Bush to win

Sleepy

I've yet to hear a sensible reason to vote for Bush bonkey, would you like to give one?

Meh

Sleepy wrote:

I've yet to hear a sensible reason to vote for Bush bonkey, would you like to give one?

• If you're one of the people earning above $200k that Kerry has promised to raise taxes for
• If you're anti-abortion and you want Bush to appoint pro-life judges and stop stem-cell research
• If you oppose gay marriage/civil unions
• If you want Hillary to run in 2008

You may not agree with these reasons (and I personally don't agree with them), but they are still valid, sensible reasons to choose Bush over Kerry.

Sleepy

Meh wrote:

• If you're one of the people earning above $200k that Kerry has promised to raise taxes for
• If you're anti-abortion and you want Bush to appoint pro-life judges and stop stem-cell research
• If you oppose gay marriage/civil unions
• If you want Hillary to run in 2008

You may not agree with these reasons (and I personally don't agree with them), but they are still valid, sensible reasons to choose Bush over Kerry.

I dunno, they'd only seem sensible to a loaded, anti-stem cell research, biggoted Hilary Clinton Supporter and sure there can't be too many of them!

Hobbes

Kerry / Edwards also oppose gay marriages. They don't mind civil unions though.

ixoy

Anyone else catch Andrew Sullivan's article in the News Review in Sunday Times just gone? Formerly a staunch Republican, he outlines why he now would give his vote to Kerry (reluctantly). If nothing else, it's one of the few articles where I saw a Bush positive (on tax cuts) mentioned that wasn't related to his "record" on stopping terrorism (and please, I've still yet to see one solid indication of this "record" having averted anything other than the likes of Halliburton's profit margin).

Hobbes wrote:

Kerry / Edwards also oppose gay marriages. They don't mind civil unions though.

I'm not sure what Kerry's personal beliefs are on this and whether he's kowtowing to the general population, but at least he's not trying for a Constitutional ban. That was the straw that broke my back on Bush, and made dislike turn to almost despising him.

If nothing else, Kerry in for his promise - in the 3rd debate - to not let his religious beliefs interfere with his policy making, something Bush cannot claim. Religion should not have a place in politics.

bonkey

Sleepy - you may be confusing "sensible" with "agreeable"...

For example....there are many reasons why one may feel that Bush's military tactics are the best option in dealing with the Middle East. Personally, I disagree with them, but thats more because I reject the philosophy on which they are based, rather than on the fact that the reasons are fundamentally illogical or wrong.

Given that, and that many people think of voting for/against Bush with foreign policy as the main determinant, I can see how these people are sensibly voting for Bush even though I don't agree with their line of reasoning.

Similarly, while it is very easy to slate Bush's domestic fiscal policy, the fact remains that it has outperformed the European average. It is also arguably true that the seeds for the crash were sown before Bush came to power, and so Bush's term should not be measured on the crash but rather than the recovery.....which hasn't been sterling, but few developed nations have outperformed it.

In the same vein...while I tend to side with Stiglitz, and do not attach significant credibility to trickle-down economics, there are plenty who do, up to and including respected professors/experts in economic theory.

So like I said...there's plenty of reasons to side with Bush even when one is well-informed...it just involves having other "beliefs" that I generally don't hold.

jc

Sleepy

Bonkey, yes there are a few positives that could be seen to Bush's continued leadership (I can't see them myself) but they should surely be over-ruled by the fact the man is a bumbling, slack-jawed idiot with a questionable criminal past, horrendous military record, total lack of concern for the sliding economy, completely dogmatic, a religeous zealout etc. etc. etc.

Therefore by straightforward logic, when the bad outweighs the good, any logical(my understanding of the word sensible) person will not vote for him.

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

So like I said...there's plenty of reasons to side with Bush even when one is well-informed...it just involves having other "beliefs" that I generally don't hold.

jc

most of those beliefs seem to center around intolerance for others personal choices eg. gay marraige.

Am I being intolerant of people's right to be intolerant (now you know its a liberal talking)?

Anti-abortion is the only thing that I would say is still a "debatable" issue.

Not to mention having the self held superior morality that they have the right to decide who should live and who should die. But they didn't like it when someone else gave them a taste of their own medicine in 9/11 very much.

Personally I thought 9/11 was horrible and didn't deserve to happen to anyone, but then i'm also not the kind of person that goes around advocating the murder of countless iraqis because of some fictitious "war on terror" and "unlimited caches of WMDs".

SkepticOne

Memnoch wrote:

Not to mention having the self held superior morality that they have the right to decide who should live and who should die. But they didn't like it when someone else gave them a taste of their own medicine in 9/11 very much.

