Question for the dems

[ciba]

Moreso than ever, this upcoming election seems to put all their proverbial eggs in the same basket.

Democrats seem to be dependent on americans "losing" to win this election.

Does anyone else get the nasty feeling with them basing their campaigns on this?

 

[illustri]

yea, everytime i hear a soldier die on the news i jump up and down giggling while i sh1t my pants in joy

edit:
contrary to your deluded opinion most AMERICANS of whatever political inclination want whats best for their country

 

[dahunan]

MegaDittos buddy :disgust:

 

[ciba]

I'm serious.

1) Kerry hammers on outsourcing and its impact on the economy, but he profits from a company (Heinz), half of whose factories are overseas. (Yes, it is his wife who owns the stock, but if he can't get his family to avoid investment in outsourced companies, how can he possibly expect us to believe he can impact the business world?)

2) The war on terror. We keep hearing how poorly it's going, and at the same time they fight against it (we should never be in Iraq, yet Saddam funds terrorists).

While I can't stand Kerry, I'm concerned that if the the economy improves, we find OBL and put together a viable exit strategy for Iraq, the dems will be significantly damaged in the election because they don't have anything else of substance.

 

[Siddhartha]

The issue(s) in this election are you happy with the direction in which GWB has the country going. Do you want four more years?

 

[ciba]

I guess you might be right. It is more of a referendum on Bush than about Kerry's nonexistent leadership qualities.

Personally, I can't stand either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ciba
I'm serious.

The war on terror. We keep hearing how poorly it's going, and at the same time they fight against it (we should never be in Iraq, yet Saddam funds terrorists).

No more so than out good friend and ally Saudi Arabia.

I bet the Democrats hope we do well in Iraq but that still doesn't excuse the Dub from using bogus reasons and capitalizing on the fear and terror of 9/11 to persuade the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ciba
Moreso than ever, this upcoming election seems to put all their proverbial eggs in the same basket.

Democrats seem to be dependent on americans "losing" to win this election.

Does anyone else get the nasty feeling with them basing their campaigns on this?

Actually many dems are upset with the republicans because the republicans did in fact put all the proverbial eggs in the same basket. Now the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Either way the neocons win. The republicans, too often helped along by dems, have put America well and truly on the way towards an authoritarian power state - Mega-Banana Rebublic Inc. Some argue that we already are there. Looking at the Dubya Show it is hard to argue otherwise. Kerry won't make much of a difference, I think.

It is the Way of the Swine now. The only question is how many, or few, pearls do you throw to the unwashed masses. It is no longer a question of the values of Americas Founding Fathers. As Moonbeam so eloquently put it: "I demand truth, justice and decency from my country". Neither Bush nor Kerry is capable of truth, justice or decency. Kerry should be marginally more decent. After his eventual Presidency we would have to count the dead to find out, I guess. If past presidencies is anything to go by you basically volunteer for a position as mass murderer when you run for the oval office. It would take an immensely strong person to break that trend. Too bad for America and the world it looks like the US hasn't found him/her yet.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ciba
I guess you might be right. It is more of a referendum on Bush than about Kerry's nonexistent leadership qualities.

Personally, I can't stand either.

What are the issues that you have with Kerry?

 

[eriqesque]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

What are the issues that you have with Kerry?[/quote]


He makes Ted Kennedy look like a right wing conservative.

 

[AcidicFury]

Kerrys pretty much an experienced senator with a decent voting record. I think he's better than Gore at least.

 

[ciba]

1) He opposes outsourcing, but his sugar momma pays his bills thanks to Heinz.
2) He doesn't take responsibility for his voting record. Yes, he voted for the war, but he didn't really vote for the war. My expectation of Congress is that they exercise some level of due diligence. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
3) Kerry's supporters (I believe he intentionally distances himself from this) hammer Bush's war record. Kerry goes from throwing his medals (but they weren't really his) on the white house lawn to trying to be the war-hero candidate. The war-hero president which got a purple heart for a papercut!
4) Taxes. The top 5% of wage earners already pay for most of the government, but that isn't enough! Let's try to cut spending instead (which, coincidentally is the single biggest reason I dislike Bush).
5) He voted for the patriot act. Rallying against it now is simple political convenience.
6) NCLB - He bashes on this education bill, but guess what? Yup, he voted for it.

Sure, some flip-flop is expected. People change their minds and that's acceptable. That is why I didn't include his views on NAFTA, among other bills he voted for, but opposes now. These are simply a handful that he voted for, but won't take responsibility for now.

To top it off, when Kerry does something as simple as fall skiing, he blames it on someone willing to take a bullet for him. I didn't see Bush blaming any secret service agents when he ate it off his mountain bike.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: ciba
1) He opposes outsourcing, but his sugar momma pays his bills thanks to Heinz.

Theresa Heinz has nothing to do with the Heinz company.

