← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster
Thread ID: 12619 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2004-03-02
2004-03-02 21:29 | User Profile
Seeing the explosion of government spending under Bush, is it wiser for us now to have the left in charge of the Executive branch, and the right in charge of the Legislative? Dividing the government might be a good strategy.
It occurs to me that just as it took Nixon to open up to China and the USSR, perhaps it will take a liberal to put the brakes on the expansion of the Welfare State, assuming the Right controls the Congress.
So too Bush has pushed an imperial foreign policy as bad if not worse than any leftist's.
Finally, Kerry's political skills and assets within his party are hardly Clintonian. Perhaps he wouldn't be so dangerous.
What have we got to lose?
2004-03-02 22:05 | User Profile
Either way, we are screwed.
I am voting for Kerry, at least maybe he will have a better foreign policy than "blow em up" Bush that will not cost us lives, millions of dollars and millions of lies.
Maybe....
2004-03-02 22:12 | User Profile
I say worse is better. Go with Boosh in 04. He will continue to outsource jobs while also over extending the empire. America is doomed either way. I give it 30 years.
2004-03-02 22:15 | User Profile
I would not be voting for the sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act if I were in the US.
2004-03-02 22:34 | User Profile
Neither one deserves an endorsement from a white man, even if votes were still counted. I suggest, as a pure act of symbolism, that former voters should stop by the hardware store during the month of October and pick up as much rope as they can carry home. Just to see if it registers with the media, or heaven forbid, affects the candidates' smirks.
To quote il ragno ~ > The election will be a fresh, well-heeled stealth Jew sworn to Israel VS a used-up & discarded prophylactic of a man equally sworn to Israel even though he knows it was Ariel Sharon who unrolled him off his putz and flung him into the waste basket when he was done shpritzing. The fix is in: it's Team Shmuel in a walk!
2004-03-02 22:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]What have we got to lose?[/QUOTE]
Look at South Africa or Zimbabwe and you'll get an idea of how much we have left to lose.
If you vote, vote for who you really want, not the lessor of two evils. For me, that will be the Constitution Party. Yes, I know their guy won't win. But, I've not fooled myself enough to think that voting for the "lessor of two evils" is practical. Your vote will change nothing.
You could choose to not vote and save yourself the time and gas money it would take to vote.
It's better if the Congress and the president are at odds. But, both Kerry and Bush promise to do as much damage to America as they can.
2004-03-03 01:23 | User Profile
Kerry is a Skull and Bones buddy of George Bush Jr. Kerry graduated in 66, Bush in 68. They have met at parties in Deer Island on the St. Lawrence river. Although there may be no love lost, oaths were sworn . Sworn. Binding. I cannot vote for Nader either. Unless a new candidate comes forth I plan on voting for the Constitution Party candidate. Vote for the coke head or the pot head.. good choice. As a people we must turn our backs on this system and lives will be lost to make that happen. Send your dogs.
2004-03-03 02:12 | User Profile
You kids. Doesn't anybody write in [url=http://www.nota.org/]"none of the above"[/url] anymore?
2004-03-03 03:39 | User Profile
The sentiments expressed in this thread are accurate--either way, the Establishment wins regardless of which of the two candidates is elected. Neither of the two are likely to alter the destructive course this nation is on.
However, for some reason I hold a special hatred (and I rarely use that term) for the Bush Dynasty, and I admit I would thoroughly enjoy at least seeing that arrogant, smirking "W." become a one-termer like his father for the history books. Another electoral zing like that is exactly what the Bush family deserves, given how instrumental the role of that particular family has been over the years in boldly and shamelessly selling out working and middle-class white Americans.
Bush II is quite the barometer for demonstrating just how deep America has plunged into decadence--this chimpanzee wasn't even properly elected even at the level of appearances, but coronated and rubber-stamped. And he got where he is merely because his last name is Bush. The years 2000-2004 prove America is in the phase where she is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Whenever I see AntiYuppie's sig line, "Civilizations die when their clowns become Gods," I always marvel at how precisely it describes the Bush factor.
