I'm voting Badnarik, myself, because I'm tired of trying to determine the lesser of two evil, and this time they're both equally evil, to me.
I've decided to vote my concience, and actually vote for someone I'd *want*, rather than voting for someone I don't want in order to get someone else I don't want out of office.
Are you serious?
You would rather have a flash-in-the-pan-known-only-to-you vote for a candidate who CANNOT win, as opposed to dealing with the bigger evil, Bush?
That's not smart.
I do believe I said that I feel they are both evil, did I not?
Yes, but how could Kerry be any worse than Bush? Clearly you should see a pattern there.
because in both cases, the candidate in question wishes to continue to erode our rights, continue to pass unconstitutional laws, and continue to raise our taxes. where's the upside for either? are either of them not going to continue to pass useless, feel-good laws, and start even more government programs to continue to bloat the size of our already insanely over-sized government?
Neither of them are Libertarian, which is what bugs me the most, being one myself. I'm inclined to vote Kerry simply because he's my best bet at removing Bush, lesser of two evils or not. I can deal with bums being better off than college kids as long as I can travel internationally without fear of being stoned to death.
ah, hell. maybe I'll just skip the presidential part of the ballot, just so I don't have to vote for either of those slimeballs. I know that we're all equally fucked no matter who wins, just in different ways. fuck it. I give up.
don't skip it. vote for Badnarik before you vote for no one.
but seriously, being a bit of an old school strict constructionist myself i find both candidates philosophically appalling. but i also feel that our foreign policy is a fear and lie based tactic to keep the military industrial complex extra fat and happy (and corporate welfare is no more libertarian than welfare for the poor) while destabilizing the middle east and setting america up as the new bad guy in the world. meanwhile Ashcroft's InJustice Department eats away at our rights and attempts to establish a functionally Christian state.
i feel like Kerry's perceived lack of difference with Bush in the foreign policy arena is an illusion consciously created by Kerry because most of America is too scared and too stupid to support real change. I'd like to see what happens when he is in office.
hell, our entire current system of government (and the current media) is fear and lie based.
Not the whole thing. There's the few, just branches of government that the country couldn't really thrive without, but there's a metric shit-ton of useless paperwork factories. I once worked in the Michigan Department of Corrections. A lady once told me while I was there that she really wasn't sure what she did for a living, and was being entirely serious about it. She organized the coffee fund, she took in paperwork, looked up things, put them down on the paperwork, and gave them to other people. but basically all she did all day on my dime was sit around drinking coffee and reading email. Not that I'd like to see a goverment with no Judicial system, but that is just fucking pointless.
let us not forget the difference between our system of government and the mess our government has become. Our Constitution provides not for a Cthulhiod monster of bureaucracy but for a representative democracy with a federal government which is supposed to have certain powers and state governments to which are given different powers. the constitution also enumerates the powers which are not to be wielded by any manifestation of government. Much of the Constitution refers to what the government may not do.
i don't mean to make a mountain out of a point of diction, but i feel it is important not to forget that the mess which has become of government and our actual system of government are two very different things. to me, much of the real Libertarian movement is supposed to be about reigning government back to something more closely resembling what the Founders envisioned.
i think the question, however, that people with roughly this outlook face is how best to go about achieving this. some Republicans claim to be "starving the beast" but i find this merely a convenient and disingenuous way to support their own special interests. they claim to support strict constructionist judges, but states rights don't seem to apply for issues like drug laws. Democrats rarely get painted as the small government party because of their belief in taxes and federal programs, but in general they believe in less government interference in personal matters. they often appoint judges who believe in greater federal power but these powers are frequently used to defend the Bill of Rights.
revolution or Continental Congress not withstanding, i think positive change toward smaller government will be slow, but my deeper wishes for the country aside, i cannot abide by the utter embarrassment that our current government has made us to the world. i am ill at the way the Bill of Rights is being used as toilet paper. our natural resources are being despoiled for short term profits. and the budget deficit is insane. we need a change in the White House and Kerry is (unfortunately) our only hope of getting one. if nothing else, not having the Legislative and Executive branches controlled by the same party will cut down on the amount of goodies that either party can buy for their friends on the taxpayers dime.
I was hoping you'd comment, you're the most politically-minded person whose blog I read. I'm hoping Kerry's stance at looking roughly Bushlike on the issues is just a way to get votes.
i agree with Bush that Kerry is an opportunistic politician, in fact in some ways i am counting on it. they way the republicans have got the american people scared and the way they have been able to set the post 9-11 agenda, kerry has little option but to operate within that rubric--until he is elected that is.
I can't tell you who to vote for, but at least vote somebody. Well, not Nader. That creepy video of him looming over the Bush and Kerry dolls while trying to simulate him being in the debate was the nail in his coffin.
For one, because Kerry has repeatedly stated that he wishes to undo the foreign policy mistakes which Bush has made. Which is better, helping to ensure that a candidate who is less evil than the other is elected, or getting to say that you threw away your vote?
I suppose you would have a point, if I actually thought that Kerry was less evil than Bush. if Clark or Dean had won the primary, I would have an easier time with the election. I just can't find a good point for either bush nor kerry that isn't directly countered by several bad points.
