Kerry's victory will be disaster for the USA

It's better to bleed now than to bleed 10 times more later.

Consider this:

1) Kerry simply has no original ideas to turn USA decline around. He's just Bush light, more exactly, he's Bush's team light. I doubt GW has a clue. JFK is a typical bleeding heart without clue/personal experience. Education/foreign gun meat my ass, you clueless prick. I will keep silent about smiling doll - Edwards.

2) I doubt Kerry will solve Iraqi confict (Afghanistan is simply 100 years long project). There is no way Kerry will be impartial in the Israel - Arab conflict: i.e. no solution there too. Arab dissatisfaction will keep on growing. 100,000 more Iraqi dead during Kerry's presidency will not improve Iraqi/Arab/World sentiments. Body bags will keep on coming, troops morale will drop even further (military kind of folks need tough meaningless talk (even it's complete BS) to feel good and have purpose. Kerry is less tough talker than GW, even though he's more manly voice). Simple, pulling out of Iraq is highly unlikely. Plus, it will be even greater humanitarian disaster (i.e. big time civil war + splitting Iraq) than American occupation. Kerry is definitely not the guy to fight military-industrial complex=insane military expences. I doubt Kerry will stop building a police state. Homeland security crap, chips in the shoulder, big daddy government controlling every your stetp will not be stopped.

Kerry may keep himself from starting another war (may, or may not). IF OBL will blow up something in the USA, I am not sure if Kerry will not respond in the cheapest way=bombing some helpless Arab country again. It's not 100% certain that GW will start another war. So, Kerry does not really offer an alternative even here.

3) Economy. Disaster is looming. Kerry is the same corporation whore as GW. He has neither clue nor the will to change status quo. Economics shit will really hit the fan in the next 4 years. Joblessness, inflation, stagnant incomes, shit jobs, outsourcing, medical care, looming dollar disaster. Nothing will be improved during Kerry's presidency. Keep in mind, each month 150,000 - 200,000 "new" jobless folks "flow" in the American economy. Official statistics manages not to notice those folks; but critical mass will be reached soon.

In two words, during Kerry's presidency things will get worse or real shit will hit the fan. The right wing spin machine will certainly blame liberals for disaster. The American sheep will certainly buy the bull and will tilt to the right even more. The danger of the American fascism will become even more real. Not that I am a liberal, but I hate passionately anti-humanist, anti-freedom (not just freedom to consume), golden calf worshipping, selfish nature of the fundamentalist right. Unfortunately, Kerry's victory will tilt the American society to the right even more. That is why I think Kerry MUST lose. Hopefully, GW will win. Bush Cheiney 2004 or long term disaster. you chose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kerry is not a change, Kerry is just a status quo guy=things will not change to the better (in the best case).

things will remain the same=next election, right wingers will blame the left for the Bush disaster=average voters will vote in another right wing guy=things will get even worse (compared to Kerry's presidency)=voters will elect status quo guy=no change/dissatisfaction=right winger in the office again=race to the corporate fascist state is over, everybody is goosestepping and hunting "commies" who were about to destroy the freest country in the world.

USA does not need a status quo guy seeing no problems with corporate capitalism, militarism and whoring for zionism, it's a way nowhere. Good shake up (like 2-3 GOP terms in row) may wake sheep up to ther realities of the right wing paradise. The third force may get a chance to enter elitist plutocratic power olympus. Only then, positive changes are possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"a status quo guy seeing no problems with corporate capitalism, militarism and whoring for zionism"

Isn't that Bush?

 

This is just the latest in Republicans' effort to desperately establish a case for George W. Bush's election. They are now pretending Bush is the best we can do. After all, Kerry, as the argument has it, would just be another Bush.

Which creates the odd paradox wherein Republicans, who look to tear down John Kerry, must compare their own candidate to the object of their scorn in order to augment the perceived quality of said GOP candidate. On the one hand, Kerry is horrible; on the other hand, saying Kerry is another Bush is somehow supposed to augment Bush's case. So we're left with the horrible being just another Bush, which is the best we can do ....

