Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?

[Scipio]

I think the "Why Bush?" thread deserves a counterpart. I'd like to share my views, I'm sure some others would as well, and hopefully we can avoid tangential arguments while we do it.

====

1. I reject the premise that Bush is better qualified to "keep America safe." John Kerry is a decorated veteran. He's been shot at. He's put his life on the line. He's tougher than George Bush will ever be, and I trust him to protect the security of the United States.

2. He will pursue a smarter tax cut strategy. One of the strongest economies ever seen in this country emerged after Clinton raised taxes on high levels of income and gave tax cuts to the families that make up the middle and working class. The last few years have shown two things: tax cuts for the wealthy only help out people who don't need help, and those wealthy people don't pass the benefits along.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

Surely a marginal rate of 37% (instead of 35%) on income earned over $311,000 a year isn't going to put any millionaires in the poor house, or remove the incentive to work harder and make more money.

3. Kerry will not just set standards for education and do nothing to make achievement happen; he'll make public education a priority, and make the system better for children.

4. He'll work to make health care available to more Americans. This is good for business, as it frees them from the burden of insuring their employees. It's repugnant that drug company interests have convinced our elected officials that it's ok for them to charge greatly higher prices to people in the US than they do to people in other countries. It's repugnant that they've blocked to government from using its purchasing power to get lower prices for medicines, effectively wasting taxpayer money.

5. Kerry won't cause more abortions to happen, or take people's guns away, or bring gay pride parades to every town in America. He won't allow America to be attacked, or destroy private enterprise.

Bush? Who needs him?

[KMA-628]

Originally posted by Scipio


5. Kerry won't....bring gay pride parades to every town in America

I didn't quite understand this one. Is this a typo?

[Paq]

well
he won't

I mean, would you honestly think a president would get out and say, "Hi, i think every town in america needs a Gay pride parade???"

mainly, he'll just say, "Hi, i don't think we need to legislate morality on gays and lesbians, marriage will be safe either way, let's focus on something more important"

[tecoyah]

Because he is not Bush.

[phredgreen]

i'm voting kerry/edwards, because i feel that the current administration has pushed this country too far right with their religious mandates. the separation of church and state has been trampled upon and it is creating a new and disturbing brand of discrimination that simply should not be.

i also feel that the current administration has put entirely too much time and energy into endeavours that are ultimately fruitless all around the world. we have funnelled countless dollards into a war without justifications, while americans go by needing basic care, education, and shelter. this should be addressed before we give anything else to other countries.

we have a strong, capable country. it is asinine that we should have american citizens that are uneducated, underfed, homeless, or sick without care. true american success will come about when nobody wants for basic needs in life, and our current administration simply dosen't care about that.

[pan6467]

Universal health care is a serious issue for me and I hope Kerry does more than Clinton.

To me the argument over whether we have socialized care or not ends with this: who pays for the people without insurance to get the care they need? Tax dollars or people go too late because they can't afford it and then whatever they have becomes terminal.

We are the greatest nation in the world and right now we are telling everyone that we would rather have people ruin their credit and work till they die rather than offer health care so that people may live longer healthier lives.

Another issue, and I hope to hear Kerry's plan on this because if you are not a boomer it influences your life real soon.

The Boomer generation starts retiring real soon. That takes a lot of income tax money out of the system, not to mention expendable income out of the system. What plans are put into place to keep our government solvent and running programs that are needed?

[Mehoni]

Because of the love.

[dylanmarsh]

Originally posted by phredgreen
i'm voting kerry/edwards, because i feel that the current administration has pushed this country too far right with their religious mandates. the separation of church and state has been trampled upon and it is creating a new and disturbing brand of discrimination that simply should not be.

i also feel that the current administration has put entirely too much time and energy into endeavours that are ultimately fruitless all around the world. we have funnelled countless dollards into a war without justifications, while americans go by needing basic care, education, and shelter. this should be addressed before we give anything else to other countries.

we have a strong, capable country. it is asinine that we should have american citizens that are uneducated, underfed, homeless, or sick without care. true american success will come about when nobody wants for basic needs in life, and our current administration simply dosen't care about that.

I COMPLETELY agree with phred on these reasons. I would also add that it seems that Bush, his family and associates along Cheney, his family and associates are making a pretty good buck off of this war on terrorism.

Seriously, folks, Bush cares more about himself and want suits him than any of us.

[wonderwench]

They have the best hair.

[powerclown]

Because of the love.

No kidding...If they don't stop hugging like gentle gay lovers Im gonna start calling them the Rainbow Coalition.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by powerclown
No kidding...If they don't stop hugging like gentle gay lovers Im gonna start calling them the Rainbow Coalition.

