My logic.

[carrrnuttt]

Well, since Yogs was kind enough to close the two threads where I have decided to present my simple logic about the candidates, and why I am voting for who I am voting for, I am starting this new thread specifically about it.

I'm not saying anything against you Yogs. I know it was just a concidence that those two threads had to be locked-down for other reasons, other than my post. No conspiracy theories here.

I'm just starting this to so that I might actually get some direct responses to my thoughts on this, without having to hijack some other thread.

Here's a quote of my "logic":

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

My logic is simple. I contend that Bush and Kerry are as equally corrupt as politicians go, except that one of them has the power to make a scared Congress do whatever he wants, like paying Iraq's interim government 3.5 million a year, as US jobs go overseas...or go to war, sacrificing young Americans for a lie.

I doubt if Kerry will have that kind of "pull" in a Republican Congress, which makes me feel better.

I'm not hedging on either one to make it "better", just counting on the one that won't make it worse.

Destroy that logic, and you can win my vote for Bush -- again. Simple, right?

Here's a snippet off of a recent post of mine, which can further clarify my thinking:

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

If you had read into most of my posts, you'd know that it is actually my faith in the Republican Congress keeping a narrow eye on a Kerry administration that gives me breathing room to vote for him.

My faith in Congress keeping a rein on Bush? 0%

See, a government of absolute, such as Bush has, is dangerous. It's easier to influence and sway one man, than a large group, such as Congress is. I am not looking at this emotionally such as you "Bushists" are, but in a calculated manner, designed to figure out which man is less dangerous for the country. Even if Bush himself is good-hearted, Cheney and Rumsfeld have proven themselves as cold-blooded time and again, since even before Reagan. They are simply glad to ride the coattails of the Bush family influence over the Republican-controlled Congress. Hell, I won't be surprised if they cultivated it themselves.

I will repeat this for the umpteenth time. I have spewed what I feel is my straight logic about these two candidates. I have yet to hear an unemotional, equally logical response from any of you.

Well?

[YogsVR4]

Yeah - those other threads were getting out of hand. It sems that once third page is reached, everything goes downhill fast.

The first quote you put up clearly can't be refuted because you voiced your opinion. Being that its your opinion on the matter, you won't be convinced otherwise. I would contest the notion that Bush and Kerry are equally corrupt. I'm not saying Bush is a saint - he's a politician, they're all on the take in one form or another, but Kerry's voting record and his stand on taxes, immigration and his relationship with Kennedy scares me. The man is the definition of sleeze. Put that opinion in your equation, and you'll see that I couldn't vote for Kerry.



While its likely true that the congress won't jump through hoops for Kerry, they aren't walking the Bush line as well as he would like. Judges are stuck in committee. Tax reform is clogged like bee in molasses. Bush's biggest problem with the congress is his unwillingness to veto spending measures. (my biggest grief with him) The congress needs to be reigned in more then the president does - their the ones who spend the money.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Well?

Well...I must admit I do understand your logic....
Sadly...It is just too danged cynical for me to go along with it. I have more faith in our government than you do. (as long as that Kerry guy is NOT in the Whitehouse)

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

The congress needs to be reigned in more then the president does - their the ones who spend the money.

That's a good point, and another side of my contention. The same way that Congress won't check Bush, Bush won't check a Congress of Republicans. Basically, the flip-side of the same mirror.

I don't know if you'll agree with me or not, but I am of the opinion that most of the United State's best economies were achieved with balanced government - when the Republicans had the White House, the Democrats had Capitol Hill, and vice versa.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

That's a good point, and another side of my contention. The same way that Congress won't check Bush, Bush won't check a Congress of Republicans. Basically, the flip-side of the same mirror.

I don't know if you'll agree with me or not, but I am of the opinion that most of the United State's best economies were achieved with balanced government - when the Republicans had the White House, the Democrats had Capitol Hill, and vice versa.

That’s a tough call. The economy goes in cycles with the government can only prod it one way or the other by changing tax and import/export policy. If there were a republican congress with the heartiness and stick to it principles of the Gingrich years and the trade policies of Clinton, then I wouldn’t worry to much about who was president. Aside from that, neither party has much fiscal restraint. Getting money spent in their constituencies is one of their top priorities. If they don’t they have a hard time being reelected – so it behooves them to spend spend spend.

The tax receipts for the government is astronomical and growing. If we could get a congress and president in there that could hold the spending to the rate of inflation for just a few years, they’d be in the black again. Anyone who can do that has my vote. I don’t want to see taxes raised. I do not want to see spending raised. Bush pisses me off because he’s allowing the rise in spending. Kerry would piss me off because he would do both.

[carrrnuttt]

Wow. This sunk quick.

I guess hardly anybody has anything to say when the rhetoric is taken out of the discussion...

