Kerry vs Bush

[Kurai Tsuki]

If John Kerry is elected in the Fall 2004 election there is a chance that the American people will see that it is possible to be smart and immoral at the same time; unlike Bush, they will not be able to label Kerry as an idiot.

When Kerry's foreign policy is examined, the only real differences that can be seen from that of Bush is the way that he plans to present it to the American people and the world. Kerry is very much in favour of the occupation of Iraq, in fact, he calls for 40,000 more troops while Bush is calling for 20,000. Concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, Kerry blames Palestinian attacks while saying nothing of Israeli brutality. He has also criticized Bush for underfunding the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization which works against leftist and progressive movements around the world. It was created when the many CIA's atrocities where being revealed to participate in the same activities as a cover organization.

The main difference between foreign policies of Kerry and Bush seems to be that Kerry is able to present himself in a better way to the easily misguided American people.

I would recommend voting for Ralph Nader.

[frankiegoestostoke]

Although Nader is, of course, the better candidate, any vote him will essentially be wasted, as he doesn't have a hope in hell.

If I lived in America I would bite the bullet and vote for Kerry, seeing it as a vote against Bush. While Kerry may have a very similar foreign policy to Bush, it is more grounded in the UN, and futhermore he is to the left of Clinton in terms of domestic policy, advocating a rise in taxes for the rich.

Futhermore Kerry is more intelligent, which must count for something... right? Also he has a better left wing background, campaigning against (after a breif period of fight in) the Vietnam war.

Finally all the republicans are convinced he is a communist, so he must be good :D

[Kurai Tsuki]

It's this attidude that a vote for Nader is wasted that the democrats are promoting. They seem to want people to think that there Kerry is the only alternative to Bush, so voting for him becomes more of a requirement for liberals than a choice.

Bush won the 2000 election because the Supreme Court stopped the recount and because he got more electoral votes, not because Ralph Nader, "tipped," the election. This accusation almost seems to use Nader as a scapegoat rather than focusing on the Bush family using their government so that their candidate of choice could get into office, or the idea that the government could be so corrupted to make an election so unbalenced.

[Stapler]

Question: Why are there only three presidentail cantidates in a country of 250 million?

[Kurai Tsuki]

Have Kucinich and Sharpton dropped out of the race?

[refuse_resist]

Personally, I think there are no differences between Kerry and Bush. If anything, Kerry just wants to expand the Bush agenda, especially since he's going around saying he would increase the size of the military and increase defense spending. He will take after Bush, no matter what happens. And yes, Sharpton and Kucinich aren't in the race anymore. Last I heard, Kerry was looking for a vice president to run with him and he was thinking about choosing Republican senator John McCain, who is another supporter of having a larger American military presence all over the world.

As for how Ralph Nader would handle things, it really is too tough to tell.

[orallyfixated]

If I hear one more Democrat recite the same bullshit line that they learned from Al Gore in the 2000 election I'm going to lose my lunch...
"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
Does no Democrat realize that this is just badly thought out propaganda?
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that the candidate you vote for is the candidate that gets your vote.
It's absurd to think that some people have actually been suckered into thinking that Ralph Nader, a 70+ year old environmental and civil liberties lobbyist has ruined the last election and is plotting to do it again. In my opinion, the Florida recount is what lost that slimy little corporate whore (Gore) the last election, not Nader. Now, in 2004, the only presidential candidate who has even mentioned peace or an end to U.S. imperialism in Iraq, is being labeled a "Spoiler". And all because of a slogan that Gore made up has caught on. Obviously, Democrats just can't stand to see an Independent in office and (gasp!) AN ACTUAL END TO THE WAR IN IRAQ! :o

[Fidelbrand]

Can someone tell me Kerry's stance on the foregin relationship with Cuba ?

thx.

[fernando]

he wants to "toughen" it up, strickter embargo.

He also wants more involvement in Latin America in general, making sure "US interests" are going all well in their "backyard"...really, Im waiting for the day that the Latin Americans will finally see that they have to do something against this. The Revolution following, kicking out those Yanks who take over our natural recourses and throw their waste at us.

[Fidelbrand]

I concur with you, Fernando, that's also the sole reason for me learning Spanish - to participate in fighting for Cuba or other Latin American countries.

Unidos siempre~

[gaf]

same soup,same shit !!!!!!!!beautiful democracy.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:55 PM
I concur with you, Fernando, that's also the sole reason for me learning Spanish - to participate in fighting for Cuba or other Latin American countries.

Unidos siempre~
Unidos Siempre Hermano!

Where are you from? You have South American roots or something?

[Rex_20XD6]

You guys do know that the only reson Nader is running is to stell votes from Karry. but in the long run i'd rather see bush over karry because he already has strong plans for the U.S.A. he only need to do them. then he'll be good

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:38 PM
Unidos Siempre Hermano!

Where are you from? You have South American roots or something?
Encantada~ hermano.
no, yo soy un estudiante de Hong Kong.
Estudio espanol por un ano. El proposito unico para aprender espanol es ayudar a la revolucion en cualquier medio, si viene. :angry:
de donde es usted? a que se dedica usted?

[ParanoidHumanoid]

I personally say, vote for whoever you want to become president. I know that's hard to except when if Kerry isn't president Bush will be. But if Nader or some other non democrat/republican in the future isn't president, Kerry will be. The same town fool, just wearing different masks.

By focusing on Kerry and Bush alone, saying that Nader is out of his league and that if you don't want Bush in office, go vote for Kerry...I think that this kind of talk is leading us who would rather have niether as president nowhere. By focusing on Kerry and Bush alone, Nader's views could have been given a new monumental support by the Nader voters, but will be left behind. If everyone who stuck to Nader, just maybe the media will take attention on his views, finally. But it's the ones who have access to the media that have swayed those who would vote for Nader, into voting for Kerry. And those people are mainly the democrats, who are afraid of potential Nader voters.

I'm thinking as a long term goal here. Build the support for Nader now, before the Republican Right begins to call us "The ones who voted for Kerry in 2004", thus another tactic the right could use on us. We need to be constantly building support for the left across the world, not including Bush of course, and not even Kerry. Booyah!

Just how different are the two, reallly? Is it even worth it? I don't think so

[left-nut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:32 PM
he wants to "toughen" it up, strickter embargo.

He also wants more involvement in Latin America in general, making sure "US interests" are going all well in their "backyard"...really, Im waiting for the day that the Latin Americans will finally see that they have to do something against this. The Revolution following, kicking out those Yanks who take over our natural recourses and throw their waste at us.
Where did you hear that? Do you have any links?

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by left-[email protected] 24 2004, 11:02 PM
Where did you hear that? Do you have any links?
This article talks about it. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1146

This other one talks about how Kerry supports the use of microwave beam weapons. http://www.counterpunch.org/levich06102004.html

[Kobbot 401]

If you pick Kerry or if you pick Bush eaither way it like the ground hog seeing his shadow, were in for 4 yrd of bad luck.