BS: neither candidate is an asshole

Subject: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:26 AM

I am just going to offer my opinion here, because I would think that you would be interested in how the majority of Americans feel. I may be wrong about this, but it is my perception, right or wrong.

Neither candidate is an asshole. Both of these men have spent a great deal of their lives in public service, and I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have motivations of being the best leader of the nation they can be. They are not perfect, for sure, but they are doing the best they can to be statesmen. I am thinking back over the presidents since I can remember, and by and large, these men have stepped forward to serve their country to the best of their abilities. I sure wouldn't want the job. It is hard. They must realize that every thing they day or do or not say or not do for the term of their office is going to be second guessed for their term and by the historians forever. It is a very daunting task.

I feel that one of the candidates will better lead according to my philosophy, but either one of them is going to be my president and I will basically treat him and the office with the respect I was taught as a young child at home and in school.

One of my interests as you probably know, is travelling to other nations. I absolutely love seeing the other cultures and differences in the various nations I have visited. Some places are more inviting to me than others, but I have not visited anywhere that I haven't enjoyed the people. One cannot help, however, to compare his way of life with others. I feel fairly strongly that the United States of America, flaws and all, is the best place for me to live. I would hope that if I were in Italy, France, Denmark or the UK I would feel likewise about my home.

I am not trying to be argumentative with this thread, but merely want you to know that there are a lot of people out there in the US who feel differently than the general sentament seen here. As I do not think any of you are stupid for your belief system, I would hope that you would listen to what I have said as objectively as you can also.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amergin
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:28 AM

Bush is a scumbag. He is not worthy of the name asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:33 AM

wow, how terribly insightful.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:35 AM

Well said jimmyt! But you are wasting your time because EVERYONE here, knows everything about everything, and is therefore FAR wiser than anyone in authority!!!
               
                   flamenco, the true path
                        el ted
                      Sunny Beverley
                        England

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:42 AM

I am sure you are right and that a lot of people will support whoever is the President after the next election simply because he is the President. I am sure that a lot of Democrats did exactly that after the 2000 election at least up to 9/11 and some months beyond, although obviously there were also a lot who didn't.

But there is a problem, isn't there? My President, right or wrong? Or, since I'm in the UK, my Prime Minister, right or wrong? I can't go along with that one, I'm afraid. I don't think there is anything to be gained by simple abuse, but where a leadership has behaved in a way that you regard as seriously flawed or worse, don't you have a duty to criticise it, rather than simply say they are doing their best?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM

Thank you for your civil responses super ted and DmcG.

My answer to that situation, DmcG is that it is one thing to be critical and hold your leaders to the highest ideals, but it is another to be crude and disrespectful of the office. In essence, what I am saying is, vote your candidate in, or vote the one you think is not representing what your values are, out. It is not the individual I am necessarily discussing as much as the office itself. Thomas Jefferson, to paraphrase, said Democracy is a lousy form of government, but it is the best one available.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:06 PM

Don't know about asshole (as in intentionaly being one) but it is my opinion that Bush is dangerous. I consider him a greater threat to world peace than Sadam and Bin Laden combined.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:23 PM

Well, "asshole" is a boundless term of ill-defined opprobrium and as such applies to no-one in fact -- it is a costume we hand out for better or for worse. So perhyaps it is not strictly true to call Bush an asshole.

But I don't think he is very thoughtful. Or, at least, that his thoughts are very sensitive, deep, original or even accurate.



A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:24 PM

well, jon, if you feel that way, then you should vote Kerry. In our system, we do have a fair method of checks and balances ie congress, that certainly not allow anyone to be more dangerous than Sadam or Bin Laden, though, in my opinion

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:36 PM

jikmyt, if I lived in the us, I would be voting that way in your elections.

As for dangers, America proved how easily it could take down Iraq (perhaps even with a little help from the UK where I live...) and Afghanistan. I may be wrong but I am more scared of someone in charge of the most powerful country in the world and abusing that than I am of the actions of lesser powers, however wrong those actions may be - and please believe me, I think what sadaam did to his own people or 9/11 detestable...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:44 PM

"I will basically treat him and the office with the respect I was taught as a young child at home and in school."

There's something to be said for having a purely ceremonial head of state, so that people don't feel constrained to feel any respect whatsoever for the politicians who have made it to the top, unless they show they deserve it by their actions.

Mind, I never understand why being compared to a fundamental part of the human anatomy, without which we'd very rapidly be in very serious trouble, should be considered an insult.

