- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Let's see...GWB has the strong will of an emperor(sp), not bad, but usually not good.
Dean is just starnge. I really can't say more. Everything about him, from stances (and changes of them) on issues to that smile of his give me the creeps.
Kerry changes on issues as much, is trying to act like a pro-military guy despite his record, yet still isn't centrist enough, unless the last election finally got it into Democrats' minds that getting to the polls is a good idea, as Supreme Court Judges don't care about their unfounded bitching.
To top that off, the candidates are at least three-faced. One guy for their yes-men and supporters (or potential contributors), one for the party to get in the running for Pres, and then another to win over the people as a whole.
Yet somehow people put faith in these guys. If he's in there, I'll gladly vote for nader--not because I agree with anything he says, but because he sticks by it, even though that keeps him from having a chance in Hell. Al Sharpton is a good guy to have in there just to show how little debates really mean.
I can understand the lesser of evils approach, but what is it that causes voters to believe what comes out of these guys' mouths? Seriously, I'm not trying to troll, but I have never been able to figure it out.
Dean is just starnge. I really can't say more. Everything about him, from stances (and changes of them) on issues to that smile of his give me the creeps.
Kerry changes on issues as much, is trying to act like a pro-military guy despite his record, yet still isn't centrist enough, unless the last election finally got it into Democrats' minds that getting to the polls is a good idea, as Supreme Court Judges don't care about their unfounded bitching.
To top that off, the candidates are at least three-faced. One guy for their yes-men and supporters (or potential contributors), one for the party to get in the running for Pres, and then another to win over the people as a whole.
Yet somehow people put faith in these guys. If he's in there, I'll gladly vote for nader--not because I agree with anything he says, but because he sticks by it, even though that keeps him from having a chance in Hell. Al Sharpton is a good guy to have in there just to show how little debates really mean.
I can understand the lesser of evils approach, but what is it that causes voters to believe what comes out of these guys' mouths? Seriously, I'm not trying to troll, but I have never been able to figure it out.