Why should I vote for Kerry?

[AntiEverything]

I'd normally vote libertarian, but I'm leaving my options open. Every thread in this forum is dedicated to proving how Bush is the most evil person on the planet. But I have yet to actually hear anything good about Kerry other than "he's not Bush". Is that really the best the Democrats have to offer? Somebody who isn't as bad as Bush? Yeah, Kerry may be a bad president but not as bad as Bush. How about offering up a good candidate from time to time?

All I see from the Democrats is hypocrisy. They complain about a smear campaign while patting Moore on the back for a job well done smearing Republicans. If you want to be better than the Republicans, then prove it. So far I just see more of the same.

I may vote for Nader just to spite the Democrats. Give an independent one good reason to help get rid of Dubya because I'm having a hard time thinking of any.

 

[Dissipate]

Actually, you shouldn't vote at all.

Here is why:

A Libertarian Critique of Voting

But if you insist on voting, vote for Michael Badnarik. He's the only candidate whose plan for America is to let you make your own plans.

 

[Kibbo]

Anti,

How you should vote depends on where you live. It is unfortunite consequence of the Electoral College system that many people's votes don't count. If you live in a state that's a lock, vote with the party that best matches your beleifs. Note that not voting or spoiling your ballot can also be (less effective) ways to register your protest. Remember that those can also be interpreted as apathy, or idiocy.

If you live in a swing state, it gets a little more complex. You have to decide whether or not you are the type of person who can compromise your beleifs for practical reasons. If you do not compromise, again, vote according to your beleifs.

If there is one issue that overwelmingly motivates you, vote with the major party that best suits your beleif on that topic.

If neither of those apply to you, then you have to decide who would do a worse job running the country. If you truly think that Bush is doing a bad job, then decide if Kerry will be worse. Tell me, why do you dislike each candidate?

Remember, "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reason."

 

[maluckey]

According to some, because he's not Bush. This is stupid logic.

Cndidates should be investigated, and compared. If the change of one career ploitician to another would help the United States, then by all means vote for that candidate. A vote for a non Democrat or Republican, is likely a vote against either Kerry or Bush depending on the candidates backers. This should be considered when you vote for a non Democrat or Republican.

It's a shame that write-in campains have no power compared to the two-party system that is in place at the moment. I for one, would like more choices, and no dominant parties. This will only exist in dreams.
The lesser of evils is most often the known.

 

[Scrooge2]

It's a shame there are no real alternative choices. But I wouldn't call a vote for Kerry a waste, rather a vote for Nader would be since there's no way a third party candidate can get into office in this country.

 

[arsbanned]

A vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

 

[0marTheZealot]

problem is that the system is so unforgiving to 3rd parties, you are practically flushing your vote down the toliet if you vote 3rd party. It's unfortunate but true. You also have to look at your state demographics. If you live in a "blue" state, casting a vote for Bush will mean nothing. The electoral college will have been won and that state's votes go to Kerry. Likewise, if you vote Kerry in a "red" state, it won't matter because of the sheer volume of voters voting red. The way the electoral college is set up is to diminish public power. So yea, America's system sucks. We really should move to a popular voting system, but the status quo trumps all. Just vote for whoever you like. Your individual vote doesn't matter unfortunately.

If anyone here cites Florida as showing that every vote counts, every vote does count if you happen to be in a swing state. If you aren't then your vote probably won't matter at all.

 

[Oblivious]

Ignorance is rampant in this thread.

 

[Genx87]

As somebody already pointed out. Because he is not Bush. Who cares what else he stands for

Honestly look at the issues and decide for yourself. When you look at Kerry and Bush they really arent that far apart on the big issues.

War in Iraq - Kerry Voted for it, Bush wanted it
Troops out of Iraq - Kerry says over the next 4 years, Bush says over the next 3-5 years
Economic Plans - Kerry says he gurantees 10 million jobs over the next 10 years, Bush says his economic plan will generate millions of jobs.

When you look at the core issues these two guys are one in the same. The only real difference is their party affiliation and their stance on Abortion + gay rights. But the big issues in this election these guys are damned close.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Oblivious
Ignorance is rampant in this thread.