Pretty obviously, the President of the United States is potentially the most dangerous person on the planet. He could pretty well destroy us all. That's why the rest of us get a bit worried about that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM

Mc Grath, I am trying to see this situation as objectively as I can, and I appreciate your honesty, but as I see it, the President cannot rise to the level of, say a Hitler, in the way our government is set up. If, in fact, you were really a bad guy, you would not be reelected in this country. That is how I see it.

Make no mistake about it, I have lots of reservations about this candidate and am not entirely sure where I will be on election day, but in view of the options, I feel he is by far the better of the 2 at this point in our history when it comes to protecting us from the terroristic issues we are confronted with at this time.

Over the last 35 years, I have been at least a moderate, with more leanings to Liberal philosophy than Conservative. I mostly wanted you folks to know that not everyone who is beating the campaign drum for Mr Kerry is a religious, non-thinking Luddite.   I think about this quite a bit, and am still in a quandry. I also think that the USA is and has been a great ally of western Europe for a long time and will continue to be, and it is hard to believe anyone considers us a threat.

We do consume too much oil though.   The whole concept of fuel consumption has by and large not sunk in to the average American. If we had to contend with fuel prices as Euripeans do, we would be a little more judicious with our suv purchases.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:29 PM

Would anal sphincter be better?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:35 PM

Amos,

with regard to W's not being thoughtful, I hate to say it, but he does have a way about him that makes him seem like a cowboy who thinks he is a badass or something. I have watched him many times though, and somehow I still can't quite figure out how he has managed to make so many people hate him. I have seen a lot of presidents since I was a kid and he has managed to have the most loyal followers and the most angry adversaries. What I think has alienated the world by and large is the fact that he does not act like a politician. I think most of the world of politicians is filled with empty rhetoric. WHen W says he is going to do something if the UN doesn't respond in a timely manner, he means business. Regardless of which side of things you might fall out on regarding the Iraq situation, I think most folks agree that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. In the world of politics this behavior is not the norm. The concept of a man standing for his convictions is refreshing to me. I have tried very hard to convince myself to vote for John Kerry, based on the fact that the next president has the potential to stack the supreme court, and I would prefer that we keep a balance there based on my liberal social leanings, but, darn it, I am disapointed that this guy is not the best candidate you can send out in the Democratic Party. Again, just my opinion.

I appreciate that you have responded to this thread with a civil tone, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:54 PM

jimmyt,

I can't see Bush in the light you do. I do not at all trust the man. Kerry is a bit better, but if I had my druthers, which I don't, America--and subsequently the world--would have better choices. I don't see a big difference between the two. The Neocon agenda will work either way. Calling either of these me particular expletives is part of life and part of politics. I would hasten to add that the Kerry thread has been there for quite a while, and the Bush thread is new. You are a peace and relax person, and I appreciate that. So, of course people will respond on this thread in a somewhat gentle manner. IMO.

But allow me to say one more thing: calling Bush that is accurate; calling Kerry that is Republican wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:02 PM

My point was that a President has the power to wipe most of us out. That's what those "command codes" they carry around for him in a liuttle box are all about. He's got at his fingeretips weapons of mass destruction that would make the kind of stuff that Saddam was claimed to have (even if he didn't actually have them) look like pea-shooters.

I'm not sure what the checks and balances are that exist to deal with a President of the United States who becomes seriously deranged, more especially in a non-dramatic fashion. I hope they are there in place.

And short of deranged there is deluded, and irrational. Or plain stupid. And short of nuclear armageddon there are plenty of other disasters that can be unleashed on us, including ecological ones.

This isn't particularly aimed at Bush. I was just explaining what I mean by saying that the President of the USA, any President of the USA is these days the most dangerous person on the planet.

..............

"...a way about him that makes him seem like a cowboy who thinks he is a badass or something"

But that "seem like" is surely the key word. Bush is not a horny handed rugged cowboy who came up the hard way, he's a privileged and cossetted East Coast aristo, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and putting on an act. A politician all the way, but with a different mask from some of the others.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

My opinion is that no one in his/her right mind would WANT to be President of the US, and therefore that anyone who would choose to run for the office suffers from serious personality flaws.

However, it is an important job (understatement!), and SOMEBODY has to fill it. So, to my mind, EVERY Presidential election -- not just this one -- boils down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Jimmyt, I wish I were as confident as you that the constitutional checks and balances will always continue to function as designed. Sometimes -- not always -- I really worry that the neocons will be able to brainwash enough of the electorate (through fear, Orwellian doublespeak, and big spending on 30-second TV ads) to cement their hold on the government.