From the "If Drudge said it, it must be true" corner...

"XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JULY 08, 2004 10:09:35 ET XXXXX

CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER

Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...

John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!

In the past 48 hours, "candidate handling" has become the top buzz on the trail.

News photographers have been going wild with photos of the two Johns.

"I've been covering Washington and politics for 30 years. I can say I've never seen this much touching between two men, publicly," e-mailed one wire photographer.

When asked if the Johns are acting out a cynical focus group series of poses -- perhaps to show warmth to the chilly Bush/Cheney -- a Kerry spokesperson explained: "I think we're just seeing genuine affection between them."

But the spokesperson added, "I hope we do not see them wearing matching outfits when they ride bikes this weekend."

Developing... "

/http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/09/20040709_011402_kerryk.htm

I think the above is the 40 year political pundit's way of saying "OMG KERRY AND EDWARDS ARE FAGGS". I wish Drudge would learn that he will never become a ligitimate source with articles like this.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by KMA-628
I didn't quite understand this one. Is this a typo?

Well, you either get it or you don't, and you don't. And typo? You're kidding, right?

[phredgreen]

scipio: i think he's confused because your statement isn't worded very clearly. try explaining the intention of that last line item, just so the others will have a clear understanding of the point you were trying to make.

[KMA-628]

You're kidding, right?

No, I wasn't kidding.

Are you saying that Kerry is better because he will not bring gay pride parades?

I guess I just don't understand how this equates to Kerry being better than Bush. Is Bush doing this?

Sorry, #5 (of your original post) had a few confusing things to me, this one just stood out.

[student]

Bush is giving corporations tax breaks for them to outsource technology jobs, ones like I am attending college for as a computer science major earning a 3.6 gpa spending 30,000 dollars on my education. These aren't factory jobs.
He flat out went against the U.N. to invade Iraq saying "we" must make sacrifices when he got into the Texas Air National Guard sans the year and a half waiting list and can't even account for most of the his time in the service during the Viet Nam war. Now people my age are dying or being permanently disabled due to his arrogance.
Conservatism didn't put us on the moon. It only causes stagnation. Its time for a legitimate regime change...without cruise missiles and American loss of life.

[Journeyman]

I guess the best I can put it, concerning the Gay pride parade thing, is that the very, very conservatives feel that since Kerry won't "defend traditional marriage," gay marriage is going to become a common occurence. Because gay marriage will become common, more gays will come out of the closet and become vocal about it, and/or more people will become gay for tax reasons (ok I lied on the second part). Because of this, naturally gay pride parades will occur in frequency as well.

What this thinking fails to recognize is that a gay pride parade in every town, say, once a year, would equate to... I really dunno. Maybe 12 gay people. Hehe.

Now I'm voting for Kerry first because I tend to side with the democrats on social issues (but the republicans have my heart when it comes to guns and tax breaks for the poor and middle class (forget the rich, I need MY money)), second because Bush needs to be kept where he belongs... out of the white house (snicker!), and the third reason... well I suppose you *could* call it racist, but because he's an Irish Catholic. Really, Kennedy getting shot, then Kennedy getting shot, it's a protestant conspirac-*BANG*

[JBX]

Hold the presses... This Just in... The people living in caves on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border want to cast their vote for Kerry/Edwards too.

[sob]

Originally posted by Scipio


1. I reject the premise that Bush is better qualified to "keep America safe." John Kerry is a decorated veteran. He's been shot at. He's put his life on the line. He's tougher than George Bush will ever be, and I trust him to protect the security of the United States.

I live among a great many Vietnam veterans, and they universally despise Kerry. Something to do with his antiwar lies causing the deaths of some of our POWs.

Would you like a list of the military programs intended to protect our troops, which Kerry voted against while "protecting our security?"

2. He will pursue a smarter tax cut strategy. One of the strongest economies ever seen in this country emerged after Clinton raised taxes on high levels of income and gave tax cuts to the families that make up the middle and working class. .

The first part is misleading, the last part is flat-out false. Clinton was hardly in office before he raised taxes, bu the economy didn't improve until after the Republican landslide of 1994. And where on earth did you get the idea that Clinton gave ANYONE a tax cut, much less the middle class?

The last few years have shown two things: tax cuts for the wealthy only help out people who don't need help, and those wealthy people don't pass the benefits along. .

There it is. The wealthy don't deserve their money, but people who don't work are entitled to it.