Personally I thought 9/11 was horrible and didn't deserve to happen to anyone, but then i'm also not the kind of person that goes around advocating the murder of countless iraqis because of some fictitious "war on terror" and "unlimited caches of WMDs".

Unfortunately, the 9/11 event unleashed forces within the American people that were very easy to subsequently manipulate. Even before any attempted link was made by the Bush administration between Saddam and al-Queda, some 40% of Americans according to some polls belived that Saddam was directly responsible for the attacks. They just arrived at this conclusion on the basis that the US was going to war with Iraq therefore it must be something to do with 9/11.

RE*AC*TOR

Off topic, but couldn't resist:
Bush Talking!

bonkey

They don't centre around intolerance for others, Memnoch. The cases I listed all revolve around what someone's opinion as the best way to deal with given problems are.

You can view the economy as Bush's mess or not, depending on the timeframe that you attribute to causing the crash.
You can view the recovery from the crash as being good, bad, or indifferent, depending on any number of issues.
You can view Bush's security as good, bad, or indifferent on any number of levels, much of which depends on how you think security should be done.

None of that is to do with intolerance.

Abortion rights, support for Israel, gay marriage, etc. all have tight religious links. To say that a decision is intolerant when it is based on religious belief is to be as equally intolerant of other people's religions as you are alleging they are. Regardless, its still a valid reason to decide one way or the other.

Not to mention having the self held superior morality that they have the right to decide who should live and who should die.

As oppose to those who oppose the war who thought the people killed in teh war should have lived, and those who would have been killed by Saddam had he remained in power should have died. Any international decision made by anyone must therefore be based on superior morality....and so the US are no different, better or worse for having done so.....you just (again) disagree with the choices made.

Similarly, is there not a superior morality in assuming that anyone who votes for Bush is - by nature of that vote - wrong and an idiot. You assume that your morality, your informedness, and your analytical reasoning is superior, because these people are just plain wrong.......and then you complain that part of the problem is their superiority complex.

IF you just said you disagreed with them, you could question their superiority complex, but to decide they are unilaterally wrong and your opinion is the correct one smacks of exactly the criticism you level at them.

Sleepy wrote:

Therefore by straightforward logic, when the bad outweighs the good

My point is that the good and the bad are weighed by each individual according to their own values. Just because they come to a different conclusion doesn't make them stupid, ill-informed, or even imply that their values are wrong. They're different.

I saw an article on CNN where someone mentioned overhearing a number of American Jews discussing the election. One guy disagreed with virtually every policy of Bushes, except his policy towards Israel. Bush was, in his opinion, the best friend that Israel ever had. Now, should this guy vote for Bush or for Kerry? It will depend on how significant the Israeli issue is for him vs. all the other issues. It will be different for you. Neither of you are necessarily wrong.

jc

sceptre

bonkey wrote:

<pedantic wh0re>

That was Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein was the doctor.

</pedantic wh0re>

Should have caught that ball myself I suppose

Venom

Memnoch wrote:

bush stands for invading countries and killing 100,000 innocent civilians to further his greed and profit while destablising the middle east.

Bush stands for increasing terrorists' numbers many fold and increasing support for fundamentalist radicals within the muslim community.

yes you should feel a lot safer with bush in charge.

why is it that every time I run into a bush supporter they are always extremely short on basic knowledge about the issues?

Well if they knew the facts they would hardly be supporting Dubyia in all fairness

Hobbes

sceptre wrote:

Should have caught that ball myself I suppose

While it is true, it is generally thought by the majority that "Frankenstein" was the monster and not the professor. So the statement was correct.

Its a bit like nitpicking grammer while ignoring what the person is trying to say.

Sleepy

bonkey wrote:

They don't centre around intolerance for others, Memnoch.

So how exactly else would you define the ammendment of the constitution to ban gay marriage as being centred? logical reasoning? :rolleyes:

bonkey wrote:

My point is that the good and the bad are weighed by each individual according to their own values. Just because they come to a different conclusion doesn't make them stupid, ill-informed, or even imply that their values are wrong. They're different.

I saw an article on CNN where someone mentioned overhearing a number of American Jews discussing the election. One guy disagreed with virtually every policy of Bushes, except his policy towards Israel. Bush was, in his opinion, the best friend that Israel ever had. Now, should this guy vote for Bush or for Kerry? It will depend on how significant the Israeli issue is for him vs. all the other issues. It will be different for you. Neither of you are necessarily wrong.

jc

If you can rationalise killing innocent civilians, raping countries oil supplies, rigging elections, inciting hatred and homophobia, not lifting a finger to maintain your countries economy as anything other than stupid, ill-informed or wrong, I'll just have to hand you this debate on your philosophical prowess and ability to turn black into white. Otherwise, just admit that a vote for Bush is cast in ignorance, greed or fear.