They've already succeeded in getting us militarily involved in the one spot on earth where we're least likely to be able to get out, guaranteeing windfall profits to their pals the arms manufacturers and no-bid defense contractors for the indefinite future. What's next?

I agree with you that a Democratic president (even a less-than-ideal one) would be desireable because of the potential Supreme Court appointments. However, I think the need to stifle rampant warmongering corporate greed is an even more pressing reason to oust Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and their frontman Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

I will agree that calling names is rude and mostly unproductive, but I have never understood the concept of "respect for the office." The office is an abstraction; the office will not help nor hurt you nor even be aware of your existence. The office is just a job description, and the man who has the job may be admirable or despicable, competent or inccompetent.

I will respect a good helmsman and trust his judgement over mine; but a helmsman who consistently runs aground deserves no respect at all and should be replaced. No matter what one thinks of the "office."

And to do exactly what you said you'd do can be good or bad, praiseworthy, condmnable or stupid. I would prefer the man who says he's going to burn my house to be a little less determined. His family might even prefer it.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:53 PM

"and SOMEBODY has to fill it."

I imagine they said the same about being Emperor of Rome. But in the long run it wasn't true, fortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Respect for the office--

Like the respect that was demonstrated by Nixon.
Like the respect that was demonstrated by Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Jimmyt,
As a Canadian, I do not claim to be any expert in your internal politics. However, if as an American citizen you have any concern with how your country is looked upon by the rest of the world you must realize that there is a great problem with Bush. Internationally he has acted as a bully and he lacks respect in most of the world. Not only did he bully his enemies but also his friends, because they did not see the world through his eyes. Respect must be earned by ones actions rather be demanded by ones office. In this Bush is a dismal failure. The asshole title is more polite than the one that I would apply.
                  Obie

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:13 PM

Jimmyt....Maybe neither Bush nor Kerry are arseholes,but you certainly are if you swallow the "democratic", "respect for the office " claptrap.
Both the UK and US governments have been proved to be lying,self serving hypocrites, quite willing to murder thousands of innocent men women and children,to further their interests.
By your postings on other threads, you dont appear to be a fool,but any one who respects these criminals must have another "axe to grind".

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:39 PM

JimmyT:

From his earliest days in office my view of Bush has been irreversibly contaminated by his lying. I recognize that he has a brute ability to push through on what he says he will do. But he has never been direct and forthcoming about huis reasons for doing things, and he has always rationalized and bent the truth and covered up and temporized and tapdanced.

Additionally I judge a man -- a man from yale anyway -- in part by their ability to command the language. Bush's is pathetic. I know fifth graders who use language more skilfully. In some folks this is not an impediment -- they don't come from a lettered background. In his case, however, it is indicative of self-indulgence and incompetence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:55 PM

jimmyt - Even though I do not really have much respect (if any) for the Bush administration, and precious little for the Democrats either, I respect and appreciate the tone and general attitude of your post that started this thread.

To run for president of the USA a man would either have to be seriously disturbed, or deeply inspired, or callously ambitious, or egomaniacal, or some kind of a saint ready for martyrdom.

Or a combination of those... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM

Jimmyt,

I have to say that the US practice of teaching children to show reverence to "The Office" is puzzling to me. He's a man, that's all.
Also, the US system is founded upon checks and balances, a free press and the freedom to speak out.

If President Bush is not getting the respect he thinks deserves it is entirely his fault and the fault of his party. Here are four fundamental ways he is eroding that respect.

1. The Republicans, with very few exceptions, completely disrespected the office while Clinton was in Office. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

2. Bush was not elected with a strong mandate by any means. He lost the popular vote and if the vote in Florida had gone the other way, If they had recounted all of the votes there, as they would have in every other Democracy I know anything about. Bush would have lost by about 48 electoral votes, the difference was only a couple of votes, even with the Supreme Court decision. Bush did not have a strong mandate but he acts as if he won in a landslide. This is disrespectful to the majority of the country as are his promises to "unite" when he is doing what he can to divide. and his promise to be a compassionate conservative when his record shows that he is certainly neither.

3. Bush is telling the people that criticizing his policies and decisions is unpatriotic, is harming the troops is harming the war effort. He's in effect saying that no matter what you do don't criticize me because I'm the President and we are at war. He is showing no respect for the time honored traditions of democratic debate. He is showing contempt for the US political system. The same system which calls for respect for his office.

