Would Senator Kerry have made a good president?
- Thread starter B_Stronzo
- Start date
Maybe ... Maybe not ... I didn't particularly care for him or Bush, or for an analogy ... what do I want for the next 4 years, a headache or a stomach ache (for clarification I didn't vote in 2004 b/c I was too young)
a case of S.S.D.N. I'm afraid
a case of S.S.D.N. I'm afraid
i really have no idea ... honest 
it wouldn't be that hard to do better than Bush ... but the government is more than just the president, so the issue only becomes that much more mind numbing
it wouldn't be that hard to do better than Bush ... but the government is more than just the president, so the issue only becomes that much more mind numbing
Stronzo said:
I liked the fact that he seemed able to change his mind, admit mistakes, and weigh different sides of an issue before arriving at a decision. Or, flip-flop, if you'd prefer. To a political moderate such as myself, that was an attractive attribute.
Stronzo said:
But yet ... Pres. Bush is Sen. Kerry's opposite (in that light) & we're viewed as arrogant still the same ... *goes back to pondering the government*
dcwrestlefan
Sexy Member
a good president? hmmm. i think he would have been at least a "c+". better than what we have. he botched it, but i thought years ago that a president cuomo would have been pretty awesome.
it'll be another "what if" in the history of the country. what if kennedy had not been shot. what if nixon had not won in 1968 in a close 3-way race. what if the attempt on reagan's life was successful (no i am not wishing it had been). what if ross perot had not run in 1992. what if the florida election results were REAL in 2000, or nader had stayed out? what if we were sure what happened in ohio in the 2004 election was not tainted. interesting stuff to think about, but thats about it.
it'll be another "what if" in the history of the country. what if kennedy had not been shot. what if nixon had not won in 1968 in a close 3-way race. what if the attempt on reagan's life was successful (no i am not wishing it had been). what if ross perot had not run in 1992. what if the florida election results were REAL in 2000, or nader had stayed out? what if we were sure what happened in ohio in the 2004 election was not tainted. interesting stuff to think about, but thats about it.
Captain Elephant
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Posts
- 801
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 248
- Points
- 263
- Location
- North Central Florida
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
OK, as long as you're dreaming. Would Bush have made a better president without Cheney and Rumsfield?
By the way, I do think Kerry would have made a better president, but he would have been crucified for his milktoast foreign policy, much worse than Bush is being crucified for his kicking ass and taking names foreign policy. The difference is that Kerry would have cared about the polls.
By the way, I do think Kerry would have made a better president, but he would have been crucified for his milktoast foreign policy, much worse than Bush is being crucified for his kicking ass and taking names foreign policy. The difference is that Kerry would have cared about the polls.
that_other_guy said:
I see what you mean tog.
But I meant that the Senator has a polish and a natural charm that bespeaks background and considered intelligence. To many in mainstream society that's a threatening quality and viewed oddly to them as "arrogant". I don't see any arrogance in the Senator from Massachusetts.
Bush is arrogant in that he hasn't the ability to see things from anyone's position but his own.
For me self-assuredness and dignity does not arrogance make.
Stupidity and intransigence, however, does.
Captain Elephant said:
Cool question! Ummmmmmmmmmm. He'd have been exposed much earlier that's all.
To you, Captain Elephant, does "milktoast" in this instance equate with reason and conscience?
NineInchCock_160IQ said:
Yes. I've made that point more than once that what so many quickly coined as "flip flop" or "waffling" I saw as an ability to have perspective (or as you say 'change his mind'). Pity a considerate man is deemed weak where an arrogant one with an inablity to see anything but from his own experience is deemed "powerful". :33:
Stronzo said:
I agree with you (100% actually ... which is odd for me in political things) ... but I still didn't/don't particularly like either one of them ... o well
Sorry, but fuck no. Any man who sells out his fellow soldiers in his platoon deserves no place at the head of this country.
Bush is awful, I'm not arguing that. But you judge a man based on his convictions, past and morals. Despite them being bad decisions, I honestly feel that Bush has thought he was doing what was best for this country with each decision made. I'm not so sure I can say that with Kerry. I think it would have been more of a what's best for Kerry situation, rather than a what's best for this country.
We should've elected Badnarik anyways.