2) He doesn't take responsibility for his voting record. Yes, he voted for the war, but he didn't really vote for the war. My expectation of Congress is that they exercise some level of due diligence. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.

Many people were misled and supported the war based on what the white house and DOD said. No one expected them to be as incompetent as they were in planning. Maybe next time they'll actually listed to the Military people.

3) Kerry's supporters (I believe he intentionally distances himself from this) hammer Bush's war record.

Bush doesn't have a war record he has what looks to be a questionable service record.

Kerry goes from throwing his medals (but they weren't really his) on the white house lawn to trying to be the war-hero candidate.

He can still throw away medal and be a war-hero, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The war-hero president which got a purple heart for a papercut!

Maybe some of the veterans here can correct me, but the purple heart is given out to any member of the armed forces who was wounded by the enemy. There is no level of severity that I know of.

4) Taxes. The top 5% of wage earners already pay for most of the government, but that isn't enough! Let's try to cut spending instead (which, coincidentally is the single biggest reason I dislike Bush).

We have to pay for Iraq somehow. When we reach a level where there is a surplus then it's time for across the board tax cuts, until then tough.

5) He voted for the patriot act. Rallying against it now is simple political convenience.

Practically every member of congress voted for the Patriot act and hardly any of them read it. It goes to far and parts of it need to be fixed or rolled back. It's called correcting your mistakes.

6) NCLB - He bashes on this education bill, but guess what? Yup, he voted for it.

Crappy underfunded bill. Who know what results would be like if funded properly, but it's highly irresposible to put requirments on people then not give them the neccesary tools to fulfill those requirments.

Sure, some flip-flop is expected. People change their minds and that's acceptable. That is why I didn't include his views on NAFTA, among other bills he voted for, but opposes now. These are simply a handful that he voted for, but won't take responsibility for now.

This applies to every politician, look at Bush and all the things he's supported then came out against or vice versa.

To top it off, when Kerry does something as simple as fall skiing, he blames it on someone willing to take a bullet for him. I didn't see Bush blaming any secret service agents when he ate it off his mountain bike.

He was joking, I can't believe people took that seriously.

 

[Jhhnn]

1) Heinz has been a multinational company for a long time- their overseas operations are geared to service demand in the economies where they're located, rather than to export to the US...
2) I think he readily admits that he and the rest of Congress were bamboozled by the Dubya parade of Hysteria- if anything, he'll be a lot more cautious than his opponent about future troop deployments because of it and because of his Vietnam experiences...
3) Bush's War record? what war record? staying drunk at the officers' club in Texas doesn't count, nor does not showing up in Alabama... Kerry showed that he had a pair when he needed 'em, and showed he had his head screwed on straight when he came home to oppose the war, along with most of the rest of America... The papercut dig is pure slander...
4) Taxes? Shee-it, Sherlock, Bush's tax relief for the wealthy has created a regressive tax structure at the very top, where the top 400 pay 5% less of their income in federal taxes than the average among the top 1%... and non-enforcement of tax laws on that same 1% allows them to escape paying an estimated $300B/ yr....
5) Patriot Act? Voting against it would have been political suicide, given the trumped up hysteria and fud emanating from the Whitehouse...
6)NCLB wouldn't be a bad deal, if the Repubs would fund it at the level they promised- as it is, it's a drain, rather than an asset...

Cut spending? Sure, have at it- as I've offered many times before, lay out the broad outlines of a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes or hack services that most folks actually want- good luck, unless you're willing to sacrifice in the sacred conservative cow areas of military expenditures and corporate pork...

Just imagine how much emboldened the uber right and the christian fringe would become if Dubya achieves re-election... red ink as far as the eye can see, explosive giveaways on faith based initiatives and corporate pork, greater erosion of civil liberties, more wars of adventure, and the final looting of the federal treasury....

Who voted for this? and who's dumb enough to vote for the same guy, now that they can see what he's really about?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba
I'm serious.

1) Kerry hammers on outsourcing and its impact on the economy, but he profits from a company (Heinz), half of whose factories are overseas. (Yes, it is his wife who owns the stock, but if he can't get his family to avoid investment in outsourced companies, how can he possibly expect us to believe he can impact the business world?)

You really don't understand global economics, do you?

2) The war on terror. We keep hearing how poorly it's going, and at the same time they fight against it (we should never be in Iraq, yet Saddam funds terrorists).

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

While I can't stand Kerry, I'm concerned that if the the economy improves, we find OBL and put together a viable exit strategy for Iraq, the dems will be significantly damaged in the election because they don't have anything else of substance.

The Democratic party will actually bring back some openness and honesty to the White House and the Cabinet.

Gone will be chickenhawk neocons, replaced with people willing to debate and open to thought. Back will be true diplomacy. Also, with a Republican-controlled Congress, any social programs' costs will be tempered and Kerry has already promised pay-as-you spending.

 

[Infohawk]

As my buddy mills would point out, this is a loaded question.

