Will you be happy when this election season is over?
The attack ads, the partisian bickering, the not being able to walk down the hallway without being accosted by a supporter from one side of the other, the media wars - is anyone seriously enjoying this? It's like this is the season to be as big of a pain in the ass you want to be without being held accountable for it. It's driving me nuts. ><[/u]
Regardless of who wins...
-
Akaran_D
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 4151
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
- Location: Somewhere in my head...
- Contact:
Regardless of who wins...
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
-
Hoarmurath
- Star Farmer
- Posts: 477
- Joined: October 16, 2002, 12:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
-
Krimson Klaw
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm
It won't matter because neither side will concede defeat to the other concerning which candidate they think won the debates. The right will think Bush won, the left will think Kerry made Bush look like an idiot. There, I saved this forum at least 100 different posts by saying in a nutshell what at least 3 different threads will contain.
No smack needed. The democrats have slowly faded away. This election was over a long time ago. The ballsy smack was before the DNC.Hoarmurath wrote:Followup: For how long after the elections will the "winners" here on VV talk smack to the losers, a la Dave Chappelle visiting that kid at the hospital? (In ya FACE!!)
It's no fun beating a weak opponent. As in sports, the best victories are those over close opponents. I hope the democrats bring someone badass next time because as the cycles go, we may end up with a democrat in 2008 so I don't want a Clinton again.
I've actually had a little turnaround in political opinion recently.
Now admittedly I'm not very old, but I've never seen worse partisanship than that which is displayed by both parties right now. The problem extends through all elected branches of government down through the citizens of the country. Why does Bush have such a slim list of accomplishments? Largely because he can only do things that don't require congressional approval, as the Senate has frustrated him pretty constantly. Why has the Senate continued to frustrate him? Because he hasn't shown any interest in compromise.
This is a guy who can't even get his judicial appointments approved. A large part of the blame rests with Bush himself-- if he wasn't constantly picking such obvious right-wing toadies, the Senate would probably be far more amenable to compromise.
At this point the issue of fault is largely irrelevant. Many liberals hate Bush. They refuse to acknowledge that his motives are ever positive, they refuse to admit that some of his policies could be beneficial, and they refuse to hold a serious academic discussion regarding policy, instead blindly attacking and insulting the administration and their ideological allies.
Many conservatives (or neocons
) take the exact opposite perspective, refusing to admit that Bush's motives could ever be questionable, refusing to admit that liberals often make cogent points, and falling completely for administration propoganda. As far as I see, these folks are as bad or worse than the liberals when it comes to willingness to hold serious political conversations.
Both sides have altered the tack slightly with the election coming up, with the liberals blindly shouting "anyone but Bush!" and the conservatives claiming "I don't like Bush, but he's better than Kerry." The negativity has become such an integral part of the political dynamic that it's now the primary factor motivating ideology.
The current uproar regarding Ralph Nader is an example. I'm utterly flabbergasted that many Democrats don't understand Ralph Nader's candidacy. I'm also very disappointed that the party is mounting legal challenges to his candidacy. Why would anyone be surprised that some liberals support Nader over Kerry? Maybe some liberals would like to vote for a legitimate anti-war candidate? Couldn't John Kerry make it a moot point by being desirable to those who will vote for Nader?
I personally am a registered independent. When I signed up that way, it was more for show than anything, and I was certainly allied with the Democratic party. The past few years have done nothing but destroy that connection. I'm very glad I registered independent, because I have nothing but disdain for the machinery of both parties. For both parties, it seems that "helping the country" is of secondary concern, behind "maintaining and gaining power." It's a fucking disgrace.
Personally, I support American military intervention when necessary, unilateral or not. I support a strong and active military, and I support the vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror. I do not support the Iraq war, nor have I ever. I conceptually support small government and deficit/debt reduction. I'm a big fan of free trade.
I also support gay marriage and abortion rights. I'm in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana
(why don't we have a "smoking weed" smiley?). I feel that separation of church and state should be vigorously pursued and that privacy rights should be upheld to the greatest possible extent.
It's unfortunate that our political system cannot produce any candidate who supports my views. One of the parties agrees with half of them, the other party agrees with the other half. Their monopoly on power and ideology prevents any alternative viewpoints from being raised, and their insistence upon negativity and partisanship prevents informed debate from altering the positions of either.
I recently decided that, from now on, I will strive to respect George Bush. I disagree with most of his policy, but I recognize that he does have positive qualities as well. I also feel that progress is far more likely to come from reasoned debate than from rabid criticism. I know that my civility will have absolutely no effect on the partisanship of the country, but at least I'm doing what I can.
I prefer Kerry to Bush in this election. I think that many criticisms of Kerry-- the flip-flopping, the accusations of excessive liberality, and the criticisms of his Vietnam service most prominent-- are total bullshit. I'm surprised that any thinking person buys into them. However, I'm not convinced that Kerry will fight strongly for privacy rights or the legalization of marijuana. I don't know if he has the option to deviate from Bush policy in Iraq. I'm concerned that his election would only increase the partisan bickering on both sides, and result in another 4 years of gridlock. I'm concerned that this will be the result no matter who wins.
I vote in a swing state (Pennsylvania). There's still a good chance that I'll vote for Kerry. But I'm strongly considering a third-party vote as my own small way of protesting the system that has brought us Bush, Kerry, and the political clusterfuck that goes along with it. I'm disappointed in American democracy.