I have to ask, how is Kerry as evil as Bush? He's not as in the pocket of corporate interests, he hasn't brought the country into war for essentially no reason, he hasn't actively tried to supress people's rights, he hasn't fucked medicare, etc. How could Kerry possibly be any worse?
never mind, steve. the list is too long, and I don't feel like typing it all out. call it a gut feeling, whatever. he's voted monotonously for anti 2nd-amendment legislation. he has so many plans for giant government programs that he has no way of implementing without raising income taxes (which are, still, unconstitutional) by a large margin, he *still* hasn't given a clear and concise plan for Iraq, and I, frankly, have a bad gut feeling about the guy. the only things I can point to that he espouses that I agree with are the fact that he's pro-choice, and that he wants to fix Shrub's foreign policy foibles, though I have yet to hear a clear and concise plan from him as to how to do it.
I don't need to state where bush has fucked up. hell, the only thing he's really done right would be looked upon as wrong by most of the liberal group of friends that I usually associate with.
I can't, in good concience, vote for either of them. yes, if I change my mind, I'll probably vote for Kerry, but in my heart, the difference between the two of them is razor thin, and it pretty much boils down to Kerry's rhetoric that he won't let his personal religious beliefs colour his policies, though he's told other groups that he would let his personal religious beliefs guide him.
I have to ask... How are taxes unconstitutional? I have never, ever heard a valid argument against taxes, so please, enlighten me.
Also, the only legislation I know of Kerry having voted on which relates to the 2nd Amendment is the so-called assault weapons ban. Is that really that bad?
Remember, politics is about compromise. Taking your ball and running away and fucking over everyone else because small portion of one of your beliefs is being slighted isn't fair to the rest of the citizens in this country.
alright, sorry. I forgot about the XVI amendment, which made it legal in 1913. so I guess income tax isn't unconstitutional, though it was originally.
the list of laws Kerry has signed off on that infringe the second amenmdment would be far to long to list here. suffice it to say, when something comes along that could infringe 2nd Amendment rights, he signs it, with only a few minor exceptions. for something the founding fathers referred to as a God-given individual right that "shall not be infringed", he and most democrats sure seem to enjoy doing just that.
the problem isn't that a small portion of my beliefs are being slighted, the problem is that only an infinisimally small portion of my beliefs are being represented.
Then isn't it better to support those rights and all the ways Kerry could possibly make things better, as opposed to sticking with a known bad president? I kinda think of it like this... Kerry could fuck up bad, but he could be good. If Bush was my employee, I'd think he screwed up enough that I'd want to hire someone else and give them a chance. Sure, they probably won't be great, but I don't want things to be as bad as they currently are.
That's what I was thinking, too. I miss Kucinich. My mom said he was the guy who bankrupted Cincinnati, but I haven't heard any specifics.
Just a few corrections:
- Kerry wants a new USA PATRIOT act because he feels this one is broken, is overbroad and open to abuse. Yes, some parts of the act are actually a good idea, but lots of others aren't. I agree, it needs to be fixed, with the good parts kept.
- Voting for a third party candidate is probably the worst thing you can do right now. The best choice really is to vote for Kerry, because it really is a step in the right direction: removing Bush. While you may not like Kerry as much as another candidate, you absolutely cannot disagree that he is the only viable candidate, and the one that could use weight to assist in accomplishing his goal.
Other than voting for Bush, yeah. And you're right, Kerry is the only viable cantidate. I'm positive voting my heart couldn't _hurt_, but it's not the best way to get Bush out of office I'm thinking. That's really what I want to know, if it's more of an "anybody but Bush" situation, or if voing any way but Kerry gives Bush an advantage. I've been doing some more reading, and due to the Electoral College votes, I'm thinking I'm going to have to go with Kerry to do my part to oust Bush.
That is exactly what you should be doing. In a time like this it is imperitive to get a better candidate in there, even if he isn't your first choice. Rememer, this is politics. Lowest common denominator. You cannot reach the stars, even if you try your hardest, so therefore it is most productive if you help the most-likely-best-choice win.
Even though it sucks, you're right. Kerry is a douchebag but I'm voting for him anyway.
To cut through all the bullshit it goes like this, if you vote for Kerry you're voting against Bush, but if you vote for random third party you're voting for Bush. It's really that simple.
last election i decided to vote liberatarian. i did all my research and i really liked what several of the folks from that party had to say, plus i liked, (and still do like) the way they think about politics and taxes, and all the other elements this country is run on. so i voted that direction. and bush won. i know that if i hadnt voted the way i did, my vote would have gone to Gore.... simply because i would never vote for Bush... the cool part of voting third party: you get to truly voice your opinion: which is the entire idea behind democracy... the awful part: you know that the third party candidate isnt going to win because not enough people are open minded and that means those are votes that are not going to keep people like Bush out of office.
its really sad, in a way, that more people arent willing to just vote for who they really believe in, rather than allowing it to be narrowed down to only two individuals. i dont think people realize how much nicer living here could be if there was a libertarian in office.
at least youre voting: good for you. (even if it is having to choose between the "lesser of two evils" )