POLL:political bias aside: does anyone think that Kerry has a viable shot?

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari
Have any of you guys ever seen John Kerry? He looks like a mummy. The man has no real issues other than to have issues with whatever Bush has done in politics. The mummy, er man, reacts, not acts, when it comes to topics. He's been in the pockets of Democratic special-interests for too long. America is a young society, and standing next to Bush, Kerry looks like he was just dug up from an ancient burial. Furthermore, I doubt that Kerry can criticize Bush too much on the Iraq issue without looking like an opportunist.

John Kerry is a follower who will increase his price if he becomes president. And that's a big IF. This Massachusetts liberal is banking on hopes more so than conviction and concrete deas. He doesn't have the characters to be a leader. His place is in investigative committees.

Do you seriously believe that Bush is not beholden to special interests? That's the problem I have with both democrats and republicans, they both have their puppetmasters . . .

Yes, it is a serious problem in American politics. But the problem with Kerry is that he's no Bill Clinton. He's not a centrist. The man is in the liberal wing of the democratic party.

And yes, Bush has increased the budget deficit, to astronomical levels. But I trust him to bring it down in his second term just as I expected it to skyrocket after he went on a spending spree. Should he be relected, I trust that more pressure will be on Bush to bring the deficit down. Too many fiscal conservatives are angry at him for letting it go that high. I blame it on defense. As for Kerry, should he be elected, the man will have far less pressure. Furthermore, seeing that he's beholden to pressure groups that advocate more useless spending, the man will capitulate and make all the wrong moves.

IF Kerry had a Democrat congress, it would still be hard for him to increase spending at a higher rate than Dubya is doing.
But with a GOP Congress, it is not going to happen. I would rather have the Congress and President fighting over spending bills than the POTUS signing every POS spending bill that ends up on his desk. The Republicans only seem interested in small government when they aren't the ones running it. I think split government and effective checks and balances are as necessary now as ever.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: smashp
Id say the general sentiment i am getting from my co workers is anybody but Bush. Alot of these people voted for Bush in 2000. I do still work with a few loyal GOP sheep though.

you realize that you negate any intelligence in your post when you refer to those of a different political bent as "sheep," don't you?

 

[Jhhnn]

While ignoring most of your pretentious, liberal Arsian diatribe I notice you have unwittingly raised a very good point about the political make-up of the Congress. If you really want to see some spending discipline have a Republican congress and a Dem president. They'll block everything he tries to do.

Is there some point you'd like to raise? Perhaps some examples of just how incorrect my statements might be, or a counterpoint other than snide ad-hom? Perhaps you'd care to defend abstinence only sex-ed, fundie book thumpers on scientific review boards, or the non sequiters on job training and education.... maybe the bait and switch on Iraq or any other number of issues...

I won't argue that having different parties in power in the executive vs the legislative isn't generally a good thing, it is. On the other hand, two short years of the Repubs in the driver's seat will require years of remediation - left intact, their fiscal non-policy will ruin us, force changes that threaten the stability of our democracy and the well-being of average citizens.

The whole thing reminds me of the deathbed scene in Citizen Cohn- "I can't believe they let me get away with it!" pretty much being the current sentiment among the repub leadership...

Any of the Democratic frontrunners have a good chance of beating our illustrious Prez, maybe shaming the Congress into some kind of shape- we'll see, huh?

 

[smashp]

Youve never heard of the right wing sheep or the liberal lemmings?

The people that would vote party lines requardless?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i give him pretty good odds if we don't get some jobs around here

But but but, you're a stones throw from his backyard Ranch down there, you're in Bush Country, it has to be doing better than anywhere else in the Country, it's what he Modeled his National Policy on.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I bet if I went up against Jr I'd win.

Doubtful...

But at least You would at least have your employment opportunity..

 

[Tripleshot]

Political bias aside? No problem. Kerry wins by a landslide. The only question is who would best be a VP with him. I suggest Edwards, and he is damn sure thinking hard about accepting that duty right now.

Bush has all but lost this election. There isn't a chance in hell he can do anything for the economy other than his stupid argument to freeze the tax cuts. That is the lamest freakin thing I have ever heard. $300 tax loan to citizens and that signals the right thing for the US economy? Give me a break.:disgust:

WMD's are on the table, illegal war with Iraq is on the table, jobs and how to bring them back is on the table, amnesty(pandering) for illegal aliens is on the table, opening closed off land for oil and natural gas exploitation is on the table, clean air and water policy is on the table. The list is long andstill growing.

