Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics: Same question, different target. More

Politics: Same question, different target.

Comments Filter:
  • He hasn't, really.

    I respect him somewhat for the fact of his war resistance in the 1970's, although I gather that many of his remarks were, shall we say, a bit controversial. Like Col. Hackworth [hackworth.com] he remembered that he had duties as a citizen, not just as a soldier, and I find that admirable.

    But on the whole, Kerry is Just Another Democrat to me. (He's painted as a leftist, but people who think Kerry is a leftist apparently never listened to Kucinich. At least the nominee isn't Lieberman!)

    I'll be voting fo
    • I think that's the sentiment of many democrats. Bush has made so many enemies that even if the least likable dem candidate was going up against him people would rally. Take this week for instance, people are way more excited about demonstrating against Bush in New York than they were for supporting Kerry in Boston.
    • A more rightward shift in the supreme court? There are certain supreme court justices who quote FOREIGN cases as justifications for their decisions. Do you want a supreme court that interprets the US constitution based on french or japanese law?
      *boggle*
      • There are certain supreme court justices who quote FOREIGN cases as justifications for their decisions.

        Don't sound so shocked. Our legal system inherits a great deal from that of the British. Folks have been citing British common law from the get-go, although it's presumably much less cited these days. Those are foreign cases, you know. (You do recall that we're no longer part of the Empire, yes? And that Britain is not among the United States? Good, I thought so. Call Tony Blair and remind him.)

        Do you
        • Even 200 years ago they had plenty of colonial common law to base subsequent US common law off of. And yes, colonial common law was based on british common law, but it had already forked into its own process by the time the US was created.

          The European Court of Human Rights is more than just Britain, however, and I don't want or need any french or romanian or turkish legal decisions determing how our laws are interpreted. Frankly, I'm shocked you are ok with that. Why not just let the president of spain
          • Frankly, I'm shocked you are ok with that.

            Me too!

            I didn't know I was, until you told me what I thought.

            I thought I wasn't thrilled about foreign citations and asked how they were relevant to the discussion, but clearly you know my mind better than I. After all, you've been putting words in my mouth right along, so it stands to reason.

            But I'm sure you must have cleverly pulled those words from my subconscious, and I'm so glad you showed me the light! Now I know better than to just quietly oppose a pract
      • I want less people like Scalia.
        • Ironically enough, Scalia is one of the few who consistently rejects incorporating foreign rulings into his judgments and relies entirely upon the actual constitution and existing US precedence.

          That doesn't mean I agree with all his decisions either - there's still plenty there to find disagreeable within that context - but at least he's sticking to the basics in a way that some other justices aren't.
          • You can see above the link where I disprove your thesis. He rejects incorporating non-american rulings into his judgements unless it suits him, just as he does with the rest of his "original intent" jurisprudence. He is perhaps MORE consistent than other justices, but he is not as consistent with himself as you claim.

            But then, I thought we were supposed to avoid debates in these JE's :-)

      • There are certain supreme court justices who quote FOREIGN cases as justifications for their decisions.

        You mean like Antonin Scalia [cornell.edu]?? Why do you say this in response to trying to halt rightward drift, when one of the most rightward justices does the same thing?

        • Unless I am missing something, Scalia was quoting British law from before our nation existed, to discuss our legal tradition, since all our law was based on theirs. That's a very different thing, and it's necessary when we're trying to figure out who should be protected by our laws in cases where there is very little contemporary legislative action or precedent to guide us.

  • I've read through his positions, looked up his Senate votes, and considered the negative attacks against him. It's not that he's earned my respect, it's that (well, for one thing... he didn't compare Iraq to D-Day like Bush did about 20 minutes ago... and he didn't break into Spanish at the DNC like Bush did at the RNC about 30 seconds ago :\)... anyway, it's that I feel he'll make a better president than any of the alternatives.

  • Kerry consistently votes for reforms rather than corporate subsidies. For example, he voted against changing bankruptcy law to give credit card companies priority when competing for a debtor's assets (on par with child support and alimony). Unfortunately, this passed the Senate 83 - 15.

