BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Vote Bush in 2004

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
raelianautopsy
21:28 / 04.03.04
The concensus reality of "everybody knows you can't fight the system so you have to work with it" is sickening. Since everybody knows they would waste their vote on a third party no one votes for them, but its their fault it is that way.

Things may have been better under Clinton but the bad economy is an exact continuation of the NAFTA/WTO policies that he started.

Mr. droog knows what he is talking about and seems to be the only one.

But the funny thing about me is that I am not someone that can only see the world through a left-wing view, and I can see things being just as bad or worse under Kerry.(see my above prediction).
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
22:08 / 04.03.04
I think that most people voting for Kerry just want to remove Bush and his people from power, which I think is an important first step towards pulling this country out of its troubles. I don't think most people think Kerry will actually be better and improve things quickly, it's more about making sure that the Bush administration doesn't make things worse.

Working towards a better democracy is a noble goal, but it's not a realistic one at the moment, not when those efforts only help to keep Bush in office. I don't think we have the luxury right now to fuck around with small parties who have no hope in a presidential race. In a better political climate and with a different reigning administration, I would be considerably more sympathetic to your point of view.

Politics is about compromise, and right now Kerry is one big compromise that non-right wing voters are going to have to make in order to remove the worst, most corrupt presidential adminstration in our country's history. I have no illusions about the Democratic party, but you're insane if you're going to try to tell me that they are going to be MORE corrupt and irresponsible than what we've been dealing with since 2001.
 
 
eddie thirteen
01:27 / 05.03.04
I think Matthew's said about all I could hope to on this subject. My normally long-winded and lofty posts are coming out in soundbites because this whole thing pisses me off so much that what *should* be intellectual discourse on my part just comes out sounding like a "fuck you, you fuck"-Mamet-style monologue, and I just end up deleting it. Consensus reality/non-consensus reality -- there IS a spoon, Neo. It's right fuckin' there! Claiming that voting for a third party will do *anything* other than keep Bush in office makes about as much sense to me as joining the Flat Earth Society. Open your eyes.
 
 
eye landed
04:03 / 05.03.04
What has Kerry done that makes you think he won't be worse than Bush?
 
 
ibis the being
13:06 / 05.03.04
What you're saying, droog & raelian, is like people in a sinking boat saying "Stop wasting your time bailing water! Let's rethink the design of this boat!" We can't afford to do that right now. Really, as Flux says, no one is attempting to glorify or idealize the Democrats or John Kerry here.

The latest news reports that Bush & Kerry have tied in the polls, while Nader has 6%. While it's unlikely (as of now) that Nader will get the Green nomination this time around, he's a good example of how trying to change the bigger picture is totally counterproductive in times of urgent immediate change.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:26 / 05.03.04
What has Kerry done that makes you think he won't be worse than Bush?

Well, there's no way to predict the future accurately, but I think we can at least be confident that Kerry's administration will not be nearly as radical as the Bush administration. The Democrats are beholden to corporate interests, but they tend not to be controlled by the Christian Right, whose influence right now is out of control. I am confident that a Democrat president would appoint a liberal or centrist judge to the Supreme Court, which is a key issue.

I think that a Kerry administration would be relatively similar to what Clinton was doing. Clinton was a centrist, and I think that's what this country needs right now. I think a very liberal, left wing person in the White House would never be able to accomplish anything in this political climate, and would not represent the will of the people. A centrist politician stands a better chance of getting positive things accomplished in this political climate. I don't think it would be a safe or healthy thing for the country to swing from far right to a far left administration.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:39 / 05.03.04
I'm not for Kerry, so by default, I must be for Bush. Do you have any idea how skewed that line of reasoning is?

Besides that, voter apathy has done far more damage to democracy than anything the far right or far left could ever manage on their own. Very few people bother to actually vote for who runs for congress, which is a HUGE reason why things in this country are so utterly fucked up right now.