Bush is awful, I'm not arguing that. But you judge a man based on his convictions, past and morals. Despite them being bad decisions, I honestly feel that Bush has thought he was doing what was best for this country with each decision made. I'm not so sure I can say that with Kerry. I think it would have been more of a what's best for Kerry situation, rather than a what's best for this country.
We should've elected Badnarik anyways.
LINittanyLion said:
If we're judging people based on their past, then personally I'd rather have someone with a conscience who served honorably in war and then later objected to the atrocities of Vietnam as opposed to some drunken frat boy who never had the balls to go.
That being said, I think it's pretty dumb when the past (so far removed) of either politician was brought up during the election. Bush is obviously not an alcoholic anymore and Kerry hasn't been marching in any anti-war rallies. I think back to the person I was 30 years ago and... well.. actually I wasn't a person 30 years ago... but even 10 years ago I was a completely different person than the man I am today. Shockingly different.
I'm not sure I agree that Bush has always been doing what's in the country's best interest, but I'm not interested enough to argue the point. Of course it's impossible to know what decisions Kerry would have made differently, or how they would have been motivated. But I guess this whole thread is purely hypothetical...
dcwrestlefan
Sexy Member
LINittanyLion said:
you have solid proof of this. please present it. i viewed it as more mean spirited propaganda that bush and his crew are well known for. i read alot that indicated this was horse manure. he won the election for governor of texas, in part, because rumors were spread that anne richards had alot of homosexuals working for her, and would put them into high places in texas government if elected. the guy will stop at nothing to win. and when he wins, we lose. bush senior also had cronies that spread rumors about ross perot having a lesbian daughter. these people are really mean - the dems need to do the same, and they have alot more ammunition. i want more mud from the left. it apparently works.
i wish we could agree on something one of these days. haha. given your major and my profession, it would be fun to "talk shop" sometime. we have the "archie bunker and meathead" thing going in reverse here tho. (i do very sincerely apologize for trashing your school in a previous post months ago)
rich
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Kerry is an intelligent man with a conscience. He went to serve his country in good faith, and when he got there he found things were not what they were supposed to be. "Rat" is something grade-school kids call each other, a man of conscience does not check that conscience at the door- anywhere. He saw things he thought were wrong, and he said so, I would do the same. Having the courage of one's convictions is admirable, I'm sorry more people don't see that or even grasp the concept. Saying America was wrong for being there was just truth, sorry if it stings sometimes. I love my friends, but I'll still tell them when they're wrong, and I'll take it to heart and give it serious consideration if they tell me I'M wrong. Disagreeing with a decision your government has made does not mean you don't support your country, it may mean you want your country to be it's best.
Being stubborn and inflexible, even in the face of having erred greatly is just stupid. I have no doubt that Kerry would have been better, he would not have undermined the constitution to the degree bush has, and we all lost there. They're both overspoiled aristocrats, but at least Kerry has the ability to think and consider evidence. I like a person who attempts to correct a mistake rather than sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!"
Being stubborn and inflexible, even in the face of having erred greatly is just stupid. I have no doubt that Kerry would have been better, he would not have undermined the constitution to the degree bush has, and we all lost there. They're both overspoiled aristocrats, but at least Kerry has the ability to think and consider evidence. I like a person who attempts to correct a mistake rather than sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!"
We voted in who we voted in for better or for worse so suck it up people and start planning the next move You cannot change what has been done just use it as a learning device 2008 is not that far off so it would be nice to start seeing who either side is planning to push out front for the next round.
I dunno HOW I came upon this thread but glad I did.
Most definitely he would have been an excellent president. He may not be the most charming man in politics but give me Intelligence over pseudo-charm any damn day.
KERRY served his country proudly and with distinction in Vietnam while W dodged Vietnam. How odd that his military records are SEALED ????
Look at the great record of senatorship of KERRY opposed to Bush's abysmal record in TX.
A trained chimpanzee who would be W's intellectual superior would be a better president. Sad fact is without his advisors he would be COMPLETELY LOST, as it is he's just somewhat lost.
I LOVE that he was arrogant enough to think that him campaigning for the GOP would help keep them omnimpotent with an approval rating hovering at 30%, yet HE was the very reason DEMocracy returned to our country on Tuesday night.
Thx Dubya, you FINALLY did something good for our country after 6 yrs of incompetence
:banana:
HORSE
Similar threads