4. After 9/11 Bush and Bush's office was given more respect in this country and around the world than any man who has held his office since Roosevelt. He abused that respect. In his ghostwritten autobiography he says when he gets political capital, he spends it. Kerry, Edwards and the Democrats, stood behind the President on the subject of Hussein to show just the kind of support for the office that you are talking about and Bush is now using that against them. All of a sudden the tax breaks he'd been planning for years became part of the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq which his people had been jonesing for since 1991,... war on terror.

Clear Skies initiative, gutting the Clean Air Act... War on terror.

Energy plan written by oil lobbiests and Ken Lay from Enron... War on terror.

He treat us like we were children, He treated us like we were stupid. He doesn't seem all that smart himself. How dare he?

If his office is not getting the respect you think that it is. That's why. He's not getting respect because he is not showing any respect.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:33 PM

jimmyt,


Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:45 PM

I generally appreciate the overall tone of this thread. I have always thought it odd when 2 seemingly intelligent(I am using that term loosely about myself after being told by Akenaton what he thought of me) people can see the exact same situation or event and come out with entirely different perceptions of what they observe.   

I do take what is said here and mull it over with as much open mindedness as I can muster. At some point it seems prudent that civilised people can agree to disagree.

Anyway, my hope is that whatever is best for the nation and the world will ultimately come to pass. I also hope that British and Canadians are wrong about their concerns of the preceived threat of us Americans. Except for our rampant consumerism, I, for one, think we are pretty darn nice folks.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:51 PM

Upthread, jimmyt said, "as I see it, the President cannot rise to the level of, say a Hitler, in the way our government is set up."

Perhaps not. But when you have a Republican president with a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate, I think the president can pretty much rise to wherever he wants, if he works the system well. (Substitute Democrat for Republican as desired -- I merely used the R term because they are in power now.)

The only thing that has held Bush and his gang back since 2000 is, I think, that many Republican senators and congressmen are still fairly moderate Republicans -- which makes them good Americans. Thanks jah that the senate and congress weren't filled with neocons. Then I think that there would have been even more of a nightmare than there is.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

I cannot view Bush as any kind of monster. However, I can suspect him of being more readily influenced by those around him than can be reasonably expected of people with leadership character traits. He has indeed taken the responsibility for dramatic decisions, and "stayed the course." Good on him for commitment and resolve. Nevertheless, my November 2 vote will be a vote against his administration -the power players that surround him- and against the doctrine of preemptive war. Nothing more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:23 PM

jimmyt, It is your current president I fear, not Americans in general.

I will openly admit that my views of Americans have varied over the years. The first "specimens" I met were loud, boastful, arrogant and obnoxious. To balance that up and turn it on my own place of birth, I shudder at the thoughts that some people may meet what was called a "lager lout" or one of our famed football thugs (not supporters) and get the impression that is a typical Englishman.

I since had more pleasant meetings and in particular, Mudcat amongst other forums has gone a long way to redressing that balance and I can honestly say I have enjoyed very pleasant company from your country including even one person staying with us for a few days. I in no way view you all as "nuke the bastards" style Rambos. In fact the evidence here suggests there are a good number of people who are quite the opposite.

I do have some concerns though. I'd guess they are best summed up by comments made to me by a brother of mine who spent some time over there and had load of hassle trying to get in on his holiday all because a freind of his had grown a canabis plant in his house (I'd guess around the time terrorist were learning how to fly aeroplanes). He said something along the lines that "Americans are really nice people but they are the most fucked up brianwashed people I've ever met".

I think that quite unfair as a statement but I do wonder is it possible that the success of America may make a good number of people unwilling to think in the same way as I as a cynical brit might think? Is it possible that more people would blindly accept whatever the president said than perhaps we might do with our PM, etc.

I apologise that some of my post does come over perhaps even as insulting but my intention is to ask questions that I'm struggling to express and not to slam fellow human beings. Most Americans, or indeed people from other nations I've "met" here would be most welcome to share a pint with me or even share our household for a holiday.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM

Jimmyt, you say your president can "stack the supreme court." That should be enough to put a doubt in your mind about those checks and balances you're so sanguine about.

By the same token, many still take the USA's free press for granted, and there was indeed a time when its press was one of the country's great strengths. Not any more. The press is bellicose, partisan and demeaned by sycophantic self-censorship. Remember how the Abu Ghraib scandal emerged into the public domain, no thanks to CBS which had the story but didn't run it on the grounds that to do so would have been unpatriotic?