I voted yes to the poll.[/i]
Now admittedly I'm not very old, but I've never seen worse partisanship than that which is displayed by both parties right now. The problem extends through all elected branches of government down through the citizens of the country. Why does Bush have such a slim list of accomplishments? Largely because he can only do things that don't require congressional approval, as the Senate has frustrated him pretty constantly. Why has the Senate continued to frustrate him? Because he hasn't shown any interest in compromise.
This is a guy who can't even get his judicial appointments approved. A large part of the blame rests with Bush himself-- if he wasn't constantly picking such obvious right-wing toadies, the Senate would probably be far more amenable to compromise.
At this point the issue of fault is largely irrelevant. Many liberals hate Bush. They refuse to acknowledge that his motives are ever positive, they refuse to admit that some of his policies could be beneficial, and they refuse to hold a serious academic discussion regarding policy, instead blindly attacking and insulting the administration and their ideological allies.
Many conservatives (or neocons
) take the exact opposite perspective, refusing to admit that Bush's motives could ever be questionable, refusing to admit that liberals often make cogent points, and falling completely for administration propoganda. As far as I see, these folks are as bad or worse than the liberals when it comes to willingness to hold serious political conversations.Both sides have altered the tack slightly with the election coming up, with the liberals blindly shouting "anyone but Bush!" and the conservatives claiming "I don't like Bush, but he's better than Kerry." The negativity has become such an integral part of the political dynamic that it's now the primary factor motivating ideology.
The current uproar regarding Ralph Nader is an example. I'm utterly flabbergasted that many Democrats don't understand Ralph Nader's candidacy. I'm also very disappointed that the party is mounting legal challenges to his candidacy. Why would anyone be surprised that some liberals support Nader over Kerry? Maybe some liberals would like to vote for a legitimate anti-war candidate? Couldn't John Kerry make it a moot point by being desirable to those who will vote for Nader?
I personally am a registered independent. When I signed up that way, it was more for show than anything, and I was certainly allied with the Democratic party. The past few years have done nothing but destroy that connection. I'm very glad I registered independent, because I have nothing but disdain for the machinery of both parties. For both parties, it seems that "helping the country" is of secondary concern, behind "maintaining and gaining power." It's a fucking disgrace.
Personally, I support American military intervention when necessary, unilateral or not. I support a strong and active military, and I support the vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror. I do not support the Iraq war, nor have I ever. I conceptually support small government and deficit/debt reduction. I'm a big fan of free trade.
I also support gay marriage and abortion rights. I'm in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana
(why don't we have a "smoking weed" smiley?). I feel that separation of church and state should be vigorously pursued and that privacy rights should be upheld to the greatest possible extent.It's unfortunate that our political system cannot produce any candidate who supports my views. One of the parties agrees with half of them, the other party agrees with the other half. Their monopoly on power and ideology prevents any alternative viewpoints from being raised, and their insistence upon negativity and partisanship prevents informed debate from altering the positions of either.
I recently decided that, from now on, I will strive to respect George Bush. I disagree with most of his policy, but I recognize that he does have positive qualities as well. I also feel that progress is far more likely to come from reasoned debate than from rabid criticism. I know that my civility will have absolutely no effect on the partisanship of the country, but at least I'm doing what I can.
I prefer Kerry to Bush in this election. I think that many criticisms of Kerry-- the flip-flopping, the accusations of excessive liberality, and the criticisms of his Vietnam service most prominent-- are total bullshit. I'm surprised that any thinking person buys into them. However, I'm not convinced that Kerry will fight strongly for privacy rights or the legalization of marijuana. I don't know if he has the option to deviate from Bush policy in Iraq. I'm concerned that his election would only increase the partisan bickering on both sides, and result in another 4 years of gridlock. I'm concerned that this will be the result no matter who wins.
I vote in a swing state (Pennsylvania). There's still a good chance that I'll vote for Kerry. But I'm strongly considering a third-party vote as my own small way of protesting the system that has brought us Bush, Kerry, and the political clusterfuck that goes along with it. I'm disappointed in American democracy.
I voted yes to the poll.[/i]
-
Jice Virago
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
- Gender: Male
- PSN ID: quyrean
- Location: Orange County
I am looking forward to the end of the election cycle for the sake of our troops. Either way, the end of the election cycle is good for them:
If Bush wins: He won't have to leave them in harms way claiming all is well anymore to keep his poll numbers up. This will hopefully mean he finally listens to the brass and re-invades Iraq and stops parading his hand picked Iraqi government around like a victory trophy, further aggravating the situation.
If Kerry wins: We will have a real shot at getting some international credibility back and getting the UN involved, allowing us to scale back our level of military and financial commitment in the area. Also some of this Halliburton fleecing might finally be restrained.
All other issues aside, the end of the elections is going to help the troops out. Too bad they are being used in this way.
If Bush wins: He won't have to leave them in harms way claiming all is well anymore to keep his poll numbers up. This will hopefully mean he finally listens to the brass and re-invades Iraq and stops parading his hand picked Iraqi government around like a victory trophy, further aggravating the situation.
If Kerry wins: We will have a real shot at getting some international credibility back and getting the UN involved, allowing us to scale back our level of military and financial commitment in the area. Also some of this Halliburton fleecing might finally be restrained.
All other issues aside, the end of the elections is going to help the troops out. Too bad they are being used in this way.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight Eisenhower