A lot of people I know have essentially just given up, and these are otherwise intelligent, college-educated people with decent jobs...and they couldn't be bothered to go the primaries, they couldn't be bothered to vote for who they wanted to represent them in the house and senate, and I think its a problem that is getting more and more pervasive every year. A problem that has, in turn, compounded with other problems, such as the rampant corruption that exists in congress with regards to soft money contributions and influence peddling.

Enron donated money to Republicans AND Democrats, after all.

Back in the 80's, so did a foreign bank known worldwide as BCCI. Remember them? Kerry was head of an investigative senate subcommittee that looked into BCCI's involvement with the S&L scandal back when Papa Bush was president. (BCCI was caught illegally trying to purchase a US bank that got bailed out by the Feds called First American Bankshares whose CEO was a guy by the name of Jackson Stephens. Stephens is a Republican party bigwig advisor who's gainfully employed in W.'s admin.)

To make a long story short, the BCCI investigation went nowhere fast, and everything got swept under the rug in short order, according to investigative author and attorney Jack Blum, who was part of the committee at the time of the investigation (see his book, Outlaw Bank: a Wild Ride Into the Heart of BCCI).

Turns out BCCI had a lot of involvement in various and sundry activities including laundering drug money and acting as a pipeline for Ollie North's Iran-Contra network, covertly funding Saddam Hussein and funneling money to the Afghan mujahiddeen, among other things. BCCI also made regular soft money contributions to both the Republican and the Democratic National Committees.

At the time it was doing so, John Kerry was the head of the Democratic National Committee (during Dukakis' bid for the White House).

Some people accuse me of peddling "conspiracy theories" when I bring up such things. Make of it whatever you want.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:59 / 05.03.04
Oops. My bad. The book is by Jonathan Beaty, and the full title is "Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI". Jack Blum was quoted extensively therein, however. (Blum was the Special Prosecuter for the Senate SubCommittee on Terrorism & Narcotics, which Kerry chaired at the time of the investigations).
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:00 / 05.03.04
If you vote against the Democrat candidate, you are supporting Bush and his people. This is a lousy situation, but it's the reality of the world. Now really is not the time for selfrighteousness, man. For all your noble goals, all you're doing is keeping a dangerous administration in power. And for what? The small glimmer of hope that when we're old and grey, there MIGHT be something other than a two party system? Roll the dice, but bear in mind that a lack of unity against far right wing interests is the bigger problem.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:06 / 05.03.04
And for fuck's sake, the Republican party has moved so far to the right now that I think that it's totally laughable when anyone uses that "well, Republicans and Democrats are the same, dude" line. Democrats may be more right than they ever were before, but there is a clear difference in degree between Clintonian centrist Democrats and radical Bush/Cheney Republicans. I think that the gradual shift towards conservatism in the Democrat party is just as much a reflection of what the American electorate wants as anything else, and if this is meant to be a representive democracy, then I can't fault the party for shifting that way, even though I'm not crazy about all of what that entails.
 
 
raelianautopsy
17:16 / 05.03.04
I didn't say that I know Kerry would be worse than Bush. But I see it as a real possibility. Bush policies aren't so much because of how crazy he is but a predictable continuation of the way America has been going for quite some time, under Republican and Democrat administrations. Now they're just more open about it.

If gay marriage, which is a just a big distraction issue, is the most important thing for you than by all means vote for a Democrat. Although Kerry did say he was against it. If the future of the War on Terror, NAFTA and the WTO (that Clinton put us in), the Patriot Act, corporate curroption, etc., etc. are what matters to you than we live in a one-party state.

And it is very interesting that people care a lot more about voting for someone other than the Democrat than they care about the vast number of people that don't bother to vote at all. If you don't vote are you voting for Bush?
 
 
pachinko droog
17:38 / 05.03.04
Only something like a third of all eligible voters bother to turn out for the presidential elections. (Supposedly, the turn-out took its first signifcant drop in '64 and has been steadily declining ever since.)

Regardless of who was in the White House, real wages have been steadily declining for the last 30 years, while the incomes of the top 1% have been growing exponentially. The average CEO makes the same amount of money as about 2,000 entry-level workers...Think that will change under Kerry?

