Just a general comment to all of you in this forum...

R

Ruined

CAGiversary!
Just wanted to say that regardless of the turnout of tonight's election, it excites me to see so many people (especially youth) engaged in the American electoral process and politics in general. Remember, voting is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America, and the fact that so many are pumped up about voting is a fantastic thing. So be proud of your great country and the fact that you had a voice in deciding its leader! :)
 
Not that many young people have as people thought.

So Bush should win so I'm going to go to bed and cry.
 
Remember, the USA is one country. Everyone gets a voice. Sometimes your man wins, sometimes he doesn't. Every four years the process repeats. And remember, the military that defends your country's freedom mostly comes from the states you want to secede from.

The reality of the times indicate that both presidents will likely do the same thing. Bush can't do any more war (unless we are attacked again) because it would blemish the republican party and our Congress would not authorize it. Likewise, Kerry won't be able to pass a large portion of what he has been discussing for the same reason. In the end, whoever wins, I think the global outcome will be a push. So no worries. I think the end result of both presidents in office will be similar.
 
See, if I thought the end result would be similar then I wouldn't really care. Problem is, I look at the supreme court, abortion rights, gay rights, international relations etc., and see the end result as being entirely different. The next four years will be felt for decades. And when it comes to bush it feels like the south is sending its rejects up north. Look at the u.s, kerry or any other liberal democrat, would have absolutely no shot of winning without the west coast and the north. Bush, or any other conservative republicans, would have absolutely no shot of winning without the heart of the u.s, middle america and the south. Two different parts of the countries will continually elect two entirely different leaders, leaving a few states to decide the election.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']See, if I thought the end result would be similar then I wouldn't really care. Problem is, I look at the supreme court, abortion rights, gay rights, international relations etc., and see the end result as being entirely different. The next four years will be felt for decades. And when it comes to bush it feels like the south is sending its rejects up north. Look at the u.s, kerry or any other liberal democrat, would have absolutely no shot of winning without the west coast and the north. Bush, or any other conservative republicans, would have absolutely no shot of winning without the heart of the u.s, middle america and the south. Two different parts of the countries will continually elect two entirely different leaders, leaving a few states to decide the election.[/quote]

Supreme court is mostly liberal leaning at this point anyway. The worst Bush could do is balance it out. Abortion rights - bush honestly hasn't been too strict against this for a conservative. Yes, he's against partial birth abortion, but that honestly is pretty nasty, you basically have your kid and hes killed right before he fully comes out. He hasn't banned abortion outright or anything extreme like that. International relations, you have to think, did we lose are allies, or did they betray us? I mean, look at the reports:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html

Its pretty apparent that our "allies" were on the Saddam payroll, and in some cases chose not to act even though their intel told them otherwise. I think it was more of a case that our allies chose Iraq cash, weapons, and oil over the US and the right thing to do, and I feel that is more of a betrayal on their part than our loss of their alliance. There are bridges to be mended, and that is already underway. Since the terrorist attack in Russia, Russia has rejoined the US as an ally and adopted a similar pre-emptive action policy. In all honesty I think the one and only true ally we have is the UK, and I think thats really the only ally we can truly depend on in the past, now, and in the future.

Again, I don't think that there will be a massive difference whether Kerry or Bush is in. I am rooting for Bush, but I am not going to be completely distraught if Kerry wins. Most of the differences have been blown out of proportion by the opposing political parties.

As I started this thread though, I think the involvment of many in the American political system is refreshing, though, there was a much higher turnout this year than years past. I hope that trend continues in 2008. Getting involved in the electoral process and using your freedom to vote is what this country is made of.
 
