Is this a battle for who sucks the least?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LethalWolfe, Sep 30, 2004.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    It seems to me that most people either like Bush or hate Bush, but relatively few people actually like Kerry. I hear a lot of reasons why Bush shouldn't have a second term, but comparatively<sp?> few reasons why Kerry should have a first. I don't suppose anyone has any poll numbers showing who is "voting for" Kerry as opposed to who is "voting against" Bush (if that made sense)? If Kerry is elected are we just making a lateral move? Should we be worried when one of a candidate's biggest selling points is merely that he's not the other candidate?

    If this has already been brought up before I apologize. I'm Just going off casual conversations and what not. This seems to be the general feeling I'm getting about the election.


    Lethal
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    w/o going into details, there are a lot of things about kerry's platform i like. from a strategic standpoint for the dems, i think he's a strong candidate.

    on top of that, he's smart, articulate and non-reactionary. i want a president who is better at the job than i would be. clinton was, and i think kerry would be.
     
  3. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    I gues I would answer by saying that my disdain for politicians isn't limited to these two candidates. With a few exceptions, the candidates representing the two major parties almost NEVER appeal to me.

    For example, consider the broad category of domestic social issues. Democrats generally favor more freedom for the individual to choose and to keep religious beliefs out of policy. Republicans generally don't (if only to not piss off a huge portion of their constituency: the religious right). But both still want to tell me how to run my life because of some hysterical belief that we must "protect the children". Both want to be tough against drugs, so drug war reform ain't coming (despite overwhelming evidence that it is an utter failure). Both endorse limited censorship (anti-porn, anti-bad-stuff-on-tv, etc.). And I won't overlook the fact that Democrats can be more hysterical than Republicans at times, too. I think some Democrats' ideas on gun control go farther than I'd like.

    I think that social issues are the most important thing that affects most Americans. Every time I hear a rural Ohio or Michigan resident saying that national security is the most important issue to them I lower my head in disappointment with this country. National security? In rural Ohio? Better put on your tinfoil hat and get into your bomb shelter because Bumpkinville, Ohio is al Quida's #1 target. :rolleyes:

    But people are hysterical, too, and the idea of being killed, even if it is a hugely unlikely scenario, scares them. The candidates know this (both of them) and play the people like a fiddle. How many people will be conplaining after the debates that the candidates never broached the subject of gun control, drug laws, or social programs? Unless it is about healthcare, not many.

    So I try to take the little information I have about the candidates social positions and make a decision about who will harm me the least. Because I know both want to impliment policy I don't agree with, I view it as who will do the least damage. Generally, it is a Democrat. Put a real, honest to God, conservative on the ballot (not a faux conservative squarely in the pocket of the religious right), and that might be different, but there seem to be less of those types of Republicans around these days (McCain never really stood a chance, did he? :( ).

    This election, however, is different. Bush did an audatious and reckless thing by pre-emptively striking Iraq. And given the fact that I'm one of those wide-eyed idealists who think the entire world will eventually be one big nation, for better or for worse, I don't appreciate Bush writing off the rest of the world to implement his neo-conservative agenda. It would have been an entirely different story had he worked within the "system" to implement his agenda, but he didn't. He went it alone and against much of the world. That is dangerous for us in the long run, IMO.

    So this year, I'll be voting against those policies as well. But this is an exception in a long string of decisions based off of social policy.

    Taft

    Edit: it just struck me that I also vote based on domestic economic policy, but again, I think both parties put their interests ahead of that of the US. Democrats love unions, Republicans love tax cuts. Both like to spend like drunken sailors. Bleh.
     
  4. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #4
    People hate Bush so much, they voted for Kerry because they thought he was the most likely to beat him. I agree, Kerry needs to show that he is the one to fix Bush's problems. All he needs to do is "look presidential" in these debates and I think he'll win by a landslide. If he can maintain the persona he's been showing in his most recent speeches, I think people will get behind him.
     
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    depends on person i personally think that Bush is pretty sure a nice guy in private life...but is he competent enough for being the president of the United States ? ... i think not

    (Donald "Ridiculous" Rumsfeld etc. are more hate-able than George Bush..._those_ have to go regardless of who is elected in november)
     
  6. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #6
    In a word: Yes.

    Sad isn't it? I think that's partly why Kerry's numbers aren't stronger. I really think there is a good % of his numbers that are based on "anyone but bush". Unfortunately I don't think the ABB votes will be good enough to carry Kerry over the finish line. :(
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Seems like it's almost always a race to see who sucks least. I've never met a polititian who agrees with me on even 90% of what I believe in.

    Bush has turned the US into an international embarrasment. Which I might not mind if he'd been right about all the things he claimed, but he wasn't. Bad leadership in the corporate world gets you tossed out on your ear. Whether your successor is more adept than you at fixing things isn't a big concern to the board that fires you, they are most interested in stopping the damage.

    It will take decades to fix what Bush has wrought. Better we start that repair process in '04 than '08.
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    Lethal,

    First off, aren't all elections focused on the incumbant (if present) primarily? If you like the incumbant, end of story. If you don't, you look at the alternative. If you are not sure, you contrast-and-compare the two.