Have you checked out Kerry's balance sheet? Do you think of him as the "common man's friend?" And have you noticed that somehow or other, the economy is doing very well, and there are more jobs available? However, if you'd like to see what has been shown over the years, check out the economy under Jimmy Carter, and after Reagan's tax cuts.

Oh, and the CBO confirms that 7 of the 8 budgets Reagan proposed were balanced, but the Democratic-controlled House took care of that.

Surely a marginal rate of 37% (instead of 35%) on income earned over $311,000 a year isn't going to put any millionaires in the poor house, or remove the incentive to work harder and make more money..

It isn't going to help the poor, either. It just gives them the sense that they're entitled to more of other people's money.

But if you'd like evidence of what happens to an economy that rapaciously taxes higher incomes, you need look no further than California's current fiscal mess.

3. Kerry will not just set standards for education and do nothing to make achievement happen; he'll make public education a priority, and make the system better for children..

Did Kerry's daughter go to public school? Did Kerry? What exactly is he going to do? School vouchers?

4. He'll work to make health care available to more Americans. This is good for business, as it frees them from the burden of insuring their employees..

That's great. Who's going to pay for it? Is it your contention that taxes on "the rich" should be raised enough to fund universal health coverage?

5. Kerry won't cause more abortions to happen, or take people's guns away, or bring gay pride parades to every town in America. He won't allow America to be attacked, or destroy private enterprise..

How will he prevent attacks, and how will his raising taxes help private enterprise?

Bush? Who needs him?

We do. Otherwise, Kerry will plunge us into recession, like Clinton did. Bush dug us out of it once, but raising taxes would certainly undo all of his good work.

[sob]

Originally posted by phredgreen
i'm voting kerry/edwards, because i feel that the current administration has pushed this country too far right with their religious mandates. the separation of church and state has been trampled upon and it is creating a new and disturbing brand of discrimination that simply should not be.

Examples?

i also feel that the current administration has put entirely too much time and energy into endeavours that are ultimately fruitless all around the world. we have funnelled countless dollards into a war without justifications, while americans go by needing basic care, education, and shelter. this should be addressed before we give anything else to other countries.

I go along with that in regard to foreign aid, but personally, I'm going to have a tough time paying everyone else's rent, food, transportation, college, and cable TV if I'm dead from a terrorist attack. Kerry hasn't shown me that he has even a vague notion of how to deal with terrorists.

we have a strong, capable country.

With more and more noisy "victims" who keep trying to entitle themselves to the fruits of others' labors. How much longer can we subsidize sloth before our economy resembles Germany's, or France's?

it is asinine that we should have american citizens that are uneducated, underfed, homeless, or sick without care. true american success will come about when nobody wants for basic needs in life, and our current administration simply dosen't care about that.

I'm not sure why they should expect a different situation when some take drugs, drop out of school in the sixth grade, and haven't worked since, but I think I've got the concept:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

I'll go along with that if you can show me a country where it's worked.

Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

'If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worst case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.'

Winston Churchill

And if you think the "slaves" part is an exaggeration, you need to reseach the percentage of Muslims in the world whose avowed goal is the destruction of non-Muslims.

[clockworkgreen]

To piss of people like sob.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by JBX
Hold the presses... This Just in... The people living in caves on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border want to cast their vote for Kerry/Edwards too.

Given that prolonged conflict is exactly what radical fundamentalist Muslims want, it can be easily argued that they would support Bush. Of course, this entire line of thinking is irrelevant, counterproductive and a little bit dumb.

[sob]

Originally posted by clockworkgreen
To piss of people like sob.

Well, it's very successful. I've worked since I was 9 years old, and nobody gave me any handouts.

So how much money do you normally get per year from working Americans?

[sob]

Originally posted by cthulu23
Given that prolonged conflict is exactly what radical fundamentalist Muslims want,

How do you figure that? They're decapitating people to try to end the conflict (in which they're getting their asses kicked, BTW).

The ones they love are the Spanish and the Philipinos.

it can be easily argued that they would support Bush. Of course, this entire line of thinking is irrelevant, counterproductive and a little bit dumb.

Namecalling noted, but good luck convincing anyone that Al Qaeda supports Bush.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by sob
How do you figure that? They're decapitating people to try to end the conflict (in which they're getting their asses kicked, BTW).

The ones they love are the Spanish and the Philipinos.

Namecalling noted, but good luck convincing anyone that Al Qaeda supports Bush.

You are right....the "dumb" comment was out of line. My apologies to JBX.