Bush is toast in all of those issues. This is not going to be anything close to the Gore/Bush election. Kerry wins by at least 10 points in November. You can take that to the bank.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Is there some point you'd like to raise? Perhaps some examples of just how incorrect my statements might be

Sure I 'll play just one round of your stupid little game. I am none of the following: "wealthy, the fundies, and the uber-right, maybe gun owners" and my nose has not been tweaked. Sorry. Furthermore I am neither liberal and I have more than a lick of sense but I am not "up in arms" about any of the following: Iraq, Gitmo, deficits, domestic budget cuts, the Plame affair, education, science, environment. So you see you are 0 for 2. But like most liberals, and pretentious Arsian children in general, you have convinced yourself that you are right and anyone who doesn't agree with your enlightened view is of inferior intellect or has to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups, right? Get over yourself.

 

[Dari]

UQ, nice sig

 

[EXman]

WMD's are on the table, illegal war with Iraq is on the table, jobs and how to bring them back is on the table, amnesty(pandering) for illegal aliens is on the table, opening closed off land for oil and natural gas exploitation is on the table, clean air and water policy is on the table. The list is long andstill growing.

Bush is toast in all of those issues. This is not going to be anything close to the Gore/Bush election. Kerry wins by at least 10 points in November. You can take that to the bank.

another Dem smoking the wacky weed! If you are a betting man you'd be a broke one.

I see Jobs on the Table that is about it. that treehugger sh!t is bogus who cares people want to have money in there checking account and be safe that is all they want! put that in your pipe and smoke it! :beer:

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Is there some point you'd like to raise? Perhaps some examples of just how incorrect my statements might be

Sure I 'll play just one round of your stupid little game. I am none of the following: "wealthy, the fundies, and the uber-right, maybe gun owners" and my nose has not been tweaked. Sorry. Furthermore I am neither liberal and I have more than a lick of sense but I am not "up in arms" about any of the following: Iraq, Gitmo, deficits, domestic budget cuts, the Plame affair, education, science, environment. So you see you are 0 for 2. But like most liberals, and pretentious Arsian children in general, you have convinced yourself that you are right and anyone who doesn't agree with your enlightened view is of inferior intellect or has to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups, right? Get over yourself.

I feel safe asking this since you don't own a gun ..

UQ, I am curious (and serious) ...

If you are not a "fundie" and you do have more than "a lick of sense", how does that square with you not being "up in arms" over "education, science, environment"? Are you simply disagreeing with the nuance of the quoted words in order to facilitate you argument?

My personal interpretation would be that anyone who has "a lick of sense" and is not inhibited by "fundie" dogma would be "up in arms" over (for example) the removal of the teaching of evolution and/or the introduction of Intelligent Design to the curricula. The only way that I could square that, cognitively, would be to accept that I don't care about what happens to anyone but myself - even while accepting that such education (to me) would result in increasing the population of humans of the variety that I cannot bear to be in the company of.

So - I don't wish to get into a debate about any one issue, but your thinking is foreign to me, and most likely mine to you. Could you perhaps try to help me bridge the gap and see what I'm missing?

Edit: Oh, yeah. Topic. Umm - I give it to Kerry by 12% if there's no vote fraud.

 

[UltraQuiet]

If you are not a "fundie" and you do have more than "a lick of sense", how does that square with you not being "up in arms" over "education, science, environment"?

Why does it have to square? Because you believe the same thing as Jhnn, that anyone who isn't "up in arms" about those issues is a "fundie" or stupid? You want to know why I'm not "up in arms" about the teaching of intelligent design? Because it's not happening where my kids are going to school. It's mentioned as an alternative belief. I believe that education should be handled on a local level and quite honestly I don't have the time nor the inclination to be "up in arms" about what the kids in GA are learning in school. And if you can't stand to be around those people I would say two things are evident. 1. You don't get out much and 2. That's your problem not theirs. I don't need someone telling me what I should and should not be getting "up in arms" over and then calling me stupid when I'm not. I'll decide what to get "up in arms" over, I'll decide what to do about it and it certainly won't involve ranting like an idiot on some irrelevant Internet message board.

I hope that clears it up for you but quite honestly I don't give a sh!t whether it does or not.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

If you are not a "fundie" and you do have more than "a lick of sense", how does that square with you not being "up in arms" over "education, science, environment"?

Why does it have to square? Because you believe the same thing as Jhnn, that anyone who isn't "up in arms" about those issues is a "fundie" or stupid? You want to know why I'm not "up in arms" about the teaching of intelligent design? Because it's not happening where my kids are going to school. It's mentioned as an alternative belief. I believe that education should be handled on a local level and quite honestly I don't have the time nor the inclination to be "up in arms" about what the kids in GA are learning in school. And if you can't stand to be around those people I would say two things are evident. 1. You don't get out much and 2. That's your problem not theirs. I don't need someone telling me what I should and should not be getting "up in arms" over and then calling me stupid when I'm not. I'll decide what to get "up in arms" over, I'll decide what to do about it and it certainly won't involve ranting like an idiot on some irrelevant Internet message board.

I hope that clears it up for you but quite honestly I don't give a sh!t whether it does or not.