Democrats seem to be dependent on americans "losing" to win this election.

Can you expand on this? Are you talking about the war?

And how are the Democrats putting all their eggs in one basket? It's not like they're only running a political campaign.

 

[ciba]

"You really don't understand global economics, do you?"

I'm not referring to global economics. I'm referring to his talking about business leaders with no dedication to america, when he benefits from a company with significant overseas investments. I understand hypocrisy just fine!

Infohawk, every significant issue in this election is something the democrats claim the repubs do poorly. If the economy and war situations improve, the democrats don't have much to campaign on. In the past, there's been at least one issue where canditates have different ideas on something, but aren't relying on the other candidate's failure for their electability.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ciba
Infohawk, every significant issue in this election is something the democrats claim the repubs do poorly.

And vice-versa. We're in a two-party system so each side is only measurable against the other party. Also, it's just the nature of the incumbancy process. If you are the incumbant, whether or not you are Democrat or Republican, you're going to applaud your achievements and the other guy is going to downplay them.

If the economy and war situations improve, the democrats don't have much to campaign on.

They'll still have the environment, health care, economic justice, education, etc to talk about. Even if the economy and war situations improve, I doubt it will get to the point where people will agree on it or think GWB is doing a perfect job at it.

In the past, there's been at least one issue where canditates have different ideas on something, but aren't relying on the other candidate's failure for their electability.

I'm not sure what you mean. In any case, I think the two guys have differences in ideas.

Anyway, to answer your question I don't feel sick about this because this. I think what you're talking about is done by both parties and it's not necessarily a bad thing to point out the flaws in your opponents. The voters should consider each's flaws when they vote.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba
"You really don't understand global economics, do you?"

I'm not referring to global economics. I'm referring to his talking about business leaders with no dedication to america, when he benefits from a company with significant overseas investments. I understand hypocrisy just fine!

Who says Heinz has no dedication to America?

By your logic:
Jack Welch has no dedication to America as GE has plants all over the world.
The same goes for Ford, GM, Chrysler.
The same goes for Bill Gates and Microsoft.

There's a reason companies build plants/distribution centers/offices around the world. It's to better offer products localized for that area as well as provide distribution channels and sales/support.

Infohawk, every significant issue in this election is something the democrats claim the repubs do poorly. If the economy and war situations improve, the democrats don't have much to campaign on. In the past, there's been at least one issue where canditates have different ideas on something, but aren't relying on the other candidate's failure for their electability.

The Democrats have much to campaign on.

The environment
Diplomacy
Fiscal Responsibility
Reducing the deficit
Education
Health Care
Defense
National Security
etc.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I think this has more to do with how people perceive things.

I, personally, strive to look things in an upbeat and positive fashion - you know... the glass half full analogy. I started this back in my youth after seeing how successful(defined by their own goals and aspirations) people's attitudes were positioned.

I think alot of people have the glass half-empty mentality and dwell on the negative. I've seen it here, I've seen it at work, I've seen it almost everywhere so why shouldn't this whole "attitude" thing spill over into politics?

I don't think it's so much that they WANT the US to fail - it's just that they take positions that they would benefit from the "bad". No, not a conscience choice, and definitely not a situation where they want or hope for failure - it just happens to be how things sit.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I think this has more to do with how people perceive things.

I, personally, strive to look things in an upbeat and positive fashion - you know... the glass half full analogy. I started this back in my youth after seeing how successful(defined by their own goals and aspirations) people's attitudes were positioned.

I think alot of people have the glass half-empty mentality and dwell on the negative. I've seen it here, I've seen it at work, I've seen it almost everywhere so why shouldn't this whole "attitude" thing spill over into politics?

I don't think it's so much that they WANT the US to fail - it's just that they take positions that they would benefit from the "bad". No, not a conscience choice, and definitely not a situation where they want or hope for failure - it just happens to be how things sit.

CkG

Do you think more Republicans are glass-half-full types more often than Democrats are? If so, what is your evidence. If I took your post and replaced "they" with "Republicans" in '96 it would still make sense.

 

[glenn1]

Moreso than ever, this upcoming election seems to put all their proverbial eggs in the same basket.

I guess as a Libertarian I'm one of those undecided voters both sides so desperately court. And to tell you the truth, I don't care how many baskets they use, I'm looking at the eggs in them. And I don't particularly care for what I see. I want the strongest possible candidates on both sides to choose from, and I feel in particular that the Democrats let me down in that regard this election, the threshold for picking a better candidate than Bush was so low that I'm disgusted they blew it. That they looked at all the possible candidates they had to choose from and picked Kerry is utterly beyond me. And their reasoning worse yet, voting for him based on his "electability." Well, if electability was the lodestone for picking your candidate, Lieberman was by far the easier sell to the general public (even if he didn't have the flaming liberal bona fides some of your base seems to pray for, no matter how much the American people have shown that's not what they want).

 

[Genesys]

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.