This election is like choosing between second and third degree burns. Either way, its gonna hurt.
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:43 / 05.03.04
Look...what it comes down to is that guys like Droog are talking about a philosophy that is morally right (in my view), but *has no practical application.* It's like, wouldn't it be great if the Justice League were real and we could vote for Superman? (I'm not sure that he was technically born on American soil, but I won't tell anybody if you won't.)

It's very sad that our situation is a choice between an evil and a greater evil, but that IS our situation. No amount of windy discourse will change it. Whether you like it or not, you are either voting to remove Bush from office *actively* -- by voting for a replacement candidate that a large enough number of other Americans will *also* vote for that he has a realistic chance of success -- or you are, actively, by inaction, or by voting stupidly (i.e., for Superman...I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure he isn't real, dude), voting *for* George W. Bush.

(And yes, if you think Kerry will be as bad or worse than Bush, you are delusional. Not only is Bush a frightening conservative, he is a conservative of the highest order. I do not want, for instance, Bob Dole or John McCain to be president, but I am convinced either would be saner, more reasonable, and -- particularly in McCain's case -- less prone to the influence of "special interests" and the religious right. Bush is not merely a republican, but the worst republican imaginable, short of one who actually appears at fundraisers in a white sheet with burning crosses set to either side of the podium.)

This line of reasoning is *not* skewed. This line of reasoning is representative of the real world. The real world may be skewed. I'm not saying it's not. But it has the advantage over fantastic constructions of being real. It may only be in consensus reality that one must, say, pay one's light bill and buy food; but without that level of interaction with consensus reality, one's personal sphere of being will be very dark and hungry. Ideas should inform your experience of the real world -- they are not, as I think has befallen a few people here, meant to replace one's experience of reality. If an idea, no matter how persuasive or intrinsically beautiful, will have the result of making real life matters worse -- and I think four more years of Bush qualifies -- perhaps the fault lies with the idea. And maybe you should go and find one that makes more sense.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:08 / 05.03.04
If you can't envision something different, then you've already admitted defeat. These folks seem to have grokked it Oh, but wait! They're a third party. And that's just not being realistic, now is it?

The thing is, the far right are really, really good at grassroots organizing and getting people to vote en masse for their causes. Time to beat them at their own game and overcome the voter apathy that enabled this crap to begin with.
 
 
MJ-12
18:22 / 05.03.04
The difficulty seems to be that you're looking at a false set of choices. You can both work to remove Bush this go 'round, and work towards getting a better set of choices/system/society. However, this will require 1) work, and 2) being able to demonstrate to people that your general goals/policies/aspirations are workable. That is only going to come when Greens/Progressives/Whigs/whatever have made progress in local/county/statewide leadership. What you or I or, for that matter Lyndon Larouche wants is not on the menu this right now. Suck it up, vote for damage limitation in the general then roll up your sleeves and set to work showing, not telling, people that there is an alternative, because until they see it, they have no reason to support it.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:00 / 05.03.04
I agree with MJ-12 - we need a solid base of active local politicians throughout the country before they can be truly effective on a national level. If a Green Party candidate somehow won the presidency in this election, they would be amazingly ineffective in dealing with the establishment in Washington DC. I don't think that's a good idea, and most people would agree. Voting for Greens and other independents in local elections is the way to go right now - that's how you build the party up. You need that solid foundation.

Slowly, independent politicians will become more respected and viable - maybe within a generation or two. That's a good thing. But voting for them in a national presidential election is totally misguided in this upcoming election if you disapprove of the Bush adminstration.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:06 / 05.03.04
raelianautopsy If you don't vote are you voting for Bush?

Yes. HTH. Is John Kerry the idea candidate? Hell no, that won't happen until they activate the big machine and pull President Bartlet out of fictionspace to save us all, or Prez for that matter. But to claim that taking a fucking interest in which person is going to be President is somehow breaking with your oh so precious countercultural 'Hey I hosted the Grey Album on my website what have YOU done recently' cred is stupid.