I forgot to add the environment. The supreme court is liberal leaning, 5-4. The next president will decide whether it remains that way or is conservative leaning. Abortion rights, at least as a universal right, will be in extreme danger if bush is allowed to select the next members to the supreme court, and gay rights are more likely to take a step back with bush, kerry they will likely remain the way they are, making slow advances in a few select states. Also, about Iraq, I feel our president mislead our nation and the world, if not by outright lies, then by greatly exagerating the case for war, and focusing on suspect evidence. It doesn't make much sense for me to even suggest they betrayed us, since I believe that the war was wrong, and the current administration betrayed the trust of the u.s. people and the world. The world should not have helped us invade iraq, therefore it would be a little ridiculous, considering my opinions on the subject, to suggest we were betrayed, if anything we betrayed them. Now, if you believe that our allies should always help us when we are at war, then yes you could say we were betrayed, but I don't believe that should be the case. War is not something you engage in blindly, especially when the ally you are aiding provoked that war. And also, in a democracy the people should support a war if their country is engaging in it. Most of our allies in Iraq cannot say that they had the support of their people, it wasn't even close (and those that did, such as the u.k., withdrew their support when it was shown the evidence was willfully overstated by their governments). Take Spain for example, only about 10% of their population supported the war, yet their government ignored their wishes and went ahead. In France the government actively opposed the war, much like their own people did. Which is a better example of democracy? Who betrayed who?
 
[quote name='Ruined']. There are bridges to be mended, and that is already underway. Since the terrorist attack in Russia, Russia has rejoined the US as an ally and adopted a similar pre-emptive action policy.
[/quote]

Russia will support us if we support them, they keep quiet about Iraq, we don't say anything about chechnya. That is not a real ally like britain. And more countries adopting a pre-emptive strike policy is not a good sign. It's like bush wanting to research smaller tactical nuclear weapons, how do you tell other countries not to do something (nonproliferation, or not to attack preemptively) when you actively pursue those same things, especially when you have nations such as north korea or Iran who feel that they may become a victim of those policies. In many countries minds having nuclear weapons is one sure way to avoid invasion, north korea knows this and Iran knows this. A policy of pre-emption will force "enemy" nations of the u.s. to do anything possible to gain the upper hand before it's too late. I personally don't believe we will or would attack Iran, but I feel it is very likely we would attack north korea if not for its nuclear weapons. Bush's policies are convincing many nations the only real way to protect themselves is to have nuclear weapons, and in some cases I'm not sure I can disagree.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Russia will support us if we support them, they keep quiet about Iraq, we don't say anything about chechnya. That is not a real ally like britain. And more countries adopting a pre-emptive strike policy is not a good sign. It's like bush wanting to research smaller tactical nuclear weapons, how do you tell other countries not to do something (nonproliferation, or not to attack preemptively) when you actively pursue those same things, especially when you have nations such as north korea or Iran who feel that they may become a victim of those policies. In many countries minds having nuclear weapons is one sure way to avoid invasion, north korea knows this and Iran knows this. A policy of pre-emption will force "enemy" nations of the u.s. to do anything possible to gain the upper hand before it's too late. I personally don't believe we will or would attack Iran, but I feel it is very likely we would attack north korea if not for its nuclear weapons. Bush's policies are convincing many nations the only real way to protect themselves is to have nuclear weapons, and in some cases I'm not sure I can disagree.[/quote]

trust me, bush is done in turns of attacking unless we get attacked. as for nukes, you should realize there is a large differenc between a responsible nation possessing nukes and a rogue nation possessing them.
 
I don't feel bush will attack any more nations (assuming nothing major happens), but my opinion does not effect the actions of those nations. And whether those nations are trustworthy or not does not mean they will not pursue nuclear weapons. Though we have to make serious efforts to reduce nuclear weapons, and our deciding which nations are responsible and which aren't isn't going to work. When weak nations feel threatened they know they can defend themselves with nuclear weapons. North korea is a perfect example, no one would ever attack a nation with nuclear weapons, unless it was absolutely necessary. Or look at Iran, their two main enemies are Israel and the u.s., both with much stronger conventional armies and with nuclear weapons. All nations should work towards reducing their nuclear stockpiles, not expanding them. Bush's policies are having the opposite effect. In the end though, my main issues with bush are the environment, gay rights, abortion rights, and international relations. I don't see how anyone can argue the first three will not deteriorate (looking at it from my perspective) under 4 more years of bush, and few seem to feel that bush will be better at improving international relations than Kerry.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] I don't see how anyone can argue the first three will not deteriorate (looking at it from my perspective) under 4 more years of bush, and few seem to feel that bush will be better at improving international relations than Kerry.[/quote]

Thats the point, if we don't share your perspective your concerns aren't ours.

CTL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top