If the Israeli issue is important enough to him that he'll risk losing everything (his life included as Bush in charge can only lead to more attacks on American civilians), sure he can cast that vote. It's his opinion, but afaic, it's not a particularly enlightened one, surely only a zealout could vote for one religeous reason and can zealoutry ever be considered intelligence?

Redleslie2

Hobbes wrote:

While it is true, it is generally thought by the majority that "Frankenstein" was the monster and not the professor. So the statement was correct.

Its a bit like nitpicking grammer while ignoring what the person is trying to say.

Mary Shelley should have given Dr.Frankenstein a less scary name, like Willy or Fred, so people wouldn't keep making that mistake.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

If you can rationalise killing innocent civilians, raping countries oil supplies, rigging elections, inciting hatred and homophobia, not lifting a finger to maintain your countries economy as anything other than stupid, ill-informed or wrong, I'll just have to hand you this debate on your philosophical prowess and ability to turn black into white.

Lets take those in order....

killing innocent civlians : Kerry will do the same, so why isn't voting for him just as bad?

raping countries of oil supplies : Only arguably true, and...Kerry will do the same, so why isn't voting for him just as bad?

rigging elections : There are electoral discrepancies which you choose to see as "rigging". There are also electoral discrepancies which favour the Democrats which you're ignoring....so why isn't voting for Kerry just as bad?

Inciting hatred and homophobia : Lets not forget that Kerry is also opposed to gay marriages. There are also other areas where he demonstrates intolerance. Why doesn't that rule him out either?

Also, as I pointed out, your basic argument here is that Americans shouldn't do what their religious beliefs tell them they should. Kinda makes you as intolerant of their religion as you claim they are of other issues because of their religion.

So your criticism of intolerance would appear to be based on intolerance itself. So one can back an intolerant viewpoint....or an intolerant viewpoint. Again, not much to choose.

Not lifting a finger on the economy: I've already pointed out that the US economy was scuppered when Bush got it, and that the US recovery has been better than most other developed nations has been. Exactly what more do you want, and what proof do you ahve an alternate strategy would have been better (incidentally, all teh indicators are that alternate, more liberal strategies would have slowed the recovery to being in line with European nations who already have that more liberal/socialist slant).

Thats every single one of them addressed. Most issues - when you look below the nice "Its popular to hate Bush" layer - are nowhere near as simple as might be first apparent. Indeed, I would suggest that by only offering one side as being guilty of many of the corruptions you complain about, you either show that you are uninformed (and yet complain abou stupid Americans), or are deliberately applying your criteria unevenly (thus rendering it no "superior" then the opinions of those you claim are sstupid, biased, intolerant).

If the Israeli issue is important enough to him that he'll risk losing everything (his life included as Bush in charge can only lead to more attacks on American civilians), sure he can cast that vote. It's his opinion, but afaic, it's not a particularly enlightened one, surely only a zealout could vote for one religeous reason and can zealoutry ever be considered intelligence?

Well, gosh. Now you're attacking someone's values system as being not particularly enlightened and the person as being a zealot...just because you disagree with their values.....and you say the that voting Republican is intolerant????

Now, lets recap....

All I started out with was the assertion that voting Republican does not mean that you are uninformed or stupid. I have defended that by saying that one can be informed, intelligent, and base an opinion on a different value system.

No matter which candidate anyone votes for, they will not get a perfect match to their own values. THey will have to vote for a candidate who has some values they disagree with. Some, they may disagree with vehemently. But on balance they have to choose someone.

Otherwise, just admit that a vote for Bush is cast in ignorance, greed or fear

I'll tell you what. I'll do so if you admit a vote for Kerry is done for the same reaosn because he will commit every single one of the "crimes" you lay out above should he be elected.

And then, after you admit that, explain to me why we shoudl vote for one crook over another.

See...thats what people ahve lost sight of. There's some notion that the Democrats are a shining beacon of goodness - the "real" Good Americans who would do right by the world if only those slimy Republicans weren't in power.

Its codswallop.

The Democrats may be the lesser of two evils, but if you're condemning one party for being evil, then voting for a lesser evil should still be condemned.

I'm sure plenty of people will vote for Bush for those three reasons you list. Possibly even the majority of people who vote for Bush will do so for those reasons. But I vehemently deny that they are the only reasons one may vote for Bush, just as I don't believe that they are the only reasons one may vote for Kerry.

jc