If you do not vote for John Kerry at the appropriate time then you are agreeing to be tied down and shat over by George Bush and his evil robot monkeys. If you took your heads out of your arses for a second you'd realise your posing is a poor second to getting that evil fucker out of the Oval Office.
 
 
burnie_123
13:09 / 06.03.04
Bush is a nightmare, yes, but who passed all those laws that gave him the powers to create this nightmare? It was the House of Representatives and Senate. I could careless if Bush or Kerry are in the White House, there's not a dimes difference between the two, anway. The media hides the real truth and feeds us all a line of shit three miles long and three miles wide, and we the average idiot laps it up.

We need to change politics, yes, but we need to stop pretending that Bush or the president is completely responsible, for every single fuckup, for he's not, and we're simply missing "The Big Picture" here, and we need to lay the blame on the Congress not the Presidency.
 
 
pachinko droog
15:31 / 06.03.04
Aha...Someone finally gets it. But the problem is that so few people ever bother to vote for who runs for congress, not realizing in fact how important it is in both the short and long term, shrugging it off in the mistaken belief that its the presidential elections that are all important, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not saying that the Greens are "The Answer". But they do put forth an alternative point of view that is worth examining. Same with people such as Jim Hightower and his "Rolling Thunder" populist revival.

With all due respect to folks with opposing points of view, I realize that many are extremely concerned about Bush getting reelected. It is a distinct possibility; he has raised an unbelievable amount of money for his war chest thus far and there's still 8 months to go. In all likelihood, we're in for another close one. But of course, a lot can happen in 8 months. The Halliburton shadow still hovers over the White House, our troops are still coming under attack in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still haven't captured Osama Bin-Laden, and job growth is falling pathetically short of initial estimates, all of which can drastically affect Bush's approval ratings and consequently, his chances of re-election. Don't forget that also that there are many conservatives who aren't too fond of Bush either. The libertarian wing of the Republican party has always been at odds with the religious right, after all. They might prove to be the wild card no one counted on...
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:16 / 06.03.04
Um, no, dude, I think I got it a long time ago. The democrats had a shot at an (I don't care what anybody says) electable progressive nominee for the president in Howard Dean, and the voters blew it and went for someone they thought would be safe enough for Middle America. Stupid? Fuck yeah, because most people with even as many as two brain cells to scrape together would vote for literally ANY democratic candidate over Bush; in a perverse way, this was the party's best shot at getting a progressive in the White House, because the candidate's status as democrat automatically makes him a viable prospect for the presidency. But the voters chose to play it safe -- which obviously could have worked a whole lot better in 2000 -- and so we have Kerry, who inspires me not at all. But -- oh -- well. Kerry is, right now, the ONLY person who has a realistic chance of defeating Bush to become the next president. And yes, it's because he's the representative of one of the two major parties...sorry, but no one else can win. Not yet. No amount of blather and bluster and bullshit will change that. Spam links, quote from radementoid texts, cite dubious historical examples all day long -- you're in complete denial if you think any of that matters. Naive as you seem to think we all are, the naive one here is you, because for some reason to seem to think that there is anyone on the planet more excited by the prospect of a third party splitting the vote than George W. Bush. I know I'm repeating myself, but so are you, so fuck it. It's very frustrating to me, because you appear to be seeing the trees with crystal clarity, but you're missing the fact that we're standing in the middle of a very dark forest. I mean, if it *seems* really fucking stupid to help Bush win, maybe it's not that we "don't get it," maybe it's just really, really fucking stupid. And, although it's impossible for me to comprehend, you don't get that.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:38 / 06.03.04
And maybe we're all just wanking off in the wind because its still only March...Though admittedly there is something just a tad absurd with how the primaries are conducted in the first place. I honestly don't understand why they aren't just all done on the same day. If that had been the case, then yes, Dean would have been the nominee, hands down. And I'd have felt a little better voting for him than Kerry.

And yeah, I'm tired of repeating myself and having the distinct feeling that I'm parrying blows here. (IRL as well; yea old statement of "If you're not voting for Kerry, then by default you're voting for Bush" gets lobbed in my direction a lot these days by self-righteous Dems. Feh. I'll vote for whoever I feel like.

