ivy League education who spoke fluent French and had raced sailboats -- the fruits of a privileged upbringing that set him apart from the typical seaman.

With Republicans questioning his service in Vietnam, the Democratic candidate for president posted more than 120 pages of military records on his campaign Web site. Several describe him as a gutsy commander undertaking a dangerous assignment in Vietnam and detail some of the actions that won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.


[url=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Purple-Hearts.html?hp]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Purple-Hearts.html?hp[/ url]

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Looking into Kerry's military records, I have to say, I gotta respect his service. His evals are excellent. And I was struck by his courage under fire. Maybe I'll vote for him based on that. It's a far cry from Bush's service. Maybe, just maybe reflection upon his own days in uniform and the experiences he went through in combat would play into any decisions he has to make as commander-in-chief. I could only hope so. But is he too far removed from it?

At least he has real combat experience, so he knows for himself how things go down.

Combat under fire, does it count when it is against women and children.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Combat under fire, does it count when it is against women and children.

Typical response. All his superiors were wrong about him, I suppose.

Here's the link:
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Purple-Hearts.html?hp]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Purple-Hearts.html?hp[/ url]