Did Kerry Cheat?

[tatsu]

*ignoring the Bush/Kerry debate*

 

Going back to the original topic of this thread. I was just wondering if anyone actually clicked the link and read the article along with the video?

 

"A tight zoom analysis of the Boston.Com feed shows Kerry pulling a mysterious item his jacket [14 seconds into video, after commerical]. Kerry appears to unfold some sort of paper seconds later, at his podium." - Drudge Report

 

The topic of debate is not a pen, but rather a piece of paper that he may have brought to the podium. You can't unfold a pen and I do not see why prepared papers for note taking would be folded at his podium. I didn't see Bush unfolding his papers. You can see the difference between the two could have on the debate.

 

Just wanted to clarify that because many of your responses were over Kerry bringing a pen which was not the case.

 

Thank you. *Ducks and runs from the battlefield.*

[marmar63]

That is why I am voting Libertarian. I happen to agree with most of their platform and I can register my disgust with both of the major players in this campaign.

I applaud your reason for choosing Libertarian; however, the current state of things is, the two major parties don't really seem to care. As long as they get enough votes to win, they're happy with the way things are. If we could get -more- people recognizing their power, and vote them out, we'd do a LOT better.

[kit]

Just to make a note, my little black heart fills with joy at the level of maturity, courtesy, and thoughtfulness obvious in this current debate. Even if it is wildly off topic from the original post.

 

Thought I should share.

 

kit

[Enchantra]

Enchantra's point is taken, of course, but I wouldn't have the ovaries to make the case that his deception is actually a reason to trust that someday he'll do what he said he would.

Actually I'm for Kerry only in order to get Bush out of office. But either way, if he did cheat, yeah he probably would do it again. Just like most politicians take bribes, and do so frequently. They all sling mud, they all lie and do deceitful things, and they always will. They also all make promises they never intend to keep. Go figure, anything for a vote.

[Jester]

Just to make a note, my little black heart fills with joy at the level of maturity, courtesy, and thoughtfulness obvious in this current debate. Even if it is wildly off topic from the original post.

 

Thought I should share.

 

kit

I will applaud all of you for your maturity and level-headedness too...

 

It is nice to see...

 

But again, reading all this is giving me a headache!

 

*goes back to painting minis while the country goes to h-e-double toothpicks in a handbasket no matter who's the president...*

[Gabe]

Actually I'm for Kerry only in order to get Bush out of office.

It always saddens me greatly to see people saying this kind of thing...

[Cadaver]

Thank You, Tatsu.

For trying to bring this back on topic.

[Orsino]

That is why I am voting Libertarian. I happen to agree with most of their platform and I can register my disgust with both of the major players in this campaign.

I applaud your reason for choosing Libertarian; however, the current state of things is, the two major parties don't really seem to care. As long as they get enough votes to win, they're happy with the way things are. If we could get -more- people recognizing their power, and vote them out, we'd do a LOT better.

Yep. The lousy thing about the two-party lock on the debates and power in general is that our choices have been artifically limited. The good thing about a close race is that third parties can actually get some attention.

 

I believe that the two Rs and the Ds have come to resemble each other too much. Oh, I still think next month's choice is clear, but the left is not well represented. We've got a radical corporatist incumbent being challenged by a conservative corporatist. They're competitors, not opposites, no matter how loudly they shout. Yeah, the unions know which candidate better represents the working class, but Big Money gets on the calendar first, no matter which side of the aisle we're discussing.

 

I'd like to see the two major parties broken up, just as we did to AT&T and just as we should have done to Microsoft. I'd like to see the media conglomerates similarly fragmented. We've got anti-trust laws for a reason, folks. We can use them to improve diversity in that marketplace of ideas. Remember that Big Money never, ever decides that it's gotten too big. The Fairness Doctrine was killed by the usual suspects, for the usual reasons--just another example of the dangers of a two-party system too compromised by money. Where is our modern-day Roosevelt (a Teddy or a Franklin D.) who will stand up to them, and return our airwaves to us? Wouldn't it be nice to wake up in a nation where candidates could really be conservative or liberal, and didn't have to pander to the biggest wallets?

