How much difference does this election really make?

It seems to me that whether or not you have a Democrat or Republican in power, the US government is still going to fight for its role as the dominant world power. The illusion right now appears to be that with Kerry the world will somehow be healed, and that with Bush the confrontations will escalate. I believe there is a definite element of truth in that, however, they both keep talking about the "war on terror" and how the other guy isn't ballsy enough to stay the fight. So what does it matter: on strictly foreign policy issues they seem to be on a similar wavelength. The difference in effect is that Kerry would be diplomatic and courteous when exerting American interests, whereas Bush will be the ignorant and belligerent fool he's always been. Is this because Kerry needs the support of these supposed "fence sitters" who are all for world peace but still enjoy the odd fireworks display, or is it because this notion of American imperialism is endemic within both major parties? Please enlighten me.

Don't kid yourself. Kerry is going after fence-sitters but is not after global domination.

There's your difference.

for the last 3 1/2 years?

attention to the last three and a half years.

completely removed this mantra from the realm of plausible voter turnout supressing strategies.

then W got in office. Now I see that it makes a HUGE difference.

http://www.cpusa.org

They are coming at it from a similar perspective to you, I think, but they firmly believe that there is a substantial difference there.

At least two retiring in the next four years.

Seven out of the nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.

Who do you want appointing the next two?

......can you imagine having 9 Scalias and Thomasas on the High court for the next 40 years........This is our worst NIGHTMARE!

than the "war on terror" or foriegn policy.

The differences on foriegn policy are huge IMO, but even if his positions on foriegn policy were exactly the same, there is still more than enough reason to put this administration back under the rock the crawled out from under.

the economy, unemployment (this the repugs seem to see them as two entirely seperate issues), environment, civil rights, civil liberties, health care, education, and on and on.

Thats what its all about. When we reach peak oil in 20 years, do you want to be ready for that or not?

Republicans and specifically the Bushes will just spend all our resources on finding the last drop of oil, while Kerry will make us ready for a world where oil is not a source of energy.

I can also make the argument that Republicans stand to profit A LOT MORE when there are wars to be fought and defense contractors to be paid.

That is what its all about.

Do you want to go down in flames with republicans or build for the future with democrats.

Here's what I'm trying to say- it's nothing to do with energy, environmental issues, welfare, whatever (although I realise that those are all major differences) I'm talking about this idea that the US government is somehow protecting the people of the world from terrorism. Well I don't feel any safer, quite the opposite in fact.

The real issue is control- America wants to remain the chief terrorist state of the world (seeing as counter-terrorism is by definition the same as terrorism) and the "evil terrorists" are by and large dissidents of the quest for American dominance in the world. And whether you're liberal or elitist you still want the US to be at the forefront of global policy making right?

If you think I'm undecided about which party to support you'd be wrong. I agree totally with all liberal and reformist ideas concerning energy, environment, etc etc, but when concerning the idea that America is protecting us from terrorism (which both Kerry and Bush seem so eager to do) I can't help but wretch.

9/11 was an intelligence gaff. To respond with "war on terror" is silly. To fight terrorism, you need intel not guns. You dont win the war on terror by invading countries.

However Bush is equating winning the war on terror by invading countries and talking about war this and war that and we need more military spending. That is not going to do anything to fight the war on terror. We had the greatest army in the world on 9/11 but that didnt stop the terrorists. New bombers or tanks does not stop terrorists. Intelligence does. Cooperation with other countries does.

You see Bush can say its a War on Terror, and that gives him an excuse to have a war for oil. 9/11 gave him a blank check to become the "war president".

You dont feel safe because while Bush says he will protect us, he is really only interested in War for Oil and other phoney wars so his buddies with defense contracts can profit.

That is what the war on terror is really about. At least for Bush. And Cheney. And Rumsfeld.

War for profit has been the republican agenda for many years now.

That is the difference.

Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and thousands more maimed on both sides. But yeah I guess it doesn't matter. If 550 more Floridians had gotten off their ass, everyone lives.

:hi:

When the whole concept of "world domination" is silly. Modern technology has shrunk the world into more of a global community -- in many ways, you can do business with someone in Stockholm or Milan just as easily as you can with someone the next town over. It wasn't that long ago that countries would try to dominate Europe, and now the European Union seems pretty well unified (it's not a perfect system, but it's a more inspirational set-up than the whole concept of being the only superpower).

There's a new book out called The European Dream that I am meaning to pick up one of these days -- about how the Eurpoean Dream has overtaken the notion of the American Dream amongst many people. Maybe someone else has read it and can give me a thumbs up or down...

With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Domestic policy.

Sid

makes the case for why it matters which one is elected. other words, you answered your own question

You can't go by what a candidate says in convention speeches - look at their policy speeches.

Kerry would continue to fight the war on terror by actually fighting terrorists. Bush, and many in his administration, are beginning to leak out hints that Iran and Syria are next up in the Middle East line-up of pre-emptive war targets. So if you have children or relatives between the ages of 18 and 34, you'd better say your good-byes now.

Not to mention that all Americans will have their civil liberties cut once Bush appoints at least two more conservative supreme court justices. Renquist (sp?) has said he wants to retire while a republican is in the White House and O'Conner has hinted the same. Justice Stevens, however, is 84 and by far the most liberal on the bench. He likely will not last another 4 years, so if Bush is re-selected, he will be able to replace a liberal justice with a conservative one. Think of that when you look back at all the close 5-4 decisions over the last several years. Now look at O'Conner. While a moderate conservative (she's never wavered on Roe- v. Wade), she would likely be replaced by a justice who leans further to the right. Now you're looking at 6-3 decisions that will ultimately take us back to the stone age.

THIS ELECTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ISSUES.....issues went out the window a long time ago! I really have no clue where Kerry stands on the domestic issues because I do not care.....

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT REMOVING A CANCER OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. The election is about removing criminals and liars out of the WH. The election is about our democracy and constitution. Men who lie to the troops and the american people to get a war for selfish reasons are a cancer in my opinion. An administration that is so secretive and hides everything from the people are a cancer in my opinion. I could go on and on.....you get my point I hope.

Thanks a lot.

it is the military-industrial-banking-religious-constitutional thieves who are trying to rule the world.

All the emphasis should be on those who are conniving thieves and murderers and those who aren't. Instead, we have a structure dependent on personalities and a media who rules them.

The difference between the candidates is their constituencies. The constituency that backs a Democrat is quite different from the Republican constituency. Whoever the candidate is that asks for and expects the Dem vote has to answer to a different ideology - of tolerance rather than fundamentalist bible stuff and corporate theft; of peace rather than crusades and war; of earth over destruction; of respect for people of other countries and the earth under their feet - earth they are in charge of rather than exploitation a coalition of thieving countries who believe they are entitled to all earth resources and who think that they just imprison the peoples of other countries literally or imprison them in poverty and lies and an empty facade that disallows them to maintain or change their own cultural heritage.

The people on the Dem side should perfect the ideology and demand its execution by their candidate - cuz there is no choice..

Again

You are playing Devil's Advocate, right?

this forum is not the right place for you.

It's as though the issues don't even exist in their world.

Where is there a clear cut distinction between foreign and domestic policy on these issues?

War in Iraq.
NAFTA
Job outsourcing.
Civil liberties
Human rights.
The environment.
Kyoto.
Global warming.
Military spending.

I agree that the GOP igonores domestic policy, but I do not think it is much better to not connect domestic and foreitn policy.