It really does seem that Republicans hate America. Is George W. Bush, with his remarkable excesses and questionable policies, whose opponent--a horrible candidate--is just another Bush, really the best we can do?

Republicans seem to be in denial about the extraordinary botching of Bush's presidency. So in the end, the best America has is ... this? I mean, I have a societal bitch-list that runs longer than most people's tolerance will permit, but even I won't go so far as to say that Bush or Kerry is the best the American ideal can produce.

People say Kerry is just a "status quo" guy? Well ... the "status quo" coming into the Bush term was a hell of a lot better than it was. Bush's status quo is subpar. So have hope. Even if Kerry's a status quo guy, that's still a far sight better than we've got now.

Funny thing is that Americans teach their children against this kind of behavior. A lack of self-esteem should not be taken out on others.

 

just boot them both and give nader presidency

 

Well, I am a lousy writer. Seems nobody understand me (or nobody reads more than a few badly composed sentences of mine).

I do not deny that GW has screw things up. Too bad JFK is just way too clueless how to change things for better and clean the mess. If JFK will win, he'll change/repair close to nothing. As a result, dems will be blamed for all GW's failures.

GW created hard to clean mess. Let him to enjoy fruits of his labors. JFK simply will not be able to clean it, he's not that kind of a guy. He's no idea what problems are, he's no clue what to do. Right wingers will simply put all dead dogs on JFK. As a result, GOPers will usurp power in this country for many years ahead after JFK. Hope you'll enjoy.

Nope, GW is not status quo guy. He's working to shift wealth/power balance to the top 1%, create police state and "spread" democracy. JFK is OK with things as they were during Clinton's bubble economy years. Too bad, there are no simple shortcuts to those years. They JFK will be stuck in the realities created by GW's team policies because it'll be hard not to stuck there (especially for JFK).

 

BTW, Clinton's years have seen a lot of the shift wealth/power balance to the top 1%, creation of police state and "spreading" democracy..... Means were more gentle; but that did not fool anybody in the world (except Americans of course).Thus, even Clinton type status quo guy is not much better than GW. Chosing agony vs. faster death? I'll chose faster bust&rebirth. That's why GW MUST win.

 

Dixon in regards to # 1 and #3 of your origninal post. It isn't relelvant of Kerry has an original idea or not. He ain't gonna be in the executive office by himself. Anyone holding that position has a huge thinktank in their with him with more than enough resources to make quality decisions. When you look at a canditate it is more adriot as a voter to look at their character value and morals because that will influence executive decisions more. What he knows depends on who he puts by his side and his alliances (as with any president) but as far as original thought, even if they don't have one it doesn't matter given the structure of the position and the immediate resouces immediate to them.

 

Not quite the same in terms of international relation.
If Kerry become president, there is a way better chance to improve US-Europe relationship. Few leaders in the world trust Bush anymore, with the exception of Blair (whom himself is in danger of being kicked out of office.). Forget Poland, they are going to pull out of Iraq in 2005 too.
If Bush remains, "Old Europe" would just say once again "F-- off, clean up your own mess."

 

1) If Bush light is the best we can get near "no Bush", then hell, I'd vote for it anyday.

2) Kerry will be better than Bush in the sense of the Middle East. The reason why I know this is look at his plans, of negotiation, and Project for New American Century plan's, of occupation.

3) The President has little impact on the economy. The USA won't fall because of a tax cut or a tax increase. Again, the thinktanks will decide it for him, and record says Democrats are a lot better with economy in general than Republicans.

Resuming, I really don't care. You're right, there isn't much difference between their policies. Bush or Kerry are Israel-biased, won't solve Iraq, will probably lose a lot over the economy and probably take 1 or 2 terrorist attacks. The thing is, Kerry isn't Bush. Bush is marked internationally for the last 4 years of BS he's fed to the World. There isn't a single nation in the World, with the exception of Israel, where he has major popular support. And don't come with the "they are the ones being attacked" BS, New York and LA, the two greatest terrorist targets in the US, are majorly pro-Democrat. How do you explain that ?