Face it, jimmyt, if Kerry and Bush are anything to go by, the US has a massive problem attracting competent people to run for its highest office. My contempt for Tony Blair is close to pathological, but even he could dance rings round Bush in any argument, on any subject.

If you saw the first head-to-head debate (I had the misfortune to see it in full at last, a couple of days ago) you surely must have marvelled at just how stupendously, impossibly, risibly bad Bush was. If you still respect him after that, then I suspect it was not so much potty training you went through at school as brainwashing. Try to shake off the indoctrination and start to think for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:52 PM

I do, Peter

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

just for curiosity, do they teach toilet training in the schools in ENgland? We pretty much have that issue cleared up by the time we head off to school.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:31 PM

We don't HAVE toilets in Canada. Even in 50 below zero we go in the woods.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:50 PM

The only school toilet training I remember was with my youngest brother in a school in Wales. He had to learn to put his hand up and say something that sounded (the Welsh is almost certainly wrong)like "Gair fynd i toiled" if he needed a pee in class time. The school was mostly English language but for some reason, and as far as I understand it, it seems his teacher insisted on Welsh for such a request.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

That's true about Canada. And when you pee outside in the winter, you can break it off when you're done and use it as a Christmas tree ornament. (the urine, I mean!)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

jimmyt - I understand what you are saying because I was taught that whoever wins the presidency should be respected, regardless of who you voted for.

When I came to Canada, it was one of the first differences I noticed about politics in Canada. Here, if you are an elected official, you are leaving yourself wide open to constant criticism. They even call the party not in power, the opposition. Their job is to criticize. Have you ever heard how the politicians here speak to each other? I find it amazing and somewhat crude. They insult each other and yell and display their anger in many, many ways.

I prefer Canadian politics - its all out in the open and nobody is covering anybodies ass. There seems to be very little "loyalty" or "nationalism". Its pretty wild but much more honest.

I have also noticed that its no big deal to change parties if you think you have a better chance for election or appointment.

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM

I think I understand what jimmyt means, however. The office of the presidency should engender our respect, and from time to time it does. I feel in the process of slamming the presidency that we may be slamming our friend. That's not a good thing.

The disrespect I have for politicians likely comes from having been one myself--albeit as a lowly town counsellor. Truth is, "anybody who likes law or sausage should never watch either one being made."

When I first saw this thread title it was like a gallon of blood in the water with sharks. But, I saw it was jimmyt's thread and I knew where it was coming from. He's right. Neither of these people are assholes. They are many other things, but how can we expect the candidates to live up to our expectations if we think that of them to begin with? And maybe that's where jimmyt was comin' from.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:23 AM

Actually, I just finished watching the third debate and I've changed my mind again! I think they are both assholes. In fact I think they are both silly, schmarmy, assholes.

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:19 AM

This is really an interesting thread. I'm glad that people have for the most part answered thoughtfully.

Therein often lies the difference. If we reply with our emotions, the word "asshole" will inevitably come floating to the surface, but if we reply with our brains, then the subject becomes far more layered and cpmplex.

I'm glad it was jimmyt who began this because his own personality has helped to keep people focused on his questions and observations.

For myself, the term "asshole" applies when I become angry with someone. In the case of the next President of the most powerful country that now exists in the the world, my feelings are ones of fear, not anger. I am deeply fearful of what will happen to the US, and subsequently the rest of the world, if George Bush has four more years at the helm of a deeply divided nation.

I think my mother stamped "question authority" on my forehead when I was born, so I have little more faith in John Kerry than I do with his opponent, but enough to vote for him and to encourage others to vote for him as well. In the end, as has been the case with each and every President, what they say and what they do will most likely be miles apart.

The "office" ANY office is only as good and deserving of respect as the person who occupies it. The idea of one person with that much power, (and you're kidding yourself if you think he is bound tightly enough by either the Congress or the Judiciary), who can make the decisions which bring thousands of men and women to other countries for whatever reason, in a show military force-is an idea with which I struggle constantly.

I've spent more of my life now having lived out of my birth country than in it, and a great part of the reason has been due to the "Man in the White House"-ALL OF THEM. (Funny that that term was coined about FDR, the last President I really respected, though even he did some pretty despicable things while in power.)

And it's all about Power-who has it, who wields it, and how it is used. Bush may not be an asshole but for me at this moment in time-he IS one scary s-n of a b-t-h.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,bbc at work
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

Here's a new twist--my son, an intelligent, articulate new voter, favors the Green Party. He doesn't fool himself that they are likely to win, but he feels that, if we keep choosing between two flawed major parties, change will never come. What do you think?

bbc (not thrilled w/ my choices)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM

THank you for your opinions Ellenpolly. They are insightful.