As I and others have posted many times, the bin Ladens of the world are dependent on strife and conflict to fuel their "holy war." When the US invades a Middle Eastern country, it undoubtedly pushes some of the more moderate elements in that region towards the extremists. This is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences. Although you are right that the Iraqi insurgents do want the end of occupation by our troops, in a strange way they are dependent upon our troops to continue fueling their cause.

Regardless of all that, this thread is for people to post why they are supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Although challenging one anothers assumptions is one of the purposes of this forum, perhaps another thread might be a better place for the long, point by point anti-Kerry analysis that you are making.

[KMA-628]

cthulu23,

I agree with the thread-jacking comment for this thread.

But the Bush thread got jacked, much, much worse.

I can't read the damn thread without that stupid video coming on every time.

[cthulu23]

KMA-628,

hehehe...I hate that video, too. I run linux and my browser video plugin freaked out every time I hit that thread.

I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to do my part to raise the level of discourse here. Lord knows I'm still getting used to message board politeness myself.

[Zeld2.0]

Since 9 years old.. are you suggesting we weep for that?

I'd vote Kerry, if anything, to get Bush out of the office because he's a disgrace to the older brand of conservatism and the neo-cons that are running and ruining the Republican Party.

Maybe it's just because of being a bit old school when it comes to these things, but the fact that they:

a) Are more focused on infringing personal rights
b) Are willing to control what goes on in the bed room
c) Are pressing for religion with state issues
d) Expanding government
e) Spending like drunken sailors - whatever happened to fiscally conservative

Those are just a few reasons but its a stark contrast from what I have believe the party to once stand for...

And anyways, I think this thread is a good illustration of why no one should ever label someone a 'liberal' or 'conservative' for simply voting the other guy - they might just be thinking!

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by sob

Examples?

Sigh.. I'll bite.

1. A proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage between partners of the same sex.

2. Only funding abstinence sex education instead of responsibility, despite clear and obvious conventional wisdom that this does not work -- anywhere in the world, nor here. Did we not learn anything from the AIDS proliferation in the 80s? Yes we did, in fact. I learned a great deal about how to keep myself protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. I honestly fear for a generation denied this information to satisfy a relatively small contingency of Evangelical Christians.

3. Ashcroft. 'Nuff said.

4. Re-election Campaign using Southern Baptist church organizations to promote Bush. This is heavily documented. It is also technically illegal and would result in the loss of tax-exempt status of these organizations if it were enforced.

5. Bush's own assertion that God speaks through him, that his every decision is guided by Jesus. He cannot say 3 sentences without mentioning prayer, Jesus or faith in public. It's frankly disturbing to a non-Christian. I want someone who leads based on convictions of reason, logic, and compassion -- not instructions from an imaginary friend in the sky.

6. Reactionary ban on stem-cell research, a stance only taken by fundamentalist Christians. Sets back the science of medicine in several important fields by great bounds.

7. Heavy pressure to restrict a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. A ban on "partial birth abortion," an extremely rare and often critical procedure.

8. FCC, headed by Bush appointee son of Colin Powell, imposing a three million dollar fine for using bad words or talking about sex on the air.

9. Ashcroft. He counts twice. The man covered the statues of Justice that have been there for over 70 years because they had exposed breasts.

There is a reason that the fundamentalist Christians are avid supporters of Bush. It has nothing to do with terrorism and tax cuts. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve and makes it unabashedly clear. If you are denying this you are either living in a hole or baiting. I am assuming the latter and am happy to oblige.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I fear this is dangerously close to violation. It's time for change. I am perfectly happy to have leaders who are devout Christians. But when they cross the line of simple belief to pushing a radical policy to enforce their narrow definition of morals on the rest of us, it is time to kick them out. It's the most American thing you can do.

[sailor]

Why will I vote Kerry?

Hes not Bush. Bush has yet to do *one thing* that I agree with. Every time annonces another initiative I just shake my head.

[cheeterbo]

look, this is very simple, if you cant bring yourself to be able to sift through the whole movie, go to F9/11 and look at what is supposed to be our leader in the classroom for those 7 minutes.

if you can vote for that person, if you really think that that human being has what it takes to stand up for himself, then you have problems dealing with reality.

[Stompy]

1. I like the public healthcare proposal

2. Like most would say, he's not Bush. I feel that Bush is actually putting the US in more danger with his choices as our leader. He's doing nothing except angering the rest of the world.

...and fight terrorism by declaring war? By actually battling these people who are willing to kill themselves to take you and 50 other people out? Sorry, not the way to conquer that beast. I'm not sure of a better way (improve foreign policy and show some respect to other nations?), but declaring "war" on them and bombing their training facilities just temporarily puts things on hold while they recruit even MORE people who are sick of our bullshit.

