Coaster...what do you mean the Iraq war doesn't affect you? It is the core of national discourse, in addressing it, at minimum, you are failing to address issues you do think will directly affect you. It is where the resources, people, intelligence, etc, are being focused, so of course it afects you.

Also, Kerry won't do anything miraculous not because of how great he is or isn't as a president, but because Congress and Judiciary branch are still stacked in favor of the Republicans, international community relations are very slow moving, and the economy transcends individual presidencies. That being said, there are certain things a president can suggest and try to push during hard economic times, but our markets are too dependant on global markets.

You final statement that you just don't want to be dissappointed in two years leads me to believe one of two things. One, you don't agree with Kerry's agenda, so anticipate being dissappointed, or two, that you do, but have already decided to hold him to a different standard of change than Bush. Seeing as how, unless you agree with Bush's projection vision, you'd clearly be dissappointed then too.

Oh yes, and I started a little discussion over in Over Seas/Indies about a documentary I saw about Columbus last year (see my sig). Consider it a way to tie the State's new found attention to film verite. Also, feel free to just wander in and post musings in it.

-Dolce

Not if I have anything to do with it..muhahahahaha!!

And not pick on you but you wouldn't vote for a candidate because you're afraid of being dissapointed?

Then don't vote....ever. As far as I know there's a chance of every single candidate that ever ran for office not living up to his/her promises. So if that's gonna stop you from voting for him/her...

Are you gonna fight democratic voters off with your umbrella?

Im sportin my pride, thank you! I couldnt find I better one

Man, youve been saying Kerry for ages. Did I miss something? :evil:

I am using a palm frawn down here. Damn liberals. We have the GOP police out. There are strategically placed road blocks in the socio-economically depressed areas (aka Ghettos) inorder to hold back the black vote. We are ready. Lets go!

DP

You betcha, especially the old people.

Old people vote REpublican.

:wink:

Nope, I've never been "for Kerry." I was a Republican who was undecided, but I chose Bush awhile back. What made you think I supported Kerry?

Okay, let me rephrase that. Old Democrats are who I'm going to knock down.

Go Nadar!!

Is anyone here going to vote for him?

It's Nader not Nadar. Why not just vote for Bush, since you are indirectly voting for Bush with a vote for Nader anyway?

I never got why they say this. What if I chose to vote for Nader come tomorrow. I was going to vote for Bush, so wouldn't I be taking a vote from him?

They say it because it's unlikely many Nader votes come from Republicans, seeing as how Nader is more liberal than Gore or Kerry.

Then theoretically Bush would lose a vote.

But realistically would you, or any other person out there planning to vote for Bush, decide you wanted to vote for Nader instead jsut like that?

That's not true. Elections are supposed to allow for more option, and while I know what you're saying, if someone is going to vote for Nader full well knowing the consequences, that's their perogative, and means they decided to think in more long term discussions about pushing a certain agenda. That may be Nader's agenda, it may be the desire to see stronger third parties, whatever. Some people aren't buying into the two party system and the "electability" discourse, and thats just fine. They know (hopefully0 what they're doing when they cast that vote. There are smaller parties in every state...why not rail on people who vote for LaRouche too?

-Dolce

Sorry, i was wondering if anyone is actually voting for the guy, i only found out he was a runner for the white house today so im a bit interested. BTW my vote would be inelegible as im not in the US

Ah, okay. Thanks Archie and Rod. And no, I wouldn't vote for Nader, it was just theoretically speaking.

So, er lets get this straight, there are only 3 parties to chose from when it comes to the election?

I rail on people who vote for all third party candidates. I understand your point of view though and it is consistent with your arthouse tastes, in that arthouse movie fans tend to go for an auteur sense of films, while I think one of the beauties of movies (and politics) is compromise, collaboration, getting people with different ideas together into a coalition (artistic or political) and making something happen. So I don't take most auteurs seriously, nor do I like third party candidates. Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Don't misread that as me saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote for them, I'm not saying anything of the kind. It's not about rights, it just seems silly to me is all.

By the way, I thought you were supposed to always agree with me, it was in the contract you signed.

Alright what i'm saying is that it doesnt DIRECTLY affect me but think about it

Do I have any love ones in Iraq? NO
Draft? NO
Am I in the War? NO


I mean yeah i'm glad that Saddam Hussein is out but i wasnt dramattically effected by it

sorry guys if its a misunderstanding but thats how i feel

Yeah but HEs saying that he can reverse all that Bush has already did but thats just impossibel...I think he could only do a small fraction of that if anything....I think that Bush can hold his ground and I'm sticking to that

For what it's worth, I disagree with you :wink:

I understand that it's nearly impossible to find a candidate that will agree with your views 100% and so compromise is needed, you might have to decide what issues have higher priority to you and sacrifice a few other issues.

But I think third parties/independents should have a fair shot. I mean, if you don't want them elected don't vote for them, but if you think the candidate can do a better job at running the country than the two main candidates, then DO!

But with that said, only Kerry and Bush have a chance this year, and with so much riding on the election you have to compromise with a candidate that might not be the greatest, but will do a better job than the current leader. With the elections being so important, perhaps more than they have been in a long while, I don't think it's the time to go out and make a statement by voting for someone like Nader.

When did he say he can reverse what Bush has done?

Maybe I am overestimating people, but I think they are very aware that what Bush has done, be it wrong or right, is done and Kerry will have to work with that and move on with what is best to do at this moment and push the country ahead. Not do what was best a year or two ago.