Wow, you make a strong statement like that and don't back it up. Care to explain?

 

[preslove]

Kerry.

Because he is a policy wonk who actually thinks about the ramifications of his decisions.

This makes him competent. He's dedicated his life to serving our country.

He doesn't go on vacations all the time.

He does not believe in some senseless ideology that would blind him and cause him to make bad decisions.

He is one of the few senators (I think Paul Wellstone was another) to have NEVER taken PAC money for his campaign. Guess what this means? He was never in the hands of the corporations.

If you want a leader for our country, vote for Kerry. If you don't care, vote for some idiot third party candidate, and help Bush ruin our country for 4 more years.

 

[Oblivious]

Originally posted by: Genx87
As somebody already pointed out. Because he is not Bush. Who cares what else he stands for

Honestly look at the issues and decide for yourself. When you look at Kerry and Bush they really arent that far apart on the big issues.

War in Iraq - Kerry Voted for it, Bush wanted it
Troops out of Iraq - Kerry says over the next 4 years, Bush says over the next 3-5 years
Economic Plans - Kerry says he gurantees 10 million jobs over the next 10 years, Bush says his economic plan will generate millions of jobs.

When you look at the core issues these two guys are one in the same. The only real difference is their party affiliation and their stance on Abortion + gay rights. But the big issues in this election these guys are damned close.

Originally posted by: arsbanned
A vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Actually, you shouldn't vote at all.

case in point.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Anti,

How you should vote depends on where you live. It is unfortunite consequence of the Electoral College system that many people's votes don't count. If you live in a state that's a lock, vote with the party that best matches your beleifs. Note that not voting or spoiling your ballot can also be (less effective) ways to register your protest. Remember that those can also be interpreted as apathy, or idiocy.

If you live in a swing state, it gets a little more complex. You have to decide whether or not you are the type of person who can compromise your beleifs for practical reasons. If you do not compromise, again, vote according to your beleifs.

If there is one issue that overwelmingly motivates you, vote with the major party that best suits your beleif on that topic.

If neither of those apply to you, then you have to decide who would do a worse job running the country. If you truly think that Bush is doing a bad job, then decide if Kerry will be worse. Tell me, why do you dislike each candidate?

Remember, "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reason."

:beer:

 

[Zedtom]

I voted for Nader in 2000, and now I regret it. I was uncertain about who could lead our country the best, so my vote was an attempt to send a message. Look what happened!

My advice for you, no matter where you live- vote your conscience. Pull the lever for the candidate who realistically can serve his country the best.

I will be voting for Kerry.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Oblivious

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Actually, you shouldn't vote at all.

case in point.

You are the ignorant one. Read what's at the link I posted and edukate yourself.

"Representative" democracy is fraud and voting in it promotes violence(if it is not an act violence itself), end of story.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zedtom

My advice for you, no matter where you live- vote your conscience. Pull the lever for the candidate who realistically can serve his country the best.

I will be voting for Kerry.

Say what?! Stick to your guns and vote for Nader again. Kerry is NOT the candidate who can "realistically serve his country the best."

He is a democratic socialist who will attempt to destroy the economic capital of the nation by waging a Marxist war on "wealthy" people.

 

[Kibbo]

Umm....

If he voted for Nader, then this is what best serves his view of what the US should be.

Also, I think you overstate Kerry's position a wee bit.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Umm....

If he voted for Nader, then this is what best serves his view of what the US should be.

Also, I think you overstate Kerry's position a wee bit.

No I don't. Look at his voting record, this guy is up to his eyeballs in democratic socialism. He has also publically announced that people earning $200,000+ a year would see tax hikes under his administration.

Not that Bush is any better, heck he is probably worse than Kerry in a lot of ways. But the issue was Zed's statement about pulling the lever "for the candidate who realistically can serve his country the best." This is clearly not Kerry.

 

[Kibbo]

In what way is a tax hike a "Marxist war?"

