View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-06-2004, 00:52
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: Kerry or Bush and why?

I'll preface by saying I usually stay away from political discussion, if not for fear of getting criticized, for the fear of knowing that there is no single right answer to any given political question. So before this thread gets locked for turning into a flame war, I'll post my thoughts.

I'm planning on voting for Kerry.

My cousin signed up with the US Marine Corps last year. Early this year he was sent on his tour of duty in Afghanistan. I just heard not too long ago that he was pulled to Iraq. I'll tell you it sucks listening to the radio or reading a newspaper, hearing about casualties over there, hoping to whatever religious entity that I don't hear or see his name.

I don't know much more about Kerry than I read online, on forums like this, or the various slanted news sites. But since Bush is the current president, I hear about what he's up much more than Kerry. I can understand retaliation for 9/11, but where did the focus for that go? Last I heard Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Now he's hiding in some cave, while we have Saddam in custody. Did I miss a confirmed connection somewhere? I remember watching Bush address the nation when he first declared we were at war with Iraq, and I remember mention of weapons of mass destruction, and a connection to Al Quieda. The only things I've seen/heard/read since then indicate none of it was true, despite "very convincing evidence" prior to the war. Now my cousin is over there as a result of some lies.

Going into the voting booth, I see two choices. On the one hand, there's a man who has already lied to me, and the American public. On the other, there's a man who has the potential to lie to me, and the American public. In my eyes, the one who has already lied has already betrayed my trust, and is therefore unworthy of my vote. I could vote Nader, but in the two party system, that's as good as not voting at all. Therefore, the only logical candidate is the one who's yet to lie to me. Should he lie in office, I'll vote against him next term.

It's very rare in my life that my logical side and personal/emotional side agree on something. In this particular instance, I've read positives and negatives on both Bush and Kerry, moreso on the negative side for Bush, in addition to my personal feelings. That means there's only one way I can vote, unless Kerry does something in the next few months to disuade my trust towards the unknown candidate.