I think you're giving Kerry way too much credit. Most people couldn't do worse than Bush has even if they intended to. I don't think Kerry could actually pull that off even if he wanted to.FEOS wrote:
Keep in mind that many of those who voted for him are saying he's doing a terrible job. Perhaps you have to live here to understand the "voting for the least bad ticket" phenomenon that we have in the presidential elections. As bad as Bush has been, Kerry would have been much, much worse...so choosing between the two is taking the lesser of two evils.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Or maybe the idiocy of the people who voted for him.
I'm sure many of you don't comprehend that there may have been a worse alternative than a second Bush term, but at the time of the election, that seemed like the least painful choice.
How can you show support for someone without supporting their actions? You may not agree with the war, but by supporting the soldiers you show support for their actions. What else is support?CapnNismo wrote:
Of course, you can't understand the differences, so I am just going to ignore you from now on. I've explained it in the original post and subsequent posts. If you can't figure it out by now, tough shit.
Of course I can, nevertheless the democratic process failed to have any impact on the continuation of the war.Do you realize how UNPOPULAR the war in Vietnam was back then? Can you even comprehend it? www.vietnamwar.com Read.
Fuck Israel