    Kerry is promising to end subsidies for corporations that send jobs overseas (the same subsidies that were given to corporations because they were supposed to be helping the local economy). He also promises to close tax l

    • You misunderstand why US companies move overseas. The only correct way to end the "loopholes" is to NOT tax foreign earnings of these corporations. That is to say, they ALREADY pay taxes in the host country, and then they have to pay taxes in the US too. Tax about a hideous disadvantage in the global economy!

      So ending this double taxation on foreign earnings is the only REAL way to solve the problem of companies fleeing the US, short of draconian police state measures.
    • Kerry is promising to end subsidies for corporations that send jobs overseas

      Yes, he is. Too bad it isn't true. He is not going to do anything to close those tax credits (his plan will keep them all in place), and instead, is going to end tax deferrments on overseas income, which I can't reasonably call subsidies (and is what you were referring to, I think, in re "loopholes," which are not really loopholes at all, but an intentional part of the tax code).
  • The "lifetime of service" thing really got me. (no really!)

    His decision to go to Vietnam was admirable. His record in the service stellar. His decision to speak out against the war once he was out of the service showed personal integrity.

    In spite of what many of his critics say Kerry has a very successful record in the Senate.

    Lastly his wife impresses me. I think someone's spouse in a way does reflect on their character.

    Mind you I started out this election season as a Dean supporter who found Kerry onl
    • "Yeah, what ces said." (Well, except for the wife part.)

      Two things that really threw me over from "ok, that Kerry guy" to "hey, he'd be a great president" were learning that he stood up to Congress and said "how can you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake", and hearing his rebuttal of "flip-flopping."

      It's ironic that Bush is claiming not to be led by polls, when he's attacking Kerry for NOT following the polls or party lines and voting according to what he believes.

      What really gets me is
  • To my knowledge, Kerry has only done two things worthy of respect: he testified before Congress against the Vietnam war, and he's running against Bush.

    That's about it, really, can't think of any others.

  • I think Kerry has an outstanding grasp of the realities of economics (untainted by those who are willing to claim, against all evidence, that reasonable minimum wage laws cause increased unemployment -- because, I think, of latent racism.)

    I think his job stimulus proposal is better than the one Clinton campaigned on, and much better than the one Clinton got out of the congress, and that it will bring a lot of people back from poverty.

    His tax policy is progressive enough to solve the projected social sec

    • I think his job stimulus proposal is better than the one Clinton campaigned on

      Exactly why should the president have ANY role in the job situation in the first place? Jobs are YOUR responsibility, not the president's.

      The current tax system just all around sucks, progressive or not, and social security and healthcare are not within the domain of federal authority, based on a reading of the constitution (quite the opposite, the 10th amendment leaves such things to the domain of the states!)

      Wind power is i

      • Jobs are YOUR responsibility, not the president's.

        People who hire employees who don't care about work usually get what they deserve.

        social security and healthcare are not within the domain of federal authority, based on a reading of the constitution

        On the contrary, the words, "to provide for the general welfare," are from the original Articles of Confederation, and explicitly refer to Federal expenditures for the common good as defined by the opinion of the legislature. On this question, the Supre

        • On the contrary, the words, "to provide for the general welfare," are from the original Articles of Confederation, and explicitly refer to Federal expenditures for the common good as defined by the opinion of the legislature. On this question, the Supreme Court has never ruled in your favor, and has ruled or affirmed rulings against you more than 1,000 times.

          On the contrary, James Madison, who WROTE the constitution, TOLD US in no uncertain terms, exactly and explicitly what he meant about it.

          The supreme
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'd like to see what rdewald has to say

      I would too. He's a wise, to use the parlance of our times, motherfucker.

      I'd also like to see a few other conservative responses to my last JE from other "wise motherfuckers". I got a few, but not what I was hoping for. I think my liberal bent turned them off on my political schtick.
  • OK, buffer, you want wise, I'll give you wise...

    You're asking the wrong question. That's OK, nearly everybody does, but it always surprises me that people talk about elections as if the charade we see on TV had anything to do with real power politics.

    It does not matter the slightest bit what anyone thinks of the candidates for president. Do you think Bush is an actual entity? He is a construction, his every word is scripted (except for the occasional slip, when he lapses into childlike incoherence). Is

    • No, I'm not asking the wrong question.