Guest bbc, that seems like a logical alternative. CarolC however, is frustrated because she feels disinfranchised because a vote for an alternative candidate either has little on no impact on the election result. It seems that if enough folks were to feel this way, ultimately you could effect change. At least the theory works.

Brucie, I appreciate your kind words also as well as dianavan's attempt to see where I am coming from regardless of whether they agree or not.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:22 PM

This question of voting for a third party has come up on several threads.

It is one of those great ideas in theory that so far has never worked in the US in practice.

My mother voted for Dick Gregory back when all the candidates she had wanted to vote for (McCarthy, MacGovern, and Kennedy) either dropped out or were assassinated. What was left was Humphrey against Nixon. She didn't want to vote for either, and so wrote in her closest choice for someone with a completely different vision. Her choice, her vote....But who won?

Over my own voting years, I have felt the same way, and last time 'round I VOTED FOR NADER!!!!!!

So I have the choice of kicking myself forever in the knowledge that my vote helped put a horrific man in a position to steal the Presidency, or once again, vote with the pack against that same man.

We can talk about political theory all we want, but unless it comes to a revolution in American (and for that, even as a pacifist, I would come back to the States to be at least a medic) a three party system is doomed to fail.

DAMN!! I am so TIRED of being a pessimist!

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:11 PM

Thread drift in part: diana: Canada has not cornered the market on honest politicians. Do you not know of Bill Bennett? Bill Vander Zalm? Glen Clark? Are you unaware of peculiar landownership issues in the West End? Have you not wondered how Howe Sound could have been polluted beyond all imagination? How did all that happen? Question authority, please. I expect all that to be cleaned up before I return.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM

I've been away for three weeks and have not tuned in to Mudcat for the whole time. I tuned in today. It certainly hasn't changed. There are still the hate-mongering posts that have been written by the same miserable writers that have been doing so for two or three years now. What a bunch of unhappy people. What happend to the Mudcat? It use to be civil. There use to be respect reflected for the other person's point of view. No more. It's become simply a place to vent and spread hate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM

Extremely odd thread to choose for that particular venting...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:06 PM

I have a son intending to vote for Nader (or is it nadir?) I can understand him voting for Nader as much as he can understand me voting for Kerry. He has his realistic misgivings about his vote, just as I do. None of our misgivings are about personalities. If I didn't feel that Bush was such a dangerous man, I might consider Nader more seriously. I voted third party once in my life and would do it again. The closest to a serious third party candidate we've ever had was old What's His Name. Unfortunately, the more attention he got, the more he stuck his foot in his mouth.

My concern with Bush is that it may take a generation to undo the damage he has already done to our international reputation, to the health of our economy and any equitable financial balance among different levels of our society. God knows what he will do if given four more years, with no need to be concerned about being re-elected. At least I'm pretty sure that God knows. Now, Bush would probably say that God has already told him that He is voting for Bush.. :-)

But, good for you, jimmy! You've attempted to open up a respectful discussion where people rise above the playground name-calling. I'm afraid that this time of year is when Mudcat goes over the top in its attitude. Halloween seems downright mild. I rarely even open the political threads in here. Vitriol is not the alternative form of energy to save us from our dependency on oil.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:53 PM

And on the other side of the coin, I'm an independent who hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate in two decades. I've voted third party/indies. So the Anybody But Bush arguments put forth by diehard Dems are lost on people like me. I'm perfectly content voting FOR my candidates.

Last time I checked, it was still legal to do that in US elections. Though if the Democrats get their way after Kerry loses in November, they'll probably immediately introduce electoral reforms that won't allow third party and independent candidates on the ballot at all by 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:59 PM

NEOCON--

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Though if the Democrats get their way after Kerry loses in November, they'll probably immediately introduce electoral reforms that won't allow third party and independent candidates on the ballot at all by 2008.

Guest:

I have no way of knowing if you have ever posted here before, because of your pusillanimous inability to use a unique identitiy--but if you are who I think you are, this is the dumbest thing you've ever said here. It reveals that you don't understand those about whom you are speaking. It would be for more likely that such a move be promoted by the neo-fascist camp, for it is fascist in its nature, but they would have nothing to gain by it. The Democrats would have some thing to gain by such a rule, but would consider it unprincipled and counter to basic constitutional freedoms.

A

A