IF Kerry picks Edwards as his running mate, then fine, I'll vote for Kerry. Why? Because I think its important to have someone in the White House who's opposed to NAFTA (I probably said this a while ago). Otherwise, I may just vote Green this time. Changed my mind about "None of the Above", it sounds good in theory, but now I think its a wasted vote. At least voting for a third party says you're not buying into the business-as-usual game that passes for politics these days.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
21:59 / 06.03.04
"Brothers, brothers! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!"

"THE JUDEAN PEOPLE'S FRONT!?!"

"What? No, the Romans"

"oh yeah..."
 
 
burnie_123
02:21 / 07.03.04
Let me ask you honestly what have you gotten?

You say you got "it", then explain what "it" is, please, because it seems you haven't gotten squat and keep rambling on and on about the same damn thing, the presidential nomination.

"It" doesn't matter who's in the White House.

You have been so brain washed into thinking that Bush is leading us into war when that guy couldn't do shit without the backing of the brainless idiots that vote for resolutions and subjugate themselves to his pathetic lies.

Now listen very closely, please.

The problem lies within the House of Representatives and Senate.

The president is to the them the scape goat, or the sacrificial lamb, so to speak. Get it!?! Listen to Kerry calling Bush a liar and a fuck up, and yet when you hear Kerry speak he's say the same things, almost verbatim, as to George W Bush. Get real people! And if the *electorial college doesn't like the popular vote they can cast their vote against the will of the majority, anyway.

*The Electorial College is the group of people who are elected to cast the official votes for the President and Vice President. Get that?

The only way to make "real" change is to clean the House and the Senate, and start all over with new people. Period. It's completely naive to think any differently, so open your eyes, seek the truth, and it will set you free.
 
 
---
05:54 / 07.03.04
Believe it or not, my American pals, we in the UK thought that voting in Tony Blair and "New" Labour after 18 years of right wing government would herald a great change across the land.

I remember how excited everyone was on election night in 1997 as we kicked the Tories out of power, how full of hope. In the 1997 elections Scotland returned no Tory MP's to Parliament, my Uncle called from London to ask my Mum how it felt to live in a country with no Tories, green with envy.

Yeah. Then it became apparent that "New" Labour actually meant "We will fuck you just as much as the Tories have, except this time you can't hope for better" Labour.

Yeah that was bad stuff. I remember Neol Gallacher going to Downing Street with the other stars and thinking that we actually had someone in power who was gonna change things.......maybe all this zombiedom will spark something big though. It's crap when our only alternative is more Tories, doesn't really leave you with much hope.

As for Bush/Kerry i'd go for Kerry but they so often end up being one step ahead that maybe Kerry's the real nightmare waiting in line.......i'd still vote for someone other than Bush though.

The thing is : no matter what happens, no so called 'President' is going to have the power to tell the agencies/war machine that the 'war on terror' crusade is going to be stopped and actually get it stopped i don't think, and that's the main issue as far as the worlds concerned isn't it? At least the actual state of America should start getting better if he get's voted out.
 
 
wicker woman
07:59 / 07.03.04
That's the 2nd time you've brought up that exact same point, burnie. It's a fairly smart group here on Barbelith, I think most everyone here realized the action happens in the House and Senate, not in the Oval Office. BUT, THAT SAID...

The President is the figurehead. He is the asshole that the assholes in Congress and the Senate either line up behind, or weakly shake their fists at. The reasons stated for the President not being the one to blame are the exact reasons he has so much power; it is because he IS the one every nugget in this country pays attention to/blames.

On "Demopublicans." The same coin, yes, but different sides of. The problem with the Dems is not that they are the same as the Republicans, but that they haven't been a decent opposition party in YEARS.
This is decidedly not the year to vote your conscience. Neither you, nor anyone else is going to be able to generate the groundswell of support that a 3rd party would need; and, as has been mentioned, it's probably not a good idea anyway. It simply cannot happen this year. So yes, as much as you love the line, not voting for Kerry is voting for Bush. C`est La Vie.

