You can't be serious! You aren't, are you? Bush? The lesser of two evils?
Yeah. I'm sorry. I do think the average voter is stupid. If you disagree, fine. You have a right to. But I think they're stupid
because they saw Bush as the lesser of two evils. If anyone can seriously look at John Kerry (or even Al Gore) and GWB side by side and pick GWB, then I'm sorry. That person is an idiot. Plain and simple.
Okay, so people that disagree with you are stupid. Got it. Wait, I'm a fool, but far from stupid...guess maybe you need to change what you think is stupid, because your current definition is flawed.
Kerry was a spinless weakling with no stance on anything, was a liberal against the "moderate" (or moderate appearing) Bush, in a country during wartime (wartime elections always tend to favor the incumbent, look at history. The only US President ever to see FOUR terms in office was a wartime President.) The Democrats had several viable candidates that might have been able to topple Bush, but they chose to cater to the far left instead, and it cost them the election and allowed Bush to get America into the state it's in now.
As for the 2000 election against Gore; keep in mind, that was BEFORE people knew Bush like they do now, and it was actually a close race (remember who won the popular vote? Or, at least, was reported to have won it? You think those Gore supporters are "stupid" too?)
As if GWB was "viable". My dog would have been a viable candidate beside Dubya. Kerry couldn't have possibly been any worse (had he been elected) than Bush. It's perfectly obvious. If you don't think so then I guess there's not much point in continuing the discussion. If you can honestly look at the last 4 years and say Kerry would have been worse, you have a warped sense of reality.
In wartime, your dog wouldn't have been a viable candidate at all.
As far as Kerry having done a better job these last three years had he been elected; that's a hypothetical. It's possible he could have done better, it's also possible he could have done worth. A person who takes no solid positions might be easy to control, which means Kerry might have been "convinced" to do the exact same things that Bush has done by lobbyists or corporate interests. The only way to know for sure would be to go back in time.
I think Kerry probably would have acted differently, but probably not all that much different. We'd probably still be in Iraq, for example, just with a smaller presence than we have now. The nation would likely still be facing recession (the "housing bubble" would likely have proceeded just like is has, and just as the "dot com" bubble did in the 90's under Clinton. Same with the Fed interest rate cuts.) If YOU think different than that, I might have to question your sense of reality. ^_^
Would things be different? Definitely yes. Better? That's debatable. I don't trust Bush now, I didn't trust Kerry the first time I saw him. I have serious doubts to his viability as a candidate. So did a lot of Americans. That's why he lost.
You mean one that a Republican could vote for, right? Personally, I don't care. I see Republicans for what they are. I don't want to join hands with them and sing Kumbaya. There are fundamental differences that just can't be bridged. This middle of the road shit is what always gets us into trouble. A candidate who can't decide which way to go is as bad as one who leans too far to one side. Maybe worse. At least we know that Bush and Cheney are villains.
And THAT kind of thinking is why Democrats have lost the last two elections. Bush, for whatever you want to call him, appeals to "middle-road" people (or, that is, DID when he ran for President.) Neither Gore nor Kerry did.
In 2004, the Democrats could have won that election. They just needed to field a candidate with some sense of honor and TRY to reach out, if not to Re
publicans, at least to moderates and independents. Understand this: That YOU aren't centrist or right of center doesn't mean that this nation isn't. This nation is, right now, very moderate with some RIGHT leanings (the "average voter" in the US leans right, not left.) If you ignore those people, then you don't get their votes. If you don't get their votes, we get McCain sworn into office in January. Regardless of what you think of Re
publicans, moderates, independents, or conservatives, the truth of the matter is that if you add all those people together, they make up more than 50%+1. At the very least, you should be trying to get moderate and independent people on your side.
AND ALSO, this one I find PARTICULARLY insulting; moderate candidates aren't people that "can't decide which way to go." They're people that agree with liberal views on some things and conservatives on others. For example, a person that's against the war but doesn't want gun control laws. If you can't reach out and be friends with people like this, than you may as well leave the country, what with being so elitist and all.
In life, you have to learn to work with people. We're all Humans and we're all in this life together. If you're so willing to cut off ties with people you disagree with, you need to move off to an island somewhere and live by yourself...or maybe join one of those little communes people set up here and there.
I, on the other hand, will work with people and help them out. And people that have this mindset will also be the ones winning elections and such. Wouldn't you like to see Obama or Clinton win instead of McCain? If so...you need to drop the elitist attitude. Sometimes you have to get with the miner and the farmer in the dirt to dig a ditch to a brighter future. Strange bedfellows and all that. Yes, there are some people that one should not associate with by principle, but you're essentially taking ANYONE that disagrees with you AT ALL and saying you need to have nothing to do with them. Little extreme, isn't it? There are intelligent people among moderates and conservatives. Talk to a few sometime, you might just find someone you can get to join you in a better world and brighter tomorrow.