2004-03-03 05:41 | User Profile
Sally Shops-A-Lot, on the various political candidates: "Gee......should I support Jew-tool A, Jew-tool B, or Jew-tool C? I'm so confused!"
So am I. Won't you help?
:king: :king: :king:
2004-03-03 08:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]In one of his recent columns, Joe Sobran wrote, "If Kerry is the alternative to Bush, perhaps we should think of alternatives to voting." Those are my thoughts exactly. Barring an at least marginally visible 3d party canditate who at least approaches my views within a light year, the general election of 2004 will be a wonderful opportunity for me to stay home.[/QUOTE]
The question that always comes up in every presidential election among right-wingers and others disaffected with modern politics is whether they should vote for "the other guy/party" or just stay home. Ironically, this reflects the false either/or dilemma that Washington wants you to feel. Antinomies as artificial as these should be transparent to any free thinker who hasn't completely given in to cynicism and fatalism. There is another way... [I]or at least we can try[/I].
I think at this point a vote for [I]any[/I] third party or independent candidate is more positive than staying at home or voting for Bush/Kerry (same difference). Of course, a third party or independent candidate is not going to win a national election... at least not yet. What's important now is to destabilize the two-party monopoly and strengthen the voice of third front politics. If they get enough votes, especially if behind a single candidate or party, they send a frightening message to Washington; a much more frightening message than any neonazi extremist organization, "lone wolf terrorist", or right-wing militia group can. I will vote for Nader. I disagree with some (many) of his ideas but the important thing is he is the most viable third party candidate and [B]not[/B] that I agree with him on 100% (or even most) of the issues.
About a week ago, I saw Buchanan rallying behind Nader in a "debate" on some afternoon political talkshow concerning whether "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush?" (the anti-Nader side was represented by that Democrat partisan from that show "Crossfire"). I was pretty impressed by that. Now I'm sure many nationalists (probably most) aren't Buchanan fans either (neither am I) but this show of solidarity isn't insignificant and it sure beats passively complaining by not voting, procuring self-defeat in the process.
Third parties have been able to make an impact in American politics. The Populist party, for instance, made a pretty big splash as the Industrial Revolution picked up. Eventually, the party dissolved due to co-optation of their main position by the Democrats but the message had been sent. In Europe they don't have a monolithic two-party democracy and it doesn't have to be that way in the United States. If we can't win democratically at least we can make liberal democracy appear illegitimate in the eyes of many people. Through this we may reasonably hope that many will rally to the cause of nationalism as an authentic alternative ([I]the[/I] authentic alternative, I'd argue) to modern politics and its binary machinations.
There's no need to head to the bunker just yet, o ye frustrated and embittered ones. We can work with democracy and use it towards our advantage and we can start now instead of waiting for the "ideal" party to show up on the ballot (which won't happen if we don't start now). Support third parties and independents.
2004-03-03 08:20 | User Profile
I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry in this election. Both disgust me too much.
[QUOTE=Drakmal]You kids. Doesn't anybody write in [url=http://www.nota.org/]"none of the above"[/url] anymore?[/QUOTE]Hmmm...that's not such a bad idea.
2004-03-03 15:08 | User Profile
What's important now is to destabilize the two-party monopoly and strengthen the voice of third front politics.
Exactly. In a winner-take-all system, the Jews position themselves in a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose position.
Destroying the Repukelican party as a viable "conservative" option in the minds of fellow Whites should be a high priority. The GOP is doing this job for us very well.
2004-03-03 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Exactly. In a winner-take-all system, the Jews position themselves in a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose position.
Destroying the Repukelican party as a viable "conservative" option in the minds of fellow Whites should be a high priority. The GOP is doing this job for us very well.[/QUOTE] Exactly, opposition to the GOP neocon has to be focused and pubicized. Otherwise it just goes down as, "they must be happy, since they don't object".