Just take a few minutes to ask people overseas what they think about the US. It's not good. I just don't feel comfortable with that and with him as my leader.

3. Abortion issue doesn't concern me. They'll never be illegal (rightfully so), so whether he's against them or not is irrelevant, really.

4. Bush is closed minded. Look at his stance on gay marriages. You're basically denying someone of something because of their sexual orientation, and that goes against what this country stands for. This is equivalent of any public official within the last 50 or so years being a segregationist.

Whether or not he'll be a better president and will actually follow through with what he has to say has yet to be seen, but it's a gamble I'm willing to take.

[edit]

I don't know if it's just me, but I want a leader who's NOT religious. I hate when leaders ramble on about god (like Bush when he talks his anti-gay marriage stuff).. look, do your job as a president, not a preacher. I didn't elect you so you can spout off about what's right/wrong in the eyes of God. Just follow the f'n law.

[edwhit]

My god don't bring up a mocumentary and expect me to make a political decision based on it! MM is a moron imo.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet. I'm more conservative that liberal by far, but it's not clear cut for me.

If I DO vote for him it is for two reasons.

1) I don't want to be at war ON THIS LEVEL forever! I was and still am for going to war against Al queda and Iraq. Bush may have been misled on some key issues that he used to help justify the war, but there were plenty of reason outside WMD that I see. I am glad Bush was not afraid to take the war to them instead of waiting for something to happen again and having to REACT again.

However, a war on terror will never ever end. I am all for governments working together to weed out terrorism. I would love to see something similar to the system seen in Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six formed. A cooporative task force to fight terrorism. But I have no desire to see America drained of lives and resources ON THIS LEVEL to take on Iran, China, Cuba and all the other Countries that have terrorist ties.

2) Abortion. I am VERY against abortion as a method of birth control and I think pretty damn low of mothers that choose to abort because they are lazy and wouldn't use birth control.

However, my mother and girlfriend work in hospitals and are both very much against laws against abortions. The problem with regulating abortions is that it can't be done well.

Children that are raped (by fathers for example) are often afraid to come forward and without the option of abortion would either be forced to carry their attackers child or they will often seek out alternative methods of aborting such as coat hangers and other dangerous and often fatal methods. Outlawing abortion all together causes more deaths. Deaths of mothers.

However, I don't trust the Johns on national security or the economy for starters. Gonna be a tough choice.

[Rdr4evr]

Ill vote for Kerry because he is not Bush. Simple as that, I hate Bush, I hate his senseless wars, I hate his stupidity, and I hate his lies.

Oh, and his face annoys me too.

[matteo101]

Originally posted by Rdr4evr
Ill vote for Kerry because he is not Bush. Simple as that, I hate Bush, I hate his sensless wars, I hate his stupidity, and I hate his lies.

Oh, and his face annoys me too.

hmm...simple, yet true 100percent. I like this guy.

[Sparhawk]

Because I believe in John Kerry's strength and integrity, and I don't believe in George Bush's.

[roachboy]

i'm going to vote kerry because he is not bush.
and his will not be the bush administration.
and getting the neocons away from actual power seems an important--no...fundamental task for the public to accompish this election cycle.

there are other reasons as well, but i have to say as kerry's centrism is becoming more and more evident, he is not making this any easier for me.

if i lived in a different state, i would vote nader.

[Hwed]

Kerry is nothing but a vessel for Bush hatred. He has no plan, no positive agenda, no nothing.

As far as Clinton's tax hikes boosting the economy, utter hogwash.

Why were the 90's a happenin' time? Had nothing to do with Clinton. He happened to be lucky enough to be President when the internet went mainstream.

How does taking money from the rich and throwing it at the poor help anything? The poor spend it on lottery tickets, tattoos, cigarettes and booze. While this increases demand in the short term, it does nothing to create sustained economic growth.

On the other hand, extra money in the hands of the rich tends to be invested in new business opportunities, leading to new jobs, technological advancement, etc.

[Superbelt]

The poor also like to have lots of babies so they can increase their welfare checks and buy a cadillac to drive around while scoring hits of heroin. The more kid the better the caddy. I believe the going rate is 6 kids to get the leather interior, 7 for the OnStar nav system and 8 little welfare babies to trick it out with dual climate control, metallic shade altereing paint and the 18 inch rims.
And selling their foodstamps to buy HDTV's.
Don't forget that. Poor people suck and should be made into Soylent Green. Damned loafers.

[onodrim]

Let's try to keep this on topic and respectful people. I'm not getting that vibe here at the moment.

[Sparhawk]

nevermind