*Content brought to you by Twinkies.

P.S. For personal reasons, Bush needs to be out of office in a bad way. He is a dogmatic president of the worst kind, and any person who has EVER, EVER uttered the phrase that their should be "limits to freedom," especially for what he said it in response to, has absolutely no business being President.
 
 
---
11:32 / 07.03.04
Ha, thanks for that i just googled it :

At a news conference, Bush was asked about the (internet site) parody.

``There ought to be limits to freedom,'' Bush said. ``We're aware of the site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is. Of course I don't appreciate it. And you wouldn't, either.''

Ray Thomas, one of the site's operators, said in a telephone interview the Bush campaign is overreacting to humorous satire.

``There are opinions and there are facts,'' Thomas said. ``What we're doing is satire. He keeps saying this goes beyond humor. In fact, good humor often has a point. We're talking about Bush, we're talking about politics.''

The address for the official Bush web site is www.georgewbush.com.


That's just madder than i could of believed.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
19:34 / 07.03.04
Since we seem to be in repeat mode, I may as well add to the tape loop and go for the "mention Supreme Court" hat-trick.

Droog and others have their ethical purism, and that's fine (albeit I'm trying really hard to find it admirable given the circumstances). Others have embraced the ethical pragmatism, and that's fine.

But to those in the "They're all the same puppet" camp, can you honestly tell me that it may be worth potentially thrity to forty years of a Supreme Court packed with radically conservative judges overturning and knocking down ANY progressive amendment or law that may be proposed by ANY future progressive President OR Senate and House? Even in the science fiction reality of the people rising up en masse and electing Nader Jr. and a slew of Wellstone Senators twenty years from now, do you think they'd be able to accomplish ANYTHING with the Disciples of Dubya blocking the legal gates?

Seriously, you've adressed most of the reasons for going with the protest vote except this extremely crucial one. Is your third party vote worth this risk?

Hey I like Bill Hicks as much as the next guy, but I thnk even Bill is looking down from the Heavens going "GOD DAMN IT GET THIS BIBLE FUCKER OUT BEFORE HE BURNS THE HOUSE DOWN!"
 
 
eddie thirteen
20:21 / 07.03.04
Yeah, I haven't been brainwashed into anything, thanks. "Let's get a whole new congress and senate! That's the REAL problem!" Well, yeah, let's get right on that one, genius. Done yet? Whew! Problem solved. "Hey, the electoral college sucks" -- well, BANG! It's gone, too. We kick ass! Again, while we're typing things in all caps and using funny punctuation (?!) and being nasty, THERE IS NO PRACTICAL METHOD OF REALIZING THE CHANGES YOU PROPOSE. Y'know, dude?!

Not all at once, at any rate. Yes, one step at a time, you can -- mind you, on a local level -- elect representation that is more in tune with your way of thinking. As this happens, the party builds credibility, and it becomes increasingly possible for others of that party to attain office. On a national level, it's very difficult for you as an individual to change the entire Senate and Congress in one fell swoop, because we cannot all vote in every election in every state. As a third party builds power in Senate and in the Congress -- which will not happen overnight -- the likelihood increases of that party producing an ELECTABLE candidate for president. Which is to say, a candidate more than a few totally misguided individuals will vote for, ensuring nothing but that the vote is split and the far right -- whose preferred candidate is ALREADY IN OFFICE -- will hold a second term.

As to the notion that it doesn't really matter anyway who's president -- well, then, would you do me a favor and cast your pointless vote (if you're actually old enough to vote) for Kerry as figurehead puppet of the evil imperialist empire? It'll make me feel better. Thanks.
 
 
---
23:48 / 07.03.04
Yeah it's not a very nice situation is it. The thing that annoys me is that being English, every time an American election comes up it seems like the outcome is going to effect even this country more and more.

51st State?