Although there might be productivity-discouraging consequences to this tax hike, calling it the destruction of "economic capital" is also a bit too much. Remember that the empirical evidence supporting the productivity-destroying nature of progressive taxation is as mixed as the theoretical foundations of it are firm. <--(this indicates that the theorists may have missed something)

Much of the slim data that supports it could be explained by the taxation of capital, not of labour income.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
In what way is a tax hike a "Marxist war?"

Although there might be productivity-discouraging consequences to this tax hike, calling it the destruction of "economic capital" is also a bit too much. Remember that the empirical evidence supporting the productivity-destroying nature of progressive taxation is as mixed as the theoretical foundations of it are firm. <--(this indicates that the theorists may have missed something)

Much of the slim data that supports it could be explained by the taxation of capital, not of labour income.

All of the answers lie in this thread here.

Taxation of income is taxation of capital. Where do you think all capital is ultimately derived from? It doesn't just fall out of the sky, someone has to earn it. Anyways, read the above thread and click the link to the source that is cited.

 

[Kibbo]

Yes, I'm familiar with the theories. Their logic is very compelling.

I'm also familiar with the dearth of solid evidence that supports those theories.

I'm also familiar with the theories that suggest progressivity of taxation can increase labour flexibility and the accumulation of human capital.

Edit: My objection wasn't to your essential point, it was largely due to your exaggerration of the potential magnitude of the problems these policies could cause. What percentage of your nation's overall savings would end up being taxed away by them? Compare that to the potential gains in national savings that could be reaped by eliminating the deficit. Or did you forget that national savings are the total of all savings of a country, whether private or public? Need I remind you that your government is currently saving at a negative rate due to the deficits these taxes could help remedy?

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I don't think Bush -deserves- another term and I want to see how someone else will do.

Kerry is not my ideal candidate.

One candidate must win.

I will vote for Kerry.

If Kerry messes up, I'll vote for someone else in 2008. Let George come back and try again then. He seems like a decent guy. For now, he had his turn, and I'm not a fan of what he did with it. With politics, you've got to take a hit on one side to advance your cause on the other. I'm willing to vote for my non-ideal candidate because the alternative is unacceptable.

Bush's record hasn't made me overly proud of being an American. I want to be proud of being American. I'm willing to give Kerry a shot.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Yes, I'm familiar with the theories. Their logic is very compelling.

I'm also familiar with the dearth of solid evidence that supports those theories.

I'm also familiar with the theories that suggest progressivity of taxation can increase labour flexibility and the accumulation of human capital.

Edit: My objection wasn't to your essential point, it was largely due to your exaggerration of the potential magnitude of the problems these policies could cause. What percentage of your nation's overall savings would end up being taxed away by them? Compare that to the potential gains in national savings that could be reaped by eliminating the deficit. Or did you forget that national savings are the total of all savings of a country, whether private or public? Need I remind you that your government is currently saving at a negative rate due to the deficits these taxes could help remedy?

I really don't know how taxation can increase labor flexibility and the accumulation of human capital. As far as I know it destroys labor flexibility, because taxation removes funds that would otherwise be available to start new businesses and create new/different jobs. This causes the economy to stagnate. Everyone looks to unemployment to see how the economy is doing, but this is a very poor indicator. It says nothing about exactly what kinds of jobs are available in the economy. When entrepreneurs are stripped of their capital through progressive taxation and the other taxes listed in the above thread, the kinds of jobs that are available in the economy are not going to change as often, or be as high quality. This affects wage earners just as much as anyone else.

I am well aware of the enormous deficits being racked up by the Bush administration, and I think that they are abomidable. I think that what needs to happen is the runaway spending needs to stop and taxes slashed.

Back to my original point though. Keeping any considerations of Bush aside, I am certain that Kerry would enact Marxist tax policies targeted at "rich" households that will perpetuate the Marxist class warefare system this country has seen for many decades.

Now when you say that I am exaggerating the problems these policies would cause, I have to disagree. Relative to other presidents who have also perpetuated these Marxist policies, I do not think that Kerry would be that much better or worse. So in that respect I agree that Kerry is probably close to par. However, relative to the potential that this economy has to grow, I think that Kerry would continue to subdue and stifle to a great degree, as all the modern presidents before him have.