 

I'd furthermore like to put political campaigning on a diet. *No* more corporate money, period. Perhaps we should even ban personal political contributions above some token amount. Public financing of elections can work--it's already working, in fact, but guess who isn't telling you that? Do we really want the blatant buying and selling of congressional votes to continue escalating?

 

I hope I won't complain too loudly about those who throw their votes away in protest, no matter how frightened I am by the prospect of Four More Years. I think that the only future American democracy has lies in the example of the other parties, who organize without corporate life support or an entrenched power system. I'm going to vote for the candidate who I think can win and under whom I believe pro-democracy reform will be possible.

[marmar63]

Thank You, Tatsu.

For trying to bring this back on topic.

Bah. Why stay on topic? I've always heard that the mark of an intelligent conversation is how it wanders across topics.

[Cadaver]

That would be fine, if it actually covered other topics rather than spewing hate for both candidates. 'shrug'

[Reaperbryan]

Actually I'm for Kerry only in order to get Bush out of office.

It always saddens me greatly to see people saying this kind of thing...

And me. I hate to think how many people will go to the polls in just 1 month, not to vote FOR anybody, but to vote AGAINST somebody. I for one prefer the positive aspect, and have found a candidate I choose to vote FOR, not to oppose the other candidate, but for their position.

 

Some of you will be voting AGAINST Bush. Some of you will be voting AGAINST Kerry. Sad isn't it - that so many believe there is no decent other option. It would be nice for any small party to gain enough respectability int he public eye that Americans could see a different choice . . . Alas.

 

(NOTE: I am not saying that no other party is decent, but I am saying that obviously no other candidate is running on a platform that those of you who are voting "against X" feel they could vote "for", after all - while a Kerry vote may be a vote against Bush, so is a Libertarian vote, or a Green vote, or a Heaven's Gate Cultist vote)

 

Or maybe just a D: None of the Above option . . . then we go through the whole shebang over again, only exclude by law the current candidates . . . . eventually we'd find somebody to vote FOR, instead of all this voting AGAINST.

 

I suppose another option could be, rather than select the ONE you do like, have a yes/no column, and make a yes/no decision for each and every candidate on the ballot . . . then maybe everybody you like gets a yes, with the most yes's winning, and it would still be possible to vote and dislike them all . . . without feeling guilty for voting for one guy just because you hated the other guy.

 

[Additonal Rant Self-Edited]

 

 

Enough Rant. I say Cthulhu for President - Why vote for the lesser evil?

[marmar63]

Enough Rant. I say Cthulhu for President - Why vote for the lesser evil?

I second it.

 

 

PAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!

[Star Drifter]

Kerry did nothing but offer his own plans...like, in every response, that's almost all he talked about.

Every plan started out with what Bush did, and why Kerry would do the opposite. It felt more like more anger-rousing and pandering than a responsible political stance, to me.

 

But, it's just my opinion.

[Star Drifter]

Enough Rant.  I say Cthulhu for President - Why vote for the lesser evil?

You probably have more connections to his people than we do.

 

Yes, I'll be voting against for the first time in my life. The left, bless them, are so busy being angry that I fear trusting them with much of anything, let alone a country. By now we should know what that anger did to 20th century Europe and Asia, but we haven't really figured it out. The right have their plans and cool reason, but feels perhaps a little too cool. Even the libertarians don't seem to want me, and they've joined the angry underground in too many ways. Even Nader; yikes.

 

I got nothing this time around. I will vote Democratic for my House representative, because he's a good candidate, but that's all I know.

[Orsino]

Kerry did nothing but offer his own plans...like, in every response, that's almost all he talked about.

Every plan started out with what Bush did, and why Kerry would do the opposite....

 

Not the opposite, really, but at least the globalist/nationalist dichotomy was pretty clearly drawn. The candidates agreed that winning in Iraq was critical, but after listening carefully to recent political discourse--including the debate--I believe that their definitions of "winning" are as different as are their plans for reaching their victory conditions.

 

I thought Lehrer's questions were generally very good, and the format worked surprisingly well. We got to watch the pair thinking on their feet, and heard delineations of their positions that were deeper than the usual sound bites.