    This election, it is difficult to get an accurate representation of either candidate due to the media clusterf**k.

    I think that voters who do their research as citizens tend to find Kerry's proposals/platform decent, if uninspiring/slightly unbelievable. If this was a normal peace-time election, however, this would be normal for both Candidates.

    After Four years, I find Bush likeable and incompetent. I find Kerry reasonable and somewhat boorish. I vote for substance over style.
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    Yup, what's your point.

    Until the "thirds" actually get it through their skulls that they're not going to get the proletariat uprising they're dreaming of, buckle down and do the frigging groundwork before propping Nader up for the Presidency THAT"S HOW IT WILL STAY.

    I'm getting to dislike the third party "activists" more than I dislike the Partisan Oligarchists. With the Thirds I'm usually just looking at people who are so disaffected that rational strategic thinking has departed their company.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    I'm voting both for Kerry and against Bush. I don't have any major problems with Kerry as a candidate. Contrary to the story the Republicans have told about him, Kerry is a relatively steady and principled individual and I think he's go the potential to be a pretty good President. I don't know how I'd feel about voting for him if the Republicans put up someone with credibility (I mean real credibility, not the ersatz synthetic kind they manufactured for Bush), but this is the choice we've got, and I've got no issues with making it.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    I support any opposition to Bush.

    I support John Kerry.

    Neither of these sentiments is dependent on the other.

    John Kerry is a man of integrity and has dedicated his life to the service of the people when he could have simply led a sheltered, priveledged existence.
    He was my early favorite for candidate before Howard Dean was even a blip on the radar. Others were talking about Gephardt or Daschle but I was thinking Kerry.

    I detest the implications that Kerry supporters are all merely "Anybody but Bush" lemmings.
     
  12. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #12
    In the 2000 election were they voting for Bush (who had no real record and who was for the Kyoto agreement, against nation building, for a balanced budget, other broken promices etc.)
    or against Clinton?

    Think about it. The country was prosperous. All income groups showed real increases in wages. The biggest news story that year was shark attacks. Why did Bush win?

    voting against in 2000 a record of prosperity, fiscal responsibility and evironmental responsibility
    voting for in 2004 a record of job loss, record deficits, dubious war, rising poverty rates, rising oil prices and greater income inequality

    If he wins again this time I'd have to say the country is mentally crocked, wacked, stupid and deluded. not to mention baffo, dumb-featured and ass-whipped
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Why wait? :rolleyes:
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    All right smart a**...and who, pray tell, is your Candidate for PM who "sucks the least"?
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    An excellent point. The Bush 2000 campaign platform was designed to position him as the anti-Clinton. In fact Bush was running as much against Clinton as he was Gore. As time has certainly shown, they were otherwise non-serious positions that were not intended for actual implementation (9-11 did not change everything).
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    I'd have to say Charles Kennedy, as the other two are both lying sacks of sh*t.

    PS In English, it's "a***"... :D
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    touché
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Learn by example, eh?

    Seriously, I think it should be evident that a lot of people in the US will be very discouraged about the state of our nation if Mr. Bush manages to skulk his way back into the White House in November.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Not only in the US. :(
     
  21. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #21
    Is that comment in reference to your own political let-down(s) in the UK, or in reference to our Election?

    we get so self-centered over here sometimes, I wouldn't want to misconstrue..
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    who sucks the least? i enjoyed Tafts remarks i feel about the same. I dont see a far right Republican congress and president representing me anymore. Bush administration is spinning everything and like Taft said security has never been a issue for me. Both partys jumped on the security bandwagon by implementing the sour patriot act and other such garbage while both have turned a blind eye to the mexico border. neither one of these sorry partys represent joe working American. They both are on their own agenda's and its not about making America a better place for us and our children. Special interest run the show on both sides when the American people should be running the show. Bush lied or spinned WMDs, Iraq, Healthcare,Enviroment........on and on he goes representing mega corporations and big business no matter how bad for our country.He squandered a surplus into a massive deficit, Bush has managed to take all the goodwill from the world and make them hate the U.S.George also cant admit he is ever wrong even when obvious to the American People. Kerry Sucks the least so iam voting for him because he was a Hero and he isnt George. My first time voting for a Democrat for President. :rolleyes:
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Granted, but need I remind that this still is our election? No matter how much impact the results might have outside of our borders, it will be several orders of magnitude greater here.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Am I voting for Kerry because he isn't Bush?

    Yep.

    That, and because instead of saying "if you're not with me, you're against me" like conservatives seem to be doing, and if you're against the President, you are a traitor (not that they supported Clinton at all, even when he wasn't scewing up), he said the opposite. He said that he knows that Bush et al love the country, but they are making mistakes in their policies. He says that now that we are there (in Iraq) we might as well do it right and get the support of the other countries instead spitting in their faces while talking about being nation builders.

    Plus, he actually seems to be able to pronounce the "big" words.
     

Share This Page