C'mon pro-Bush people. Yogs has taken the admirable lead for you guys. You guys have so much to say in the other threads, so why so quiet about this?

This is my open invitation for you guys to convince me of the logical value of voting for Bush. Shouldn't be that hard, since I voted for him last time...

...right?

[carrrnuttt]

Damn...

I guess 'logic' isn't for most "you's'" Bushy-boys, huh? I mean, c'mon, Kerry voter here, asking you guys to "enlighten" me...

Show me that you are voting because of well thought out, logical reasons, and saying "I agree with Yogs" doesn't count.

All that blabber all-over the other threads is just that, blabber, apparently, as I am asking for statements with substance, and there is no response.

[YogsVR4]

Agree with me "doesn't count"?

[CarSuperfreak]

One of the major things I have against Sen. Kerry is (what I percieve) his approach to be to the whole War on Terror.
I am not abdicating everything that has gone on in this war, but down to basics, I think that the fundamental idea of a war on terror is a just one. Sen. Kerry would have the US pull all its troops back into the states, thus taking us out of position in the world. The US is obviously part of this world though. If we do not step up to the plate, who will? I think there is something ethically wrong of sitting back as a spectator to the goings-on in the world.

I do not agree with all of Sen. Kerry's morals or religious beliefs either. I know I am in a minority being a Christian Republican, but that in itself is another issue entirly

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Agree with me "doesn't count"?

You misread me. I meant just saying that they agree with you doesn't count. It's easy to ride on somebody else's good idea, and claim that it is yours. I would like to hear if they have their own thoughts on the matter. At the very least, if they say that they agree with you, they should at least qualify it.

I know you'll probably be thinking something similar to what you said when you mentioned I needed "a dose of my own medicine" in another thread, but even though I do quote and/or link to other people's articles with thoughts similar to mine, I have paragraphs, upon paragraphs in these forums of my own, propaganda-free (my opinion) thoughts, to at least prove that I am thinking about my choice, instead of letting rhetoric carry me.

[Flatrater]

I agree with carrrnuttt! Does that count?

I understand your theory and agree with your theory some what.

Not you say having a republican congress and a democrat president will keep both in check. Could it possibly be they will fight each other on everything and never get anything done! It shouldn't be the democrats against the republicans, it should be both together doing whats right for the people.

Only thing I can fault you for is your thinking that congress will stay republican. Now since Bush is screwing up and the polls are reflecting this he stands a good chance in losing the election, wouldn't you think this would also effect the republicans running for congress? I see more democrats winning office in the congress which would make it a democrat congress and a democrat president making it the same as it is not except now taxes will flow out of congress like beer out of a tap on St. Patrick's day!

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Only thing I can fault you for is your thinking that congress will stay republican. Now since Bush is screwing up and the polls are reflecting this he stands a good chance in losing the election, wouldn't you think this would also effect the republicans running for congress? I see more democrats winning office in the congress which would make it a democrat congress and a democrat president making it the same as it is not except now taxes will flow out of congress like beer out of a tap on St. Patrick's day!

Good thoughts. Albeit scary, but good. Thing is, if your theory does happen, maybe this is the wake-up call that the Republicans have been needing, to get away from this "Neo-Con" crap, and get back to good 'ol, American conservatism.

Otherwise, I have no sympathy towards them, for allowing themselves to be placed in such a situation. If you can perceive them as "screwing up", as do I, an advocate for a Republican Congress, what now?

Mark my words, if Kerry loses in November, I guarantee a strong Hillary candidacy in 2008. Who wants that?

[supermach]

The democrate socalists have been loosing power for a reason...what do you think it is?

No amount of convincing would ever get me to vote for a tax hungry, socialist, Democrate like Kerry. You can type till your blue in the knuckles you'll never win me over.

The Democratic party has swung to radically to the left, all most to the point of a one world goverment.

I happen to like the sovereignty of the United States of America and the power it stands for among the freedom loving nations of the world.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by supermach

No amount of convincing would ever get me to vote for a tax hungry, socialist, Democrate like Kerry. You can type till your blue in the knuckles you'll never win me over.

This thread isn't for anybody to convince you to vote for Kerry. I started it to see if anybody can convince me to vote for Bush. Also please, no rhetoric, and canned slogans, like your statements about Kerry. This is a thread purporting towards logic, and intellectual debate. Unless you have some proof that Kerry, is indeed a Socialist, like maybe his Socialist Party credentials, hold that thought at the door.

Now, why should I vote for Bush over Kerry, and go against my simple logic? Can you answer that?

[spooleffect]

Bush or Kerry...... either way I think we are screwed for another 4 years. I am a non-patisian but I would generally lean towards democrates over republicans however I don't think Kerry will be any better than Bush. I kinda wish McCain was running instead of Bush.