Bush or Kerry: What difference will it make ...

[WhiteCrowUK]

I'm just a British boy - and thus a little naive on U.S. politics.

I'm interested to know what difference you think there would be between whether Bush gets a second term or Kerry gets in? I've heard a lot about them as people, but do they have different policies?

[blueeyes]

If you ask Nader, you'd hear that both are almost the same, except in how they look. "Demon you know and the demon you don't
If you ask a Republican, you'd hear that Kerry would further ruin the economy, weaken our overseas appearance, and have people marrying animals within months.
If you ask a Democrat, they'd say Bush would cause the world to spiral into a second Depression, ruin the enviroment, and make any non-christians into non-citizens.
Of course, neither are right, or at least provable, but that all works out. The two men are wishy-washy as can be, so the few differences in policy aren't too trustable. I don't see too much of a difference in actions; so yes, this is a matter of who you like more.

[WhiteCrowUK]

The two men are wishy-washy as can be, so the few differences in policy aren't too trustable. I don't see too much of a difference in actions; so yes, this is a matter of who you like more.

And this will go on until October? I'm bored of this already ...

Heck they're planning to have "free and fair" elections in Iraq in less time than that!

[MexicanJewLizard]

And this will go on until October?

November 22nd I believe.

[Wolffy13]

The trick is to figure out the lesser of two evils, which seems to usually be the case. Kind of makes me wish we would have a lady president, but then we might be at war 48 times a term. Funny thing is, I prefer this government over anything else :shrug:

[Ves]

I dunno about the differences but as was posted on the BBC website yesterday, it will be fairly important to Tony Blair who has maintained strong links with Bush since T.W.A.T. started. It's been fairly expected that as a Labour Party leader, he would offer congratulations and quietly offer help to Kerry on account of him being a "left-of-center" politician, which the Labour Party is supposed to be (though we're not seeing that these days). In actual fact he's done the exact opposite and has all but thrown his backing behind Bush. It would appear that Clinton isn't pulling his strings any more (which he used to - Bill Clinton is a regular visitor at No. 10 and also at Chequers, the Clintons and the Blairs are often seen having dinner in London). Clinton 'suggested' that Blair make an ally of Bush, he obviously hasn't said anything similar about Kerry.

Of course this may well be academic after we hold our own General Elections which are due next year as I recall. Blair is about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit, so unless something spectacular happens he's likely out. But that raises a question: do we, and indeed the world around us, want a Britain led by a slimy bloke who's being obviously manipulated by American presidents and ex-presidents, or do we instead want Michael Howard, who is a knob-head of the highest order! I remember when Mr. Howard was the Secretary for Health, and look at the state of the Health Service, even before Labour got their paws on it.
I used to vote Conservative, but I refuse to have any part in putting that idiot in charge of my country. If you ask me it's a shame the Liberal Democrats don't have a snowballs chance of winning, because they'd probably make a bloody good job of it for their first term (then they'd rest on their laurels like all the other parties).
Maybe I should stand myself, it only costs a £500 deposit as I recall.

Would be interesting to see what happens if Kerry (left-of-center politics) wins America, and Howard (right-of-center) wins Britain. That would throw an interesting mix into the pot.

Sorry to bore people with British politics, it sort of stuck to topic... a bit :confused:

[WhiteCrowUK]

The trick is to figure out the lesser of two evils :shrug:

Thats true - using your vote these days seems not so much who you want to get in, as who you dont want ...

I will give this for American goverment though - the 2 terms thing is a good one - I think our Blair plans to rule indefinitely! Heck he'll probably find he can change the constitution to get himself made King Elect or something next term.

[Ves]

I think our Blair plans to rule indefinitely! Heck he'll probably find he can change the constitution to get himself made King Elect or something next term.
If he had the choice, I'm sure he would love to be Prime Minister indefinately. Sadly that's not his decision to make, it's for the people of Britain, the Labour Party, and the Queen to decide, all of whom can get rid of him if they so decide.
To remain in power, Blair has to first stay in charge of Labour, and as his popularity decreases that's looking less and less likely. So then we get Gordon Brown in charge (oh joy!).
If he gets through that, he has to survive the general election next year, which is looking less likely with every firefight our lads in Iraq get into.
After that he has to ask the Queen for permission to form a government, something which is usually a formality, but she can say no (which I think would be bloody hilarious and if I were King, I'd say no for a laugh).
If he attempted to make himself King Elect, there would be a civil war, and he'd lose.

[Thought]

Speaking as a Canadian, i just want to see Bush out of office. Canadian/American relations are as low as they've been in more than a decade, and Bush really doesn't seem to care.