      You're giving the wrong answer.

      Answer what was asked. Exposition on the foolishness of the current system can/will come later.
      • I'm not blaming you and I'm not talking about the foolishness of the current system. I'm just trying to bring the discussion a little closer to political reality. Regardless of whether you regard the current system as foolish or not (I view it as suicidal insanity, but that's just my opinion), we have to live in it. If we are to make coherent rational decisions within this framework, we have to be aware of the conditions under which those decisions are made, and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by peri
      • Answer what was asked

        Besides, I already answered what was asked. I can expound on it, if you like. I think Kerry is a lot closer to being a real person than Bush, in the sense that it is possible that some of what comes out of his mouth actually bears some relation to his own thought process. He's clearly intelligent, whereas Bush clearly is not.

        And in a sense I was answering what was asked. Kerry's record reveals that he is a corporate puppet like everyone else who had a snowball's chance in hell, but

  • ...is be something other than Bush.

    /me removes tongue from cheek

    He's more of a multilateralist than Bush (but not as much of one as Bush's supporters would like you to believe). He seems to be more of a free-trader than Bush (while both are not enough of one IMO), "Benedict Arnold" rhetoric aside. He's much more of a deficit hawk than Bush. He's more of an environmentalist than Bush, and a fairly sane one at that.

    That's pretty much the core of it for me.

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    • *sigh*

      Kerry stated he would have intervened in the recent Haiti crisis unilaterally if necessary, without UN permission if necessary.

      When Clinton was taking unilateral action against Iraq, Kerry was right there behind him giving him all the support he could.

      Kerry is just as prepared to be unilateralist as any other president, so this talk of his multilaterism is bogus. And anyways, WHY should the US require France's permission to act?

      While Bush is undeniably a big spender, take a look at the programs K
      • Kerry stated he would have intervened in the recent Haiti crisis unilaterally if necessary, without UN permission if necessary.

        Which is why I said "He's more of a multilateralist than Bush (but not as much of one as Bush's supporters would like you to believe)". I think you just proved my point magnificently. ;-)

        And anyways, WHY should the US require France's permission to act?

        Uh, first you say that Kerry would act indeed unilaterally, then imply he'd require France's permission?

        Kerry is no defici

        • I'm not as worried about "how much" or "how little" the government is spending per se, so long as 1) that money is money well spent

          Well, what you consider well spent others don't. Which is why the federal government was originally meant to be severly limited and most of the powers deferred to the states and the people (10th amendment).

          Bush has been horrible when it comes to spending, I'm not denying that, but when you look at Kerry's platform and see all the spending he wants to do, you won't be suggest
          • Well, what you consider well spent others don't

            An truism if there ever was one, but anyway.

            when you look at Kerry's platform and see all the spending he wants to do, you won't be suggesting he's a deficit hawk at all

            "Deficit hawk" just means he wants to be sure whatever spending is done is actually paid for, and that we start paying down the national debt, which has reached unsustainable levels (at least 60% of GDP).

            And, in fact, I happen to agree with many of the things Kerry wants to spend on --

      • WHY should the US require France's permission to act?

        For the same reason it's a bad idea to chew with your mouth open... it's impolite. We don't need anyone's permission to do anything. But it's still desirable to get as much consent as possible.

        If you don't understand why this is so, I'd recommend that you read Emily Post and Sun Tzu, in no particular order.

        (PS: It seems you, and possibly I, are perilously close to violating the groundrules laid out by the host of this discussion. Shall we give it a re
        • (PS: It seems you, and possibly I, are perilously close to violating the groundrules laid out by the host of this discussion. Shall we give it a rest before he is moved to chastise us?)

          Don't worry about it. Tangents are an inherent part of discussion. So long as you both refrain from ad hominems and various other dirty tactics, and actually discuss things, I could not care less.
  • He doesn't look like a monkey( or chimpanzee, whatever) like W does, and he has a much more attractive running mate (Who's only job is to look pretty and earn that bucket of warm spit).
  • I don't. But I don't plan to vote for him either. I'm in a non-swing state, so I feel no residual guilt for voting for who I want instead of who I think is the lesser evil.

Slashdot Top Deals

He's dead, Jim.

Close