What will it take...

[hardheadjarhead]

It's all about self-interest. What's in it for ME?

Prove to me that if we elect Kerry that:

a. my taxes will go down
b. my healthcare costs will go down
c. I won't lose my job because of layoffs secondary to the sluggish economy
d. We will pull out of the Iraqi war any sooner.
e. My neighborhood will be safer
f. My kids will be better educated
g. Gas prices will go down
h. The government won't pass laws that betray my principles (eg, stem cell research, marriage between gays, reproductive rights, immigration laws, taking "God" out of the pledge of allegiance or off dollar bills, etc)

And also, prove to me that if we do re-elect Bush, none of the above will happen.

One can't "prove" any of the above, Melissa. Take for example (d.) above. If one votes for Kerry and we get out at a specific date, one could argue that under Bush it would have ended sooner and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

If you're against stem cell research, Gay marriage, reproductive rights as you seem to indicate above...then by all means you ought not vote for John Kerry. He will most certainly push for those given the agenda of the Democratic party. Now I can't "prove" that...but that's where I'd place my money.

Regards,


Steve

 

[TonyM.]

Many people will make their minds up early in life to vote straight party ticket all the time. Many of the elderly do exactly that. They have no clue who the canidates are or what the issues are. Perhaps not listing the canidates party affiliation if any on the ballots would at least force people to do a little research before voting.

 

[Phoenix44]

Prove to me that if we elect Kerry that...

I'm with Hardheadjarhead on this. You can't "prove" the future...but you CAN see what Bush has already done, and he has pledged to continue down the same road.

I DID lose my job due to the sluggish economy. I DID lose my health insurance, and I was forced to buy insurance through COBRA. Terrorism HAS increased. Poverty HAS increased. Jobs HAVE disappeared. Bush DID seed his cabinet with staunch supporters of big business, to the detriment of the environment, the poor, and the middle class. His administration DID lie to Congress and to the American people. His economic plans DID create the deficit. He HAS disenfranchised minorities. I have EVERY expectation he will continue along the same path. Why would I expect otherwise? Bush has said he will do so.

As I said in my previous post (8/28 1:33), it's not hard to find out what Senator Kerry has accomplished in his career in the Senate (www.JohnKerry.com, www.salon.com, for starters), and to discover the very plans he has for the future, and how he plans to accomplish his task. It's not up to us to "prove" the outcome of the future. It is up to the citizen to become an informed voter.

 

[Melissa426]

One can't "prove" any of the above, Melissa. Take for example (d.) above. If one votes for Kerry and we get out at a specific date, one could argue that under Bush it would have ended sooner and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

If you're against stem cell research, Gay marriage, reproductive rights as you seem to indicate above...then by all means you ought not vote for John Kerry. He will most certainly push for those given the agenda of the Democratic party. Now I can't "prove" that...but that's where I'd place my money.

Please don't take what I said out of context. I am not trying to argue a position here, I am mostly playing devil's advocate. Also, if you knew me a little better and my situation, you'd probably slap me silly for even considering not voting for Kerry, but I have not completely made up my mind.

I think a lot of people will take the "easy" choice --- "Better the devil you know than the one you don't."

Also, for many people, they don't see the BIG picture. They see a single issue which makes voting for one candidate of the other simply unfathomable, regardless of the other, more important issues at stake. For instance, there are some extreme right wingers who will vote for Bush only because the Democratic ticket is generally Pro-Choice.

It is not logical or reasonable to you or me, but that's the way it is. Human beings frequently make choices based on feelings, emotions, intuition, gut instinct, whatever you want to call it. Ever see a friend marry the exact wrong person, and everyone knew it was a doomed relationship, but you couldn't talk him/her out of it? What are you gonna do?

Now what if someone could write a massive computer program, put every single known variable into the equation, and then let the computer spit out the best man for the job, would you be in favor of that? Not me, thank you very much.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Please don't take what I said out of context. I am not trying to argue a position here, I am mostly playing devil's advocate. Also, if you knew me a little better and my situation, you'd probably slap me silly for even considering not voting for Kerry, but I have not completely made up my mind.

I think a lot of people will take the "easy" choice --- "Better the devil you know than the one you don't."

Also, for many people, they don't see the BIG picture. They see a single issue which makes voting for one candidate of the other simply unfathomable, regardless of the other, more important issues at stake. For instance, there are some extreme right wingers who will vote for Bush only because the Democratic ticket is generally Pro-Choice.

It is not logical or reasonable to you or me, but that's the way it is. Human beings frequently make choices based on feelings, emotions, intuition, gut instinct, whatever you want to call it. Ever see a friend marry the exact wrong person, and everyone knew it was a doomed relationship, but you couldn't talk him/her out of it? What are you gonna do?

I couldn't agree with you more on these points.

The best we can do is to read as much as we can and thus bear the responsibility of being "the informed electorate." This is an ongoing process.

We can take that extra step and debate the issues, as we've all done here many times.

And, if we have the courage, we can read the opposing viewpoint.

Consider the deficit, Melissa. Where we're going to get the money to pay for education? For cops? For national security? I just saw on 60 Minutes tonight where our security for our nuclear research facilities is a shambles. When you adjust for the expenditures brought on by the war, we'd still be running a deficit...I took that from the opposing viewpoint. A conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, reported this.

About the time those Marines pulled down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad I was ready to vote for Bush. I've changed my mind as I've learned more. John Maynard Keynes is reported to say "As the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

But I guess that makes me a flip flopper, doesn't it?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

I feel like the people on this forum have provided some very compelling research and arguments and I can't understand why it makes no difference. I would like to think that people are critically weighing both sides, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The nationwide polls haven't budged out of the margin of error. Who is at fault for this? The media?

Maybe they are weighing both sides and have reached a different conclusion than you. Why is it that if people dont believe what you believe its somebodys fault? Sounds like American arrogance to me.

For all the argument...all that ultimately matters is the vote. Get everybody out and do it. We live with the results, (for at least 4yrs) thats the American way.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

From what I understand, some conservative (but not neo-conservative) Republicans ARE saying, "Enough with Bush!" but I'm not sure that many Amercian voters who identify themselves as Republican are listening to them. It's almost funny - almost - how "liberal" has become such a demonized word, considering that so many things we are proud of today as Americans were considered "liberal" issues when they emerged. It boggles the mind.

Tucker Carlson and Andrew Sullivan have both come out against Bush in a recent Esquire article, I've heard. I have to see that. Carlson is a big time conservative.

Just finished Pat Buchanen's book. He doesn't really hammer Bush...he hammers the Neocons in his administration. To hear him tell it they blackmailed Bush (or one could take it as "brainwashed") into accepting their aggressive posture towards the Middle East.

Good book. I don't agree with Buchanen's politics...but he writes well. He has a fine appreciation of history.


Regards,


Steve