Mind you, since both Bush and Kerry are both Bonesmen, it probably won't change much, same people pulling the strings.


p.s.: Bonesmen refers to Skull and Bones, a Yale based secret society that both Bush and Kerry belong too (along with a number of other politicians and high ranking military officers). Joy, huh?

[WhiteCrowUK]

Canadian/American relations are as low as they've been in more than a decade, and Bush really doesn't seem to care.


Do you need a visa and a strip search before they let you over the border yet??? ;)

[Darth Cluich]

November 22nd I believe.

Election Day here in the US is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, so this year it falls on 2 November. Just wanted to clear that up.

[WhiteCrowUK]

Election Day here in the US is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, so this year it falls on 2 November. Just wanted to clear that up.

With so much publicising to go, its suprising anyone can be bothered to vote at the end of it - I mean come on, its almost 20% of the Presidents term is taken with campaigning for his second term!!!

[Darth Cluich]

With so much publicising to go, its suprising anyone can be bothered to vote at the end of it - I mean come on, its almost 20% of the Presidents term is taken with campaigning for his second term!!!

It could be argued that, under the UK system, the PM is constantly campaigning, though, since an election can be called at any time.

[WhiteCrowUK]

It could be argued that, under the UK system, the PM is constantly campaigning, though, since an election can be called at any time.

Certainly with our current one he is!

Yes, and John Major spun his last stint out for 5 years waiting for his popularity to be at the max ... didnt help much!

[Darth Cluich]

Certainly with our current one he is!

Yes, and John Major spun his last stint out for 5 years waiting for his popularity to be at the max ... didnt help much!

Hell, even Maggie wore out her welcome eventually. ;)

[WhiteCrowUK]

If Bush was to lose his presidency, what would his term be remembered for ... all I can think of is,
heightened international tensions (hey remember when China were the bad guys in early 2001), heck the French dont seem too happy of late
tragedy of September 11th
going back on several international treaties
a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq

Now I am not fan of Bush - but surely there are some positive things he's done? Please enlighten me ...

[blueeyes]

Uniting the American people, initiating the war against terror, spreading democracy (other than the places where we didn't like the results), fighting a few pointless or crippled internation treaties... and possibly for landing Martha Stewart in jail. Nothing that's really his doing or an exact value, so it's all spin.
Most presidents that are remembered are done so for their conflicts, so starting two wars (three, if you count 'on terror') would probably go down in the history books. Maybe the Patriot act, if enough people fight it, or gay marraige.

Just a fun fact for the day: Kerry was MA senator for 5 years. That gives him the exact same amount of experience as Bush, who was a Governor of Texas for five years. Just one of many similarities.

[Thought]

Do you need a visa and a strip search before they let you over the border yet??? ;)

Not yet, as far as I know, but I'm sure they'll be starting that any month now. 2 years on the outside ;)

[AlphaMale]

I would prefer to see someone other than Bush, like a Libertarian. But if my choice is between Bush and Kerry, I'm going with Bush. Kerry wants to handle the problem of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, and it's just to vast for that. Plus I have a problem with someone who votes for something, then criticizes the very thing he voted for (namely the Iraqi War).

[Darth Cluich]

I would prefer to see someone other than Bush, like a Libertarian. But if my choice is between Bush and Kerry, I'm going with Bush. Kerry wants to handle the problem of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, and it's just to vast for that. Plus I have a problem with someone who votes for something, then criticizes the very thing he voted for (namely the Iraqi War).

While I agree with your points against Kerry, if you want someone who's libertarian at all, Bush certainly isn't the answer. Two words: PATRIOT Act. There's a thread on that, too: CLICK HERE. (http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=382 2)

[WhiteCrowUK]

I would prefer to see someone other than Bush, like a Libertarian.

Can you tell me what a Libertarian is? Is it something like believes people should be free to do whatever they want to?

[Darth Cluich]

Can you tell me what a Libertarian is? Is it something like believes people should be free to do whatever they want to?

No, it's not that simple. In the simplest of terms, you should be free to do whatever you want to -- so long as it doesn't trample on anyone else. Chriz already posted a link to this site, but it's a very good explanation: "Libertarianism for Dummies." (http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/liberty_intro.swf)

[WhiteCrowUK]

Thanks for that - its interesting (although I have to say I dont agree with all of it).

Perhaps its because my companies head honcho go fired a while ago, having lied and been fraudulent, he got the company in a right mess. Did he go to jail? Nope, he got a $50 million pay out instead.

No doubt he sees that money as his "justly aquired" property. We would just like to see it returned and him brought to book over it. From the web site it sounds like our thirst for justice is wrong (or maybe I'm mistaked).

[AlphaMale]

While I agree with your points against Kerry, if you want someone who's libertarian at all, Bush certainly isn't the answer. Two words: PATRIOT Act.

You mean the Bill of Rights Subversion Act (that's what I call it)? Are there any Libertarians running against Bush? I'm not sure. If not, then Bush is closer than Kerry.

Can you tell me what a Libertarian is? Is it something like believes people should be free to do whatever they want to?

...as long as you do not use force nor fraud to deprive another of his/her life, liberty, or property.

[Darth Cluich]

You mean the Bill of Rights Subversion Act (that's what I call it)? Are there any Libertarians running against Bush? I'm not sure. If not, then Bush is closer than Kerry.

Um...no. Bush is for extending the PATRIOT Act, as well as adding to it. Read the PATRIOT Act thread.

As for whether the Libertarian party's running a candidate, I have to admit I'm not sure. I'd bet they are, but he'll most likely be a joke, just like every other candidate they've run that I'm aware of.

[AlphaMale]

Um...no. Bush is for extending the PATRIOT Act, as well as adding to it. Read the PATRIOT Act thread.

Point taken Cluich. The PAT Act is one issue I have against Bush (among others); but between the two, Bush is the best candidate to wage the war on terror.

[Darth Cluich]

Um...no. Bush is for extending the PATRIOT Act, as well as adding to it. Read the PATRIOT Act thread.

Point taken Cluich. The PAT Act is one issue I have against Bush (among others); but between the two, Bush is the best candidate to wage the war on terror.

But at the cost of individual liberties here at home? Not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather let terrorists have a big freakin' jihad-apalooza that sets half the world ablaze before trampling the liberties and freedoms that make this country great. Screw the PATRIOT Act. Screw PATRIOT II. And screw Bush for supporting them.

But then, screw Kerry, too.

[AlphaMale]

But at the cost of individual liberties here at home? Not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather let terrorists have a big freakin' jihad-apalooza that sets half the world ablaze before trampling the liberties and freedoms that make this country great. Screw the PATRIOT Act. Screw PATRIOT II. And screw Bush for supporting them.

Can't really argue too much against that as I agree, but I was more specifically refering to the necessary military actions we've taken to destroy terrorists. I don't think Kerry would puruse that. Do you think that eventually, when a case involving the PAT Act goes before the Supreme Court, that they'll find it unconstitutional? That's sort of what I'm betting on.

[kat]

And how about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" garbage? It's doing a number on our country's schools (http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1214/article11955.asp). It's like a bastardized form of Affirmative Action.

[Darth Cluich]

Do you think that eventually, when a case involving the PAT Act goes before the Supreme Court, that they'll find it unconstitutional? That's sort of what I'm betting on.

Tough to say really, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say yes, they would find much of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. Even Justice Scalia has recently stepped back and said, "Whoa, that's intrusive." The recent example of this that springs to mind is Kyllo v. United States (2001), in which Scalia said it violated the Fourth Amendment to use thermal-imaging devices that can penetrate walls to determine if someone inside is growing marijuana. This was big, because it addressed a technology that has only recently come into use for law enforcement. I think a lot of this stuff, though, has already been covered by the court, too -- for instance, wiretapping in Katz v. United States (1967). In cases addressing technologies and/or situations already examined by the Court, like Katz, I'd wager the Court would defer to precedent.

[Darth Cluich]

And how about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" garbage? It's doing a number on our country's schools (http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1214/article11955.asp). It's like a bastardized form of Affirmative Action.

Absolutely right, although I'm not sure Kerry would be any great improvement in terms of education.

[hellthor]

I'm just a British boy - and thus a little naive on U.S. politics.

I'm interested to know what difference you think there would be between whether Bush gets a second term or Kerry gets in? I've heard a lot about them as people, but do they have different policies?



To me i dont care im Australian but even then i think all Politician are the same they taxing everybody and not enough work

[Darth Cluich]

To me i dont care im Australian but even then i think all Politician are the same they taxing everybody and not enough work

And the award for the least literate post goes to...
hellthor!

Serously, man...who do you think you are -- a cross between Faulkner and ee cummings? Use periods every now and then, and capitalize words that need it.

[Sorrowsong]

And how about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" garbage? It's doing a number on our country's schools (http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1214/article11955.asp). It's like a bastardized form of Affirmative Action.

Yea, heard all about that from my mom, who's a teacher. Education was better off with out Bush infringing on all of it. I'm tired of him, and I have a feeling that Kerry will be just as much of an idiot as Bush is. Sigh, I think I'll move to canada.