There are different kinds of intelligence, my friend. A Sith Lord may be intelligent (in a twisted sort of way) but I don't want him running my country. I think Obama (at least) has plenty of intelligence. I'm flatly opposed to John McCain simply because of what he is. I know where he stands and I don't like it. You can stink up the place with this tired rhetoric all you want But I see right through it and anyone with half a brain should.
Obama does have some intelligence. Actually, quite a lot, I think. Of course, so does McCain, but that's neither here nor there. You can oppose McCain because you don't like what he stands for (what is that exactly...?), that's cool too.
...but "this tired rhetoric"? My words are my own, not stuff I see repeated or hear spoken much by people. So sorry, it's no rhetoric.
...and "anyone with half a brain" should "see right through it"? Isn't that an appeal to ego? It's one of those logical fallacies that seeks to butter up the people that you want to agree with you (or, consequently, say they're stupid if they don't.) It's the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument. If it's so apparent and SO obvious, then I'll do as a philosophy professor of mine once encouraged me to always do; volunteer to be the person WITHOUT half a brain. Please, enlighten me to this truth that's so apparent; this rhetoric through which you see and how you're seeing right through it. I'd like to know.
You don't think McCain will pander to the lunatic fringe of the far right? He's already done it. Now let's see. Which fringe is less threatening to me as a person? I can only think of a couple of issues the far left supports that I think are threatening. I have far more issues with the far right. And these middle of the road guys are not necessarily as middle of the road as they may seem. They gravitate to the middle in order to get elected because they know it's what people want. Nobody is that balanced. People believe in things and they have principles and that (like it or not) divides people.
Oh he will. That's why I don't want him to be President (what, surprised? I speak from a position of neutrality. My opposition to your statements isn't because I'm a McCain supporter! Imagine that. ^_^ I'm actually undecided...)
Which fringe is more threatening to me? I'm not sure, really. The conservative fringe, the so-called Far Right would have us attempt to go back in time to near-religious repression (which is getting a lot of people killed. NO! Not the war, STDs and aborted fetuses because of a lack of proper sex education and contraceptive availability, along with the whole "masturbation is evil, now go sex up a girl and make babies" crap.)
On the other hand, the liberal fringe is incredibly dangerous in an entirely different way, but no less dangerous. The destruction of freedoms and sacrifice of safety is horrendous. People on the far left are also far less lucid and much closer to insane. (Yes, the "kill gays, kill mothers before letting them have abortions" people are EVIL...but they're entirely sane in the sense of being able to be cunning, deceiving, and lucid in their plans. The far left loons are simply dangerous and elitists...and generally, elitists piss me off a lot more, cause they're willing to live from their lofty, wealthy families while poor people fish food out of their garbage cans. That's pretty evil too.)
BOTH fringes are dangerous to me. Hence the whole centrist thing. In a way, I'm the kind of person that Obama and Clinton need to convince to vote for them (and the kind of person you would cast aside as "stupid American" because I'm not a liberal party-line voting Democrat.) I don't see wacko nutjobs on the left as safe at all. They're even more dangerous than the ones on the right because of the way they attempt to subvert things and control EVERYTHING (at least the far right is willing to put up a moderate candidate...)
I didn't mean "myth" as in not true. I completely believe he went through hell. I just meant that people aren't looking at the man. I seriously believe he wouldn't be where he is today if people ever seriously examined who he really is. It's that clicking the heels, salute the flag bootlicker mentality that wins elections for guys like him.
Yup, you're right. It's good you believe in reality. ^_^
Yeah. That's what worries me.
And BTW. I noticed that you ignored the similarities between Bush and McCain.
Ignored? I didn't address any. I'm not advocating McCain for President, so I see no reason to defend him overmuch. Should I have?
Oh, right, you think I'm a McCain supporter because I opposed your view...
Let me give you a piece of advice; not all Americans are stupid. Even those that voted for Bush either time? They're not all stupid either. If you think of them as having intelligence and TRY to go half-way and reach out to them, you might just be able to get them to vote for your guy (those of us that have "half a brain" ^_^) But if you WANT McCain to get elected, then you're doing the right thing calling Americans who would be willing to vote for him stupid. Cause you know what? When you insult people, it tends to ENCOURAGE them to do the opposite of what you want them to do...out of spite. And people, even intelligent ones, are prone to such actions.
Try to remember that the next time you're tempted to call someone or their views stupid. Think about how you'd feel if someone said the same to you. Ask yourself if you think these people might have some intelligence and be willing to see the other side if you share it with them, and then BE NICE. Treat them with respect.
...though, on the other hand, you seem like one of those pretty liberal guys that doesn't like people that disagree with you, so...maybe you have a nice guy friend that you can have talk with moderate and independents...that might work better.
