Anyone else think both candidates stink?

Well, I hate Bush. I thought he was ok until after 9/11. Now, though, I think he sucks as the US President.

I also hate Kerry, but don't know Kerry. For one, he's got the charisma of a clam. Secondly, I think he's been preparing for the presidency his whole life. Recently I read how he filmed himself a bunch of times in 'Nam. He was only there four months. I think he was just checking off a box in a presidential campaign list. "Combat - check."

What's really going to change if we vote in Kerry? So what if he makes promises, Bush ran on promises of not committing troops overseas. His daddy ran on the promise of "No new taxes." Bush/Cheney were going to restore honor and dignity to the White House.

"Go f--- yourself," the VP says. "I felt better afterward."

Ok, so now we're back to the rationale for getting BJs from interns. "If it feels good, do it."

Then Kerry threw away his medals, then didn't throw away his medals, just the ribbons. Uh-huh. He authorizes the use of force in Iraq, then doesn't approve the spending bill for it. Well if he'd opposed it to begin with that wouldn't have been an issue. But he lacks the guts to go against the grain.

What kills me is neither candidate can say, or will say, "The Buck Stops Here." I think people forgot about that phrase after years of no president ever holding themselves fully accountable. The buck's been passed around so much it's faded from view and memory. No accountablity, everything's deniable.

I wish we had a candidate with the nuts to say:





But, alas, we don't. So I say both candidates stink, and I don't know to vote for the devil I know or Kerry.

They stink to keep the reporters away. But on a serious note I think they do shower regularly.

Politicians in general stink. They'll say whatever they have to in order to get into office, and once in office they have two goals:

1) Ensure they stay in office (or move to a better one)
2) Further their personal agendas (which is often dictated by those who pay money to help with goal (1))

Corruption of those in power is part of human nature, a look through history will confirm that. That is why the founders of the United States tried their best to limit the power of the federal government. They understood that simple fact, which has now been lost by the masses.

Politicians, like all people, want power. They have realized the simple truth that they just have to tell the people what the people want to hear on a couple minor issues, and they will get elected. Once a politician has a taste of that power, he or she wants more, and he or she will figure out how to get more, and the people will stand by without protest, as long as the social security check is in the mail and abortion is allowed (for example).

There was a time in (pre-)American history when the people realized that the rulers of the country did not have the people's best interests in mind, and the people set out to change that, and they succeeded. Generations later, the people have become fat and lazy, and have forgotten the true meaning of freedom. We trust the politicians to run our lives, and we have no qualms about giving up our freedom bit by bit.

Here on ATS everyone debates over the issues - abortion, gay righs, gun rights, war, the economy, etc. Each of us has our own view on these issues, and we will vote for the guy who sees the most eye-to-eye with us. Who cares if we grant more power to the government? The politicians care about us, right? Wrong. They care about the only person who counts: numero uno, me, myself, and I.

Go ahead, vote for Bush or Kerry. Live your life by their good graces. Stop being a citizen, and start being a subject.

Sorry for the tirade, but I am getting rather tired of the Democrat-Republican debate. People need to wake up and realize that both are poor choices.

Time to take the government back into our hands - vote Libertarian, because YOU know how best to run your life.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and will most certainly not be voting for him again. For me the War On (Some) Terror and the way it has been conducted is the main issue. If the Democrats would have nominated a candidate that was anti-war they would he gotten my vote for sure. Instead they picked John Kerry, a man who plans to send more troops to Iraq and will not set a timetable for their withdrawl. Nice.

I also think it's funny that antiwar people have hopped on the ABB (Anybody But Bush) bus and are pulling strong for Kerry. Newsflash guys: Kerry isn't antiwar either.

I personally will be voting for Ralph Nader who thanks to the Republican leadership here in Michigan, will be on the ballot.

Well then it's one more vote that won't make a difference and you certainly won't be making a point. I agree with you about Bush. I will be voting for Kerry only because he's the lesser of the two whatchamacallits.

I don't care for the war either, any war for that matter but we need to continue on now. Were in too deep and things would get much worse. We do need to unify with the rest of the world again and do this together.

Originally posted by I See You
Well then it's one more vote that won't make a difference and you certainly won't be making a point.

How would you suggest I make a point?

[edit on 1-8-2004 by Biggie]

Originally posted by Biggie

How would you suggest I make a point?

Unfortuately you can't. With our system it's either one or the other Democrats or Whigs, Whigs or Federalists, Democracts or Republicans.

Personally, I'm very happy that I am not yet of age to vote this election, because I would not be able to make a wise decision. I don't know enough about either candidate. All I know is that Bush was my governor for a hundred years, now he's president. And Kerry just popped out of the blue. I feel extremely ignorant about my political awareness!

But I do klnow this...I can't stand it when people say they are voting for Kerry on the sole basis that he'snot George Bush. To me, that seems more stupid and ignorant than not voting at all.

The last ones stunk,...the current ones stink,...and the next ones in the future,..will stink.

Pretty frustrating isnt it!

Originally posted by Scat
Personally, I'm very happy that I am not yet of age to vote this election, because I would not be able to make a wise decision. I can't stand it when people say they are voting for Kerry on the sole basis that he's not George Bush. To me, that seems more stupid and ignorant than not voting at all.

Personally I'm glad I don't have to make this choice myself. 3rd parties looking REAL good right now. You're right but obviously the American voter can only see 2 choices. Sad. Both choices are bad choices compared to the alternatives. Those 2 choices look to me "insane vs inept."

Originally posted by taibunsuu

I also hate Kerry, but don't know Kerry.

This comment is not about your position vis-a-vis either of the "both" candidates in the "binary" little world of US politics.

It's more for people to reflect on what you say here.

"I also hate X, but don't know X."

That seems to be the root of a prejudicial statement. There are so many statements like that made around these parts... "hating" without foundation or "knowledge".

Maybe it's just a turn of phrase, but I think the world would be better if people did not hate that which they do not know.

Welcome to the American television education system!!

Rather scary!

taibunsuu - you got me thinking about this phrase. Now, here's a fun little exercise:

We've all got an idea of what Kerry and Bush sound like, and we've all seen SNL skits that accentuate their accents. Now, with those voices in your head, imagine them saying, "The buck stops here."

I have to admit that I find Bush saying it to be funnier. And less likely to happen.

I kinda disagree with the title of this thread.

But will agree that the two candidates you are refering to suck, and suck hard.

The last candidate I voted for that belonged to either of these parties was Pappy Bush. And only because I was a Reganite. I voted for Ross Perot twice, and Nader once.

Up until recently I was planning on voting for Bush, but I am now seriously reconsidering that choice. My thinking in considering voting for Bush was maintaining continuity in a time of War. I have always felt that it was important to stick with the same commander through a conflict. But when your commander is blowing it, time to get a new one.

I will NOT, I repeat NOT, vote for John Kerry under any circumstance. If he was the only candidate, I just wouldn't vote.

Well the "Buck can't simply stop here" in Iraq for a good reason. I am probably one of the most anti-war people on ATS. But now that we are in Iraq... we atleast need to put something there thats half decent before we leave. A puppet government.... or whatever.. we can't just walk out and let the place crash over.... we have a moral obligation to fix what we destroyed.

Originally posted by Biggie

Originally posted by I See You
Well then it's one more vote that won't make a difference and you certainly won't be making a point.

How would you suggest I make a point?

[edit on 1-8-2004 by Biggie]

Vote third party.

I am voting Libertarian but there are several others