 

I used to be on the "Bush-lite" bandwagon until I actually became educated on the issues. Yea, Kerry may not be the greatest candidate to ever grace our ballots, but he does show promise as a president. He understands that this country is going in the wrong direction. He understands why we should not use our troops for policing actions. He understands that corporations don't need handouts - the middle class comes first. Maybe he hasn't taken a stand on several issues, including mine - ending the drug war - but we have to remember that the man is trying to get elected.

And most importantly of all - Kerry is respected in the world community. He actually speaks more than one language (Bush can't even sputter out his own). He's well traveled (Bush has taken "dozens of trips to Mexico and Canada"). He's educated (do I need to even go there?) And most of all, it's a change. (With Bush, we are going to see more of the same - more war we can't afford, more tax cuts for the rich while sliding farther into debt, and worst of all, more stripping of our civil rights along with mandates from God)

Vote Kerry '04. If he fucks up in the next four years, we'll just kick his ass out.

 

Well so you guy electing muppet of oil crooks again in hopes things go much worse ,country goes to shitter and you can have "fresh ,clean ,start"?

 

DarkMadMax, I've tried to understand your post repeateadly but I just... can't...

 

The word 'Bush' is abbreviated latin for 'Bull Shit' or 'Bu-sh'.......

Atta Boy

 

Dixonmassey, I believe you are saying that things need to get so bad that we have revolution or civil war in the U.S., and thereby fundamentally change the system. And that electing G.W. would hasten said war, where electing Kerry would only postpone it, and therefore prolong the agony.

I disagree with this because I don't feel that a revolution or civil war is unavoidable, and I certainly don't feel that it would be desireable.

The German terrorist organization known as the Baader Meinhoff gang engaged in bombings, kidnappings, and assasinations in the 1970's. Their stated purpose was to goad the West German government into a reactionary clampdown on civil liberties, thereby causing an uprising that would lead to its being overthrown. But all they succeeded in doing was harming the innocent.

Kerry is Anybody But Bush, and that is enough. For patriots who love small-d democracy, party affiliation has nothing to do with it. Had Al Gore become president using the same methods as Bush, I would vote for his Republican opponent.

Why not Nader? A democratic restoration requires defeating Bush; a protest vote doesn't help accomplish that. What about the progressive issues he espouses? First things first.

Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary Northern Alliance military commander who was assassinated two days before 9/11, helped unite Afghanistan's fractious tribes against the 1980s Soviet occupation. Upon gathering warlords from disparate ethnic groups, the story goes, Massoud toasted them with a glass of tea. "First, we kill the Russians," he was quoted. "Then we kill each other." Unless we get rid of Bush, there's a substantial chance that we'll be at war with Iran by the end of next year, running up more ridiculous tax cuts and bring back the draft. (Bush denies the draft rumors, but he's a serial liar. And he's already way short of soldiers.) Kerry may not make things better--he'll probably face a Republican Congress, after all--but he won't make things much worse. If Kerry disappoints liberal Democrats, they can oust him in the 2008 primaries.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

 

dixonmassey, I think your analyses is correct.

Kerry was following his dad down the path towards being conventional CFR global manipulating foreign policy player except that Kerry was more ambitious and wanted to be a bigger player than his father was which meant going into politics rather than foreign service. At Yale Kerry (and Lieberman) was part of a campus club for students who thought that the Vietnam War was good and the early 1960s Yale war protesters were bad and needed to be counterbalanced. Then along came Kerry's month in the Vietnam war which completely rocked his world.

The best John Kerry was the John Kerry that came back from Vietnam. A very year that has gone by since has seen Kerry take another step back into the straightjacket of conventionality that was his nature before Vietnam. This straightjacket of conventionality stops Kerry from using his good intelligence and courage to serve America.

Unlike Bush, Kerry knows that outsourcing is not playing out the way the Wall Street Journal said it would and Kerry knows that something is going wrong with our economy. Kerry is just unwilling to admit to himself what he already knows, which is that the conventional wisdom on globalization's impact on America's economy is as wrong as the conventional wisdom on the Vietnam War was in 1966.