Or is Alaska or Canada the 51st state and this is the 52nd? Or 53rd? The American government needs to take a big chill pill. People seem to be resigned to voting for the lesser of the two evils instead of anyone who can really bring change.

Is the President really the one in power though, or are the Banking systems, the Agencies or the Multinationals the real decision makers?

*drifts from the whole point of the thread*

Oh i should log off soon, it's getting late here.
 
 
raelianautopsy
01:51 / 08.03.04
I'm about to give up on this thread. Did I convert anyone?

There are ways to make change in this country and you can still be live in the real world. Its not being a naive idealist. If everyone accepted these limited options forever than how can anything ever change? Someone needs to start a movement for parliamentary style elections. Even if you vote for Kerry as a temporary solution at least think about these things for the future. Third parties have made change in history by letting the mainstream parties know what they need to be like to get back those votes. And voting in the primaries for the "centrist electable" candidate is the complete opposite of enacting this historically viable change.

There are always causes to fight for, and naysayers will always tell you to live in the real world. (If anyone cares, one cause I'm considering is www.freestateproject.org, which is a realistic way to enact change and create more choices in government.)

Just never forget the the Clinton administration got us in NAFTA and WTO!

What I see happening is what happened to our friends in England. A liberal party member would be in office, and surprise! everything is exactly the same as before. But now you realize that there never were any choices.

Of course, its not a liberal vs. conservative thing. There are good things about both philosophies, but what I see is that the Democrats and Republicans have fused the worst aspects of both philosophies: Big Government and Big Business. Which is corporate socialism, which is by definition Fascism.

One more interesting thing to think about: what if a third party right-wing candidate emerges that will steal votes from the Republicans? If I get my way that will happen. Would voting for the Greens or whoever then be an option for y'all?
 
 
eddie thirteen
03:45 / 08.03.04
Yeah, I'm kinda over this thread, too. All I'll say before moving on to something...anything else...is that I am not so naive that I think Kerry is a solution to anything other than George W. Bush. We gotta do something about that sucking chest wound America's got before we can put it through physical therapy, you guys. I'm out.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
04:07 / 08.03.04
Well apart from listening to any replies to my question, I agree. I think eddie 13 sums it up best. I'm certain no one here thinks Kerry is a great, or even good option, but he's the hand that's been dealt to us.
 
 
wicker woman
07:27 / 13.03.04
Zen; I've got a British friend on another board who has suggested it won't be too much longer before England is towed to somewhere just off the eastern US coast. At any rate, it'll make the trips for Blair from his office to underneath Bush's desk all that much faster.
 
 
bjacques
16:15 / 14.03.04
Engineering-wise, that would be only slightly tougher than President Alfred E. Smith extending the NYC Holland Tunnel to the Vatican so he could kiss the Pope's ring. We'll never know, since Hoover got in instead (in 1928).

You've gotta get from Point A to Point B. If you Nader fans are still here, nobody said Kerry was the answer to our prayers or enough of a difference to satisfy Barbelithians; he's just a small step in the right direction. But you've gotta take that step. All of Congress and one-third of the Senate are up for re-election this year (as on every even-numbered year), and it's a long ballot. There are judges, sheriffs and constables if you're from Texas or California. If the county tax assessor is from the other guy's party but is doing a good job anyway, by all means keep 'em in. Some state races are also this November. There are probably state, county or city bond issues for schools and some nasy rightwing initiatives and referendums buried down there too.
No to mention the usual collection of assclowns trading on easy to remember names or ones similar to those of past political heroes. Pay the fuck attention and vote.

Please do, because I've lived away so long I can only vote in Presidential and Senatorial races.

And the day after the election you go to work. Work on campaigns from county dogcatcher to school board member all the way on up. Run for those if you like, and you'll learn what real-life politics entail. If you love the Greens so much (I like 'em too), give them money and time to build a real base. People will trust them if they show a talent for government by testing ideas and adjusting them to reality, not the other way around.

Henry Clay said "I'd rather be right than President." He ended up being neither. He helped push us into the 1812-1815 War with England. Right doesn't buy you anything and you can't eat it.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply