[PacHead]

Fair is Fair - - - I responded to that "Why are you voting for Bush thread" 100 % honestly, so let's hear why Kerry supporters are voting for Kerry.

Is it all going to be "well he aint Bush" - - - - "Anybody but Bush" - - - - or are you going to give some legitimate reasons ?

[Beewee]

To weaken the United States

[itai195]

Trust, healthcare, the environment, more responsible spending (who'd have ever thought), and hopefully a more responsible approach to the WoT. I think he's more likely to take our nation's need for alternative fuels and energy sources seriously. I also disagree with the Republicans on the usual slate of social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) and am not fooled by Giuliani and McCain's RNC appearances into thinking this administration is moderate in its views. Kerry also seems to have a better grasp of our domestic security needs, where I feel the Bush administration has cut a lot of corners.

That said, he wasn't my first choice as a candidate, but some Republicans seem to think the same way about Bush so. Admittedly, I also have a few areas where I most certainly am voting against Bush -- such as his education policies. And as I stated in previous thread, I think he's responsible for creating a palpable atmosphere of fear and suspicion in this country.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Because the world hates Bush, not America. What's the point fighting a war against people who don't like you? Kerry is also Catholic of Jewish descent. He's also flexible. People say they know where Bush stands. That's not a good thing. It means they aren't flexible or in two-minds about many issues. A leader should always be in two-minds about war and should always value individual liberty without imposing his personal beliefs on others. That's Kerry. A man enough to be himself and not a full on puppet.

[Cody Dawg]

Kerry is also Catholic of Jewish descent.

So, he couldn't make up his mind which religion to choose?

Figures.

[badidea]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fair is Fair - - - I responded to that "Why are you voting for Bush thread" 100 % honestly, so let's hear why Kerry supporters are voting for Kerry.

Is it all going to be "well he aint Bush" - - - - "Anybody but Bush" - - - - or are you going to give some legitimate reasons ?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
So, he couldn't make up his mind which religion to choose?

Figures.

His parents converted. It's his private business anyway.He's not supporting any religious group because of his diverse background. Diversity and flexibility. That's what makes a functional person and society.

[itai195]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
His parents converted.

Grandparents. His brother is also Jewish, he converted.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by badidea:

to the others who have given good answers and to the people who snuck out of their kindergarden class inorder to post.

[Cody Dawg]

Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason why anyone would vote for Kerry.

[deedar]

1. Restore credibility and regain our national reputation.

2. More responsible approach to combating terrorism.

3. Willing to use sound science in environmental policy decision-making.

4. Honesty and trust.

5. More fiscally responsible.

6. Greater credibility as CIC - decorated war hero and outspoken voice against the war in Vietnam.

7. Won't let god lead us into war.


Like others, he is not my first choice, but I do find him head and shoulders above the alternative.

[ringo]

Lesser of two evils. I don't like Kerry, but I'll hold my nose and vote for him. Here are the big three reasons:

1. I'm a fiscal conservative. Bush is not. Bush says he is but massive and long-reaching tax cuts + record deficit + coming baby boomer retirement does not a fiscal conservative make.

2. I do not support the Bush policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East as a broad region. The middle east has been doing OK picking their own forms of government without us. I think democracy is the ideal, but you can't force it on a nation that doesn't want it. The people of the British colonies in America fought hard for its democracy, let the people of <insert name of middle eastern nation here> fight for their democracy if it is really something that they desire.

3. The war on terror. If Bush put more resources into flushing out the mountains along the pakistani/afghani border instead of burrowing into Iraq, I think we could have had OBL by now. There is still no clear conection between Iraq and the terrorist factions that threatened the US prior to the latest war in Iraq. It's too late to just up and go now, but I think Iraq was a mistake that Bush should pay for.

[RAILhead]

11 posts? That's it?!? I though pretty much everyone on this board were KerryFans and that only a couple of us liked Bush?

Why won't the KerryFans of MacNN Forums answer in droves?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Why won't the KerryFans of MacNN Forums answer in droves?

We'll answer at the polls.

Actually, deedar summed it up pretty nicely for me.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
We'll answer at the polls.

Actually, deedar summed it up pretty nicely for me.

Heh, if one of us Repubs would've said that, we'd be accused of dodging the question...

[Joshua]

I'd like to see a "part 2" to the question: what has Kerry actually said or done to make you support him over Bush on the issues that are important to you?

For example, I know a lot of people are voting for Kerry because they feel Bush is fiscally irresponsible. What has Kerry done to make you believe he'll be more fiscally conservative than Bush?

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
11 posts? That's it?!? I though pretty much everyone on this board were KerryFans and that only a couple of us liked Bush?

Why won't the KerryFans of MacNN Forums answer in droves?

I don't know, certainly most of the more vocal people here are Bush supporters (except for Lerk).

[zigzag]

I think the argument that it's misguided to vote against someone rather than for someone else is a hollow one. If Candidate A has policies that I vehemently disagree with, then damn straight I'm going to vote against him, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

I don't hate Bush or even dislike him, but if he were running a large corporation like he's been running the country, he would've been fired for incompetency some time ago. He's delivered on few if any of the things he speaks of, and in key instances - spending, the war - the very opposite has happened, and he's managed to gloss over it. There's no reason to believe he'll be able to deliver any better in a second term. It seems to me that he's running on rhetoric and symbolism, not substance. And tax cuts that we will only pay for later, with interest.

I don't know if Kerry would be more effective or not - no one can really say. Both candidates are going to be hamstrung by the decisions made in Bush's first term. But Kerry is a capable, experienced Senator, and if Bush is the alternative, I'll take my chances.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Joshua:
What has Kerry done to make you believe he'll be more fiscally conservative than Bush?

Easy answer: he hasn't started wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and he hasn't supported massive tax cuts that did the same

But in general, I don't know for sure that he'd be better. I doubt it's possible to be worse.

[f1000]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
What's the point fighting a war against people who don't like you?

Are you suggesting that we should only fight wars against people who DO like us?

[Atomic Rooster]

Very simple...

For intelligence and sanity.

Kerry will at least know where the other countries are.

You may not feel it PacHead but from Kerry I get a feeling that he really cares about his fellow Americans and their health and their economy...

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by f1000:
Are you suggesting that we should only fight wars against people who DO like us?

I pick Canada.

Everything is their fault anyway. Damn socialists and their healthcare.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
You may not feel it PacHead but from Kerry I get a feeling that he really cares about his fellow Americans and their health and their economy...

Oh, you may be correct, I'm not doubting that. What about security ?

[ringo]

Originally posted by Joshua:
For example, I know a lot of people are voting for Kerry because they feel Bush is fiscally irresponsible. What has Kerry done to make you believe he'll be more fiscally conservative than Bush?

He's proposing to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, end corporate welfare, and reduce the deficit significantly. Believe me, if he starts to sing another tune once he gets into office, I'll happily vote against him in 2008. I'm much more interested in this issue than I am in political party affiliation.

[MindFad]

Zigzag and itai summed it up nicely. This honestly isn't a horse race for me, or some party affiliation match. The two sentences in my sig are my feelings in a very small nutshell. It's quite simple.

[MacGorilla]

I am tired of watching my country being led people with no sense of pity or shame, who are so single minded that they are destroying everything that is good about America for their extreme right wing agenda.

[dcmacdaddy]

I like some of his stances, I dislike others, but overall I like what he stands for (on the military, the environment, social causes, taxes, fiscal policy, etc).

Like someone said above, if he doesn't deliver he doesn't get my vote for a second term.
Clinton got my vote the first time but NOT in 1996. I lost my faith in him well before Monica Lewinsky ever appeared on the scene.

[angaq0k]

That's IT! I vote Bush.

He also addressed a local issue of importance to Michigan. The city of Toronto, Canada, ships more than 1 million tons of household waste to Michigan landfills a year. Scholastic News Online asked Kerry about his stand on this issue.

"I don't like it," he said. "It seems silly to accept trash as a commodity. We shouldn't import trash from other countries. I plan to review this issue in the first 120 days of my presidency."

[Macpilot]

I am voting for him because he is not anti-labor as Bush and most of his Republican cronies are. My career depends on it, as the contract negotiations underway for my pilot group are currently under the auspices of the NMB, who's members are appointed by the President. Right now, all three people on this National Mediation Board are going to prevent us from striking as they are basically puppets for the administration.

Also, I think Bush is a simpleton, and he has not done anything positive for this country since his inauguration. Screw him.

Although I am afraid Bush will win as Kerry's message seems rather nebulous, especially pertaining to Iraq.

[realitybath]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fair is Fair - - - I responded to that "Why are you voting for Bush thread" 100 % honestly, so let's hear why Kerry supporters are voting for Kerry.

Is it all going to be "well he aint Bush" - - - - "Anybody but Bush" - - - - or are you going to give some legitimate reasons ?

anybody but bush is a legitimate reason.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oh, you may be correct, I'm not doubting that. What about security ?

I don't think I'd feel any more or less safe with kerry than Bush. Countries get attacked by terrorism now and then. Its not like we're in an all out war where I feel threatened. Really my life style hasn't changed much since 9/11. I think this whole security/everyone-be-scared-there's-a yellow-alert-and-we-should-all-be-shaking-in-our-boots thing is just the lastest political fad. Even if we were at big time war Bush doesn't come accross as a tough ass kickin guy. He comes accross as a 8 year old playing Axis and Alies with his army men. All he has proven is he can declare war on one of the weakest countries in the world and exhaust the entire US military and economy in the process to the point where this country is kneeling in the mud. The message it send is "hey the US isnt that powerful, no reason to be scared of them we can attack ...they can't even handle iraq".

We already know where Bush stands and its time to give someone else a chance. Hopefully if nothing else Kerry can get this country off its knees to stop the embarrassment that Bush has brought in foreign policy and by letting technology research slide due to lack of funding. This war was not that hard; it just needed some extra strategy. It's not going to be as simple as japan. Japan was a country that was civilized and united to begin with. The Iragis weren't and don't seem to want to be. Bush is a panzy ass. When the criticism on the war began he rolled over gave 18 billion $ to africa to "show the world how passionate we are"; which we don't have... If that money had been spent in the US borders on feeding and curing our own disabled or poor, the economy would have gone up, production would have gone up, and the republicans would have still called it a free hand out. He could have put to many more uses...he could have saved our envirnment, he could have saved the manitee, he could have gave it to schools, he could have put to research, he could have built mot a state of the art fabrication plant for the worlds fastest G5, he could have build a bullet train, he could have put it to buy a new joint strike fighter to bomb Osama.

Bush based most of his costly plans on the bet that we would have all these economic surpluses....gambling is something countries like Bangladesh do.

Then he decided to say all illegal aliens should be legal. wtf???????? I'm not going to get too into this one, but I don't agree with a guy that thinks an illegal should be put on the same level or higher in many cases than an american that has worked their whole life paying into the system the whole time to get where they are. Just as I have to work my way up if I decide to go to australia or many others.

When critized on various issues like stem cell research (which by the way other countries are passing up in this technology sector), energy policies, environment but not limited to those. Bush has consistently defended himself with comments like our policies are more realistic/rational/maintainable....technoloy just isn't that far ahead.... Yet as realistic as he is, he thinks its a rational thing to send a man to mars and build moon bases. This isn't the 1960's...that isn't cool anymore. If you want to go to mars go to Arizona. The money could have been better spent on researching a new shuttle, a new means of propulsion, fussion or even cosmic antigravity. All strangely more realistic...but nooooo we are going to use it to develope the great technology of building a giant space oil tanker. I like star trek too but Bush is just taking it a little too seriously.

So I'll vote Kerry and hope he makes the rational decisions and focuses more on the domestic issues at hand. You can find out Kerry's policies not by listening to him campaign but following his record in congress.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by f1000:
Are you suggesting that we should only fight wars against people who DO like us?

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
I pick Canada.

Everything is their fault anyway. Damn socialists and their healthcare.

Won't work. We don't like you much either

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Because the world hates Bush, not America.

That's actually 100% true.

Media has been showing a lot of 'anti american protests' on TV. But if you research the actual event (most have websites these days btw), or even look at other non-american websites... it's very clear: "Anti-Bush". In reality, several are actually 'pro-america'. They are the equivilant of being pro-iraqi, and anti-saddam.

Very different to hate saddam, and to hate a country.


But yes, the entire world at this point hates Bush. And it's not helping us. We don't have 1 ally we can rely on at this point if the need arises. And that's rather disturbing considering 4 years ago we had the majority of the world 90% supportive of us.

Eventually every nation relies on other nations. History has shown that over and over. Every nation ends up in that situation. I'd hate for that situation to arise tommorrow, because we'd be f****d. No question about it.


I personally don't like Kerry much either.

But if it's between Bush, or America's stability as a nation... the choice is pretty clear.

[Spliffdaddy]

Dude.

People have hated the US for centuries - not just for the last 3 years.

Personally, I feel like we're doing a great job as long as France and Norway still hate the US.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Eventually every nation relies on other nations. History has shown that over and over. Every nation ends up in that situation. I'd hate for that situation to arise tommorrow, because we'd be f****d. No question about it.

I love how you use history when it suits your agenda, but then state that things change when that suits your agenda.

[UNTeMac]

1. Kerry isn't friends with the religious right.

2. Kerry is able to question himself and others on issues. A questioning mind is one that will adjust well to a changing world.

3. Kerry has extensive experience on how Washington works and the ways to play the game up there himself instead of delegating responsibility.

4. I like the way he gives speeches and interacts with voters. I'd have a beer with him. Not a very intellectual reason, but I'll use it anyway.

5. I agree with him on various social issues like gay marriage and reproductive rights.

6. -->>Biggest One: Kerry is his own man. He makes his own decisions. I know this isn't supposed to be about Bush, but I've felt like I'm being shown a puppet show every time Bush gets in front of the media. Kerry is a very, very refreshing change.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
People have hated the US for centuries - not just for the last 3 years.

There's a difference between hating a leader and a country.

[chris v]

I really honestly have no real clue that Kerry won't be worse than Bush, but it's pretty hard to imagine. I'm hoping that at least nominally being a member of the Democratic party, which has a platform I sort-of agree with (I was a Kucinich supporter) might keep him from going off the neo-liberal deep end the way Clinton did. I don't hold out huge hopes of Kerry not selling us up the river, but the Bush administration has been so egregiously against everything I believe in politically, I simply have to hope.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There's a difference between hating a leader and a country.

What they hate isn't entirely Bush, it's policies that put American interests first, and a national predominance that makes it stick. There were the same complaints about Clinton. Maybe you don't recall that it was during Clinton's presidency when the French foreign minister started decrying US "hyperpower."

It is true that they dislike Bush's style. He doesn't listen to European nationalists and he doesn't pretend to apologize for being the president of the United States (and only of the United States). Clinton had a way of saying "**** off" that stroked their egos. FOr example, he praised the Kyoto accords and the landmine treaty at exactly the same time he made sure that the US wouldn't be participating. Substantively, his policy was identical to Bush, but stylistically, he was poles apart.

Europeans probably would like Kerry more than Bush. He is more likely to accomodate US interests to theirs. He has made it clear, for example, that he wouldn't pursue military operations if the French or Germans oppose it. Because they would oppose almost anything, we can be sure that a Kerry presidency would be non-confontational, but also not very effective. He will have solid alliances that won't do anything. I don't think that is any way to fight a war, but then I don't think Kerry really believes it is a war. I think he will look for a way to call the war off and accommodate the US to terrorism rather than try to defeat it. Bowing to European sensibilities in the name of building alliances is how he would do it.

But I suppose it is possible he might try pushing those alliances. For example, he has been promising he can get the French and Germans to deploy enough combat forces to Iraq that Americans could begin withdrawing. I'd be very surprised if either French or German public opinion will go along with that. If he really does push it, he may have a rather short honeymoon with Europe.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fair is Fair - - - I responded to that "Why are you voting for Bush thread" 100 % honestly, so let's hear why Kerry supporters are voting for Kerry.

Is it all going to be "well he aint Bush" - - - - "Anybody but Bush" - - - - or are you going to give some legitimate reasons ?

Two words: Supreme Court

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What they hate isn't entirely Bush, it's policies that put American interests first, and a national predominance that makes it stick. There were the same complaints about Clinton. Maybe you don't recall that it was during Clinton's presidency when the French foreign minister started decrying US "hyperpower."

It is true that they dislike Bush's style. He doesn't listen to European nationalists and he doesn't pretend to apologize for being the president of the United States (and only of the United States). Clinton had a way of saying "**** off" that stroked their egos. FOr example, he praised the Kyoto accords and the landmine treaty at exactly the same time he made sure that the US wouldn't be participating. Substantively, his policy was identical to Bush, but stylistically, he was poles apart.

Europeans probably would like Kerry more than Bush. He is more likely to accomodate US interests to theirs. He has made it clear, for example, that he wouldn't pursue military operations if the French or Germans oppose it. Because they would oppose almost anything, we can be sure that a Kerry presidency would be non-confontational, but also not very effective. He will have solid alliances that won't do anything. I don't think that is any way to fight a war, but then I don't think Kerry really believes it is a war. I think he will look for a way to call the war off and accommodate the US to terrorism rather than try to defeat it. Bowing to European sensibilities in the name of building alliances is how he would do it.

But I suppose it is possible he might try pushing those alliances. For example, he has been promising he can get the French and Germans to deploy enough combat forces to Iraq that Americans could begin withdrawing. I'd be very surprised if either French or German public opinion will go along with that. If he really does push it, he may have a rather short honeymoon with Europe.

My point is that those saying there are tons of "anti-american" protests are full of S**t. It's completely false. The protests are very targeted and organized. Our media subtitles them as something... but that's not what they are protesting.


The US has already lost the relationships it built since WWII with Europe. Those are dead and gone. Were about as alone as Cuba in the 90's. Might as well look towards getting some allies again. Were not doing that with Bush. Bush said himself it doesn't matter. But then again, he also said he had solid proof of WMD, which he somehow lost.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
My point is that those saying there are tons of "anti-american" protests are full of S**t. It's completely false. The protests are very targeted and organized. Our media subtitles them as something... but that's not what they are protesting.


The US has already lost the relationships it built since WWII with Europe. Those are dead and gone. Were about as alone as Cuba in the 90's. Might as well look towards getting some allies again. Were not doing that with Bush. Bush said himself it doesn't matter. But then again, he also said he had solid proof of WMD, which he somehow lost.

The protests, like all protests, contain a mixture of people with a mixture of motivations. Some no doubt are narrowly opposed to Bush and his policies. An awful lot have a long history of Anti American feelings. People are being a little naive if they think otherwise.

Similar protests happened at other times such as during the Cold War. I remember particularly well the protests that took place in Europe in the early 1980s. They were just as big, just as vociferous, in many cases were lead by the same people, and in my opinion, were just as misguided.

The difference is that in the 1980s, there were govenments in Europe who had the conviction that their alliance with the US was vital to their security. So they opposed the protests and their anti-American bent. Today, most European governments still value their alliance with the US, but there are a few governments, notably Schroeder's and Chirac's, who see domestic advantage in profiting off of anti-American attitudes.

They do this not just because it is politically advantageous, but also because as small powers they feel their interests are divergent with the US'. It's not like the Cold War when they had to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US against the Soviet Union. Today, they don't feel that threat, but they do feel a threat from terrorism. Because they feel that their best chances with terrorism is to persuade terrorists to attack Americans rather than them, they feel their interests are in conflict with America's interests. The US has nobody to deflect terrorism onto, so we choose to fight. They would rather hide and buy off. It's a basic difference that can't be papered over without sacrificing our core interests.

So what you really have in Europe are false alliances that are just shadows of old alliances that were real, but aren't any more. The question is whether people are willing to recognize that reality and to seek real alliances, or whether we will continue to pretend that the US and Europe see eye to eye and share the same interests when in reality we don't. Changing presidents might alter our willingness to recognize that reality, but it can't change the reality of our divergent interests.

[UNTeMac]

<Off topic>

Since when did the an American's view of the world take on an "us or them" policy? It isn't really about us all just doing what we like and butting heads when we disagree. It's about world cooperation. The U.S. and the rest of the civilized world should be working together to make the lives of human beings on the planet better. It isn't an American world and we can't make it that way.

</Off topic>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
<Off topic>

Since when did the an American's view of the world take on an "us or them" policy? It isn't really about us all just doing what we like and butting heads when we disagree. It's about world cooperation. The U.S. and the rest of the civilized world should be working together to make the lives of human beings on the planet better. It isn't an American world and we can't make it that way.

</Off topic>

World cooperation is a nice slogan and certainly a good idea when you can get it. But how do you get cooperation when people see it as against their interests to cooperate? Your choices are:

1. Conform to the lowest common denominator of cooperation. I.e. you can do only what the most reluctant party will agree to do -- even if you think that is dangerous, and even if you suspect they don't give a rats ass about you or maybe even sympathize with your enemies.

2. You can force cooperation.

3. Or you can agree to disagree and each do what you think is necesary.


Those really are your choices when countries (as they often do) have differences of opinion caused by their different positions in the world. Singing kumbayah isn't going to magic this problem away.

Incidentally, I don't think this is off topic. This is the problem that Kerry thinks will just vanish if he is president. But it won't because it isn't created by personalities. It is structural.

[Krusty]

Voting for Kerry primarily because I disagree with Bush on such an overwhelming number of issues. At the end of the day, its really not about "personalities", which candidate you personally "like" more than the other. Its about what sort of policies you think they will implement. I bet Dubya would be a swell guy to hang out with and Kerry a boor.

Economy: I think that Kerry's way of handling the economy will be better than Bush's. The supply-side theory that Bush is using isn't having the desired effect. Yes, growth has returned to the business sector ... but job creation has been the most dismal since the depression. Its been looking up a little in the last several months, but is still not generating jobs at the sustained 150 -200k/mo rate that economists say is necessary. My views on the issue don't spring from some liberal bleeding heart do-it-for-the-children sort of stance. They spring from my assessment of how the US economy works. We produce a LOT of stuff in this country (GDP) and have the feature that we also consume a lot of our own stuff (something like 90%, I believe). Job creation is a critical part of our economic balance (so more people will spend, pay taxes, etc). In the post-NAFTA world, simple supply side tax cuts do NOT insure job creation in the US the way that they might have in the 40s-70s and the Bush Administration has not accounted for this. So ... we get what we have now ... an ostensible "recovery" but with a net loss of jobs and the largest budget deficit in history. I'm more concerned with a formula where tax revenues roughly equal expenditures ... every budget deficit is just that much more of our future tax dollars that evaporate into the thin air of paying interest on the national debt. Right now, about 8% of our tax dollars pay for nothing ... not welfare, not the military, not anything that either side wants to spend money on .. they're just paying interest on the debt. This create-a-bigger-deficit-year-over-year tendency is fairly unique to the Reagan/Bush/Bush triumvirate. No other Dems nor Reps have been as reckless with the budget over the last half century as these 3 supply-side Yo-Yos. Tax cuts are good and can spur economic growth. Too large tax cuts don't spur as much growth as the money they lose. Bush I found this out in spades with his "Read My Lips. No New Taxes" line .. but at least had the sense to realize that he had to raise them slightly during his term due to budget shortfalls. Dubya seems blissfully ignorant of the fact that his tax cuts were probably a little too deep and need to be at least tweaked a little bit to keep the deficit from swelling as it has done. There is a "sweet spot" of taxation/incentive somewhere ... Bush just overshot it and now refuses to correct it for fear that it might be unpopular with his supporters.

Foreign policy: As Simey pointed out, Clinton had a way of sugar coating when presenting a strong stance on an issue. This is also known as TACT or diplomacy. Dubya lacks that to the nth degree and needlessly damages our diplomatic relations. While many conservatives admire Bush's bluntness, his quippy and provocative statements (taunting Iraqi insurgents to "Bring it on") are completely unnecessary. They don't help achieve any diplomatic goal, so why make a point of uttering them in public statements ? I think Kerry, like Bush, will take a lot of stances that are unpopular with the international community .. but I doubt he'll go out of his way to piss people off the way that Dubya has.

Environment: Kerry will be stronger on the environment. Forget environmental tree-huggers, the nation's own assessors (the EPA) have lambasted Bush's atrocious record of ignoring scientific data and repealing environmental laws. Kerry has been widely acknowledged as having the "greenest" voting record in the Senate.

Wedge issues: I think Kerry will not waste (as much) time on superfluous issues such as constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. What in the h#ll are we doing spending time trying to set these rules on a national level .. via the Constitution ?? The Constitution is for more weighty matters than this, IMO and such an amendment will not stop any gay couple from taking vows if they want to.

Taken as a whole, the general "theme" of why I'm voting for Kerry is that I think he will implement policies that will reap benefits in the long run (environment, deficits, foreign policy) while Bush seems too focused on grabbing today at the expense of what happens after he leaves office. I can honestly say that I think, all around, Bush is the worst sitting President since I've been old enough to have a political opinion. Please note: I'm not calling him Fascist or Evil and I'm not poking fun at his intelligence, inarticulateness, or any of his personal foibles, past history re:Vietnam/boozing/repeated business failures, or even the secrecy which seems to shroud much of what his administration is up to until after its already done (eg. the "policy change" signed-off by Rumsfeld to extend interrogation and detention rules ... that we are just now finding out about after the Abu Ghraib abuses have come to light ) . I have personal opinions on these things (of course ) but they're not why I'm voting for Kerry. I'm (grudgingly ) voting for Kerry because I think he (along with many other politicians -- including some Republicans) seem to have an inkling that choices we make today will potentially affect us for decades to come. From the economy to diplomacy to the environment to altering the Constitution to war, Bush doesn't seem to give much thought to what comes beyond the immediate, near-term results of what he's doing.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by itai195:
Trust, healthcare, the environment, more responsible spending (who'd have ever thought), and hopefully a more responsible approach to the WoT. I think he's more likely to take our nation's need for alternative fuels and energy sources seriously. I also disagree with the Republicans on the usual slate of social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) and am not fooled by Giuliani and McCain's RNC appearances into thinking this administration is moderate in its views. Kerry also seems to have a better grasp of our domestic security needs, where I feel the Bush administration has cut a lot of corners.

That said, he wasn't my first choice as a candidate, but some Republicans seem to think the same way about Bush so. Admittedly, I also have a few areas where I most certainly am voting against Bush -- such as his education policies. And as I stated in previous thread, I think he's responsible for creating a palpable atmosphere of fear and suspicion in this country.

Very articulately sums up my reasons for voting for Kerry as well.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

<snip>

Incidentally, I don't think this is off topic. This is the problem that Kerry thinks will just vanish if he is president. But it won't because it isn't created by personalities. It is structural.

I agree with what you said above this but isn't it also about at least making an effort at world cooperation? When Bush went to the U.N., I believe, based on his behavior before and after, that he went in there knowing he was going into Iraq.

An American president must respect the rest of the world when it comes to military decisions unless a direct threat exists. We know now that the threat of Iraq was fabricated to shore up public support. I don't think any president can be that bullheaded about foreign policy. Kerry has mentioned in several speeches the concept of international cooperation. Bush and his supporters have sounded imperialistic in almost every case; especially the RNC.

[TubaMuffins]

I believe that he would make a very good leader as he has already proven that he can lead (Vietnam). I love his higher education plan in which students can do community service to receive college money. I think he is more responsible and worldy and a better representative of the United States. I've always said that the POTUS is the the President of the UNITED STATES, not the President of You, so electing an official based on how they would improve your life is wrong (lowering taxes for your bracket, etc), a leader should be elected on how they would imprve the country. I know a lot of people think that W should be re-elected to stick with the war, as it isnt good to change powers mid-war, but i do not like how Bush has fought this war and I think that Kerry has a much more sensible plan (as in including the UN). Why has Kerry been getting grief for wanting the UN to be involved in the war on terror? Didn't Bush say that the global community needs to band together to fight this? Than why isn't he working with the UN? To top it off, I heard Kerry's testimony speech after he returned from the Vietnam War and it was powerful and his ideas are very close to my own relating to war. His social policies are more relaxed as he still believes in the phrase that shaped our nation, "Seperation of Church and State"

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I am tired of watching my country being led people with no sense of pity or shame, who are so single minded that they are destroying everything that is good about America for their extreme right wing agenda.

I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the left wing wants to socialize.

[TubaMuffins]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't hate Bush or even dislike him, but if he were running a large corporation like he's been running the country, he would've been fired for incompetency some time ago. He's delivered on few if any of the things he speaks of, and in key instances - spending, the war - the very opposite has happened, and he's managed to gloss over it. There's no reason to believe he'll be able to deliver any better in a second term. It seems to me that he's running on rhetoric and symbolism, not substance. And tax cuts that we will only pay for later, with interest.

That's pretty funny because every business Bush has been in charge of has gone under, even his baseball team is horrible. It does not project good leadership skills, that's for sure.