Oh believe me it does, it does. Thanks!

 

[josphII]

kerry doesnt have that clintonesque charm needed to dethrone bush. the fact of the matter is the majority of the ppl in the u.s. support our efforts in iraq and with the stock market rising ppl are feeling good about the economy

kerry on the other hand will spend more time defending his own record than he will attacking bush or addressing the issues.

but does kerry have a chance? well november is a ways off, anything can happen i suppose

 

[Dari]

I think you guys have finally done it. I'm getting physically sick thinking of a Kerry presidency. Ugh. :disgust:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Kerry is a strong candidate, and if you think Bush isn't scared by him then you are smoking something strong yourself... You all saw the Fonda/Kerry photchopped picture that has been popping up all over the place haven't you?
I was watching Scarborough Country the other day, and Joe himself stated that Kerry had a decent shot of winning the election if he got the nomination. That's saying something IMO, Joe doesn't concede much of anything to the democrats.

True, Kerry might not be the most charismatic candidate, but he's a quick thinker and does very well in the debates. I'd much rather have a candidate who is qualified for the position, than some clown who's got got a charming personality. Fact is that he's got the experience to run the show, and just watching him in debates shows that he is obviously a much better candidate than Bush. I can't wait until the real debates between him and Bush are on, that should provide for some interesting television.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dari
Have any of you guys ever seen John Kerry?

He looks like Andrew Jackson

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: josphII
kerry doesnt have that clintonesque charm needed to dethrone bush. the fact of the matter is the majority of the ppl in the u.s. support our efforts in iraq and with the stock market rising ppl are feeling good about the economy

kerry on the other hand will spend more time defending his own record than he will attacking bush or addressing the issues.

but does kerry have a chance? well november is a ways off, anything can happen i suppose

Supporting our troops and hoping for a positive outcome doesn't mean that we are happy about being decieved into supporting the Dubs excellent adventure in Iraq.

 

[leeboy]

I think he will win and will definetely carry my state of Michigan, but that is no news. Michigan has been crushed by the death of manufacturing and as they say, anyone is better than bush.

 

[Siddhartha]

I think it will be close like it was in 2000.

But if the Floridians will double check their ballots this time. And if people who voted for the Green Party see that they voted for GWB....

 

[sandorski]

Bush is too vulnerable on too many issues, Kerry will win.

 

[EXman]

Bush is too vulnerable on too many issues, Kerry will win.

And Kerry has Voted on both side of almost every issue so he can say he can go with the flow on any popular trend. I do not see how any vet can vote for this lame though they are totally duped. He's more liberal than Teddy in defense. Now that is saying something!

 

[cumhail]

Based on where we are now (God only knows what will transpire between now and November to change the likely outcome), I think Kerry has a good chance of winning the popular vote; but I'm not sure if that'll matter anymore. I think enough delegate-heavy states will go to Bush for him to win unless his PR team utterly fails in its current efforts to squash the challenges he's currently facing and to embarrass and/or discredit carry.

So I vote 50-50,

cumhail

Originally posted by: EXman

Bush is too vulnerable on too many issues, Kerry will win.

And Kerry has Voted on both side of almost every issue so he can say he can go with the flow on any popular trend. I do not see how any vet can vote for this lame though they are totally duped. He's more liberal than Teddy in defense. Now that is saying something!

 

[Jhhnn]

And Kerry has Voted on both side of almost every issue so he can say he can go with the flow on any popular trend. I do not see how any vet can vote for this lame though they are totally duped. He's more liberal than Teddy in defense. Now that is saying something!

So, uhh, you're claiming Kerry is a moderate, a man capable of constructive compromise and seeing both sides of a given issue? That he's a real politician rather than a mouthpiece of bait and switch?

Defense? The use of that particular term in reference to the Repub military agenda is more than disingenuous, it's downright deceptive. We had one of the largest, best trained and easily most expensive militaries in the world on 9/11, and it didn't do us a bit of good... Who is it that we need a budget of half a trillion dollars annually to "defend" our interests against? Some actual threats, or some boogeyman spawned from the mind of Bush's Neocon advisors?

One of the things the current admin hates to admit is that it was Bill Clinton's "starved" military that occupied Afghanistan and crushed the Iraqis at the same time, and who apparently has the might to hold all of our other alleged enemies in check through it all... As we've seen, the problem with having an overwhelming military capability is that some damned fool will find a way to put it to work, not necessarily in ways that are constructive. Who's next on the hit list? Do we really want to attempt to obtain hegemony over the whole world, have our foreign policy stand on the principles of arrogance, extortion and greed?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Do you any of you really think we will come closer to world peace through increased military spending. You Repub. just don't get it, the way to win peace is not through war. We must change our foreign policy in big ways. Deploying more troops around the world is only making the problem worse. We are fueling the hatred for these terrorists.