BUT IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER whether Kerry beats Bush. Our trade deficit, debt, dollar, social security mess has already been created. Even a great president can't stop the mess we already are in from playing itself out. The party of whoever is president when the next great depression roles in may be punished by the voters for decades. But the coming depression may happen in 2025 rather than 2007. The timing will probably be determined by when the foreigners decide to stop buying our bonds.

Catherine Austin Fitts is a good source on the looting of US Taxpayer funds. Would Bush's cronies rather see democracy suppressed than see their friends go to prison? Would Kerry choose not to have investigations rather than create more disunity and animosity between the various factions in America?

Allowing Bush to remain in office would help his faction to prepare for how they will subvert our democracy so as not to face democracy's wrath when the American cookie crumbles. If you really are sure that America will collapse during the next four years then we don't want Kerry in office because we want Americans to blame the Republican party because the Republicans are more likely to channel Americans frustrations against scapegoats while they subvert Democracy and protect criminals.

 

It's not that sky will fall during the JFK presidency. Things just will not change much neither economically nor foreign policy wise (at best). This will give an excellent attack point for GOP.

Attack line will look something like this: our glorious president GW envisioned the great pass to the American glory, security and prosperity. He's started hard walk. First results have appeared. He needed just 4 years more to clean the mess. BUT, evil DEMs, pinko liberal commies came to power and screw the great design of the greatest president ever."

I have no doubt that right wing spin machine will succeed in the tilting voting sheep's mindset to the right even more=8-16 years of GOP rule. Thus, when real shit will hit the fan, USA will use fascist means to deal with crisis. We all are going to goosestep.

 

Fighting spin requires good media. If the media does not improve I may have to learn how to goosestep.

We have three Kinds of media in this nation, Republicrat media, Republi-Loud media, and Fringe media.

Fringe media, bloggers, small time rags, pirate radio and whatever, comes in Left, Right, nonpolitical Christian, Sciforums.com, and other flavors (biases) . The problem with Fringe media is that it is fringe; most Americans do not expose themselves to fringe media. Fringe media is poorly funded and does not know how to or does not want to become well funded. Becoming well funded requires large audiences and corporate or government sponsorship. This means that a fringe media source must sell it's soul to the political and or corporate and inane mass culture devils in order to become well funded at which point they will no longer be Fringe media.



The RepubliLoud media believes or pretends to believe that the Republicrat media has a Liberal Bias. The Republicrat media is the corporate whore media and largely reflects the views of Wall Street, the US government, Academia and Hollywood. The Christian Right and the KKK and the left and small business and workers can all legitimately say that the mainstream/Republicrat media is biased against them. The Republicrat is so obsessed with not being accused of bias that for the most part they don't say anything at all but just make meaningless noise. The Republicrat media sits back and lets Republican and Democrat spinners lie about each other in the name off balance. By blocking out all non Republican/Democratic sources the Republicrat media has a strong bias against thought and against solutions.



The RepubliLoud media is Fox, Washington Times, Heritage foundation, Limbaugh and assorted clones and the Fat Cat wing of the pseudo Christian Right. Today's Republi-Loud media serves and lies for the people who bought into the lies of yesterday's Republi-Loud media. The Republi-Loud media also serves the reckless special interests elites that are frustrated by the cautious special interest elites fear of provoking the American people. The Reckless wing of the Republican party made a decision back in Nixon's day to seduce and use the American traditionalists, the Christian Right, fearful racists, and angry taxpayers in order to negate the fact that the majority of the American peoples economic interests are at odds with the short term interests of most large corporations. The Republican party delivers little or nothing to the people that the Republi-Loud media has seduced, but the Republican Party has delivered a lot to it's corporate backers.

How do the American people get a big media that will be loyal to them rather than to special interests? I don't want to goosestep and I don't want to see goosestepping.

 

Delet this.
Accidental post!