Where are the platforms?

[cracked]

[chucK]

harpell,

You asked where the platforms were. Ralph showed you were both parties have posted them on the internet (a great tool for disseminating information!).

 

You got snitty because you thought that the candidates themselves should be voicing their platforms. Ralph showed you that Kerry stated many positions of his platform right in his speech, that you implied that you watched!

 

It makes me wonder why you are posting this question?

 

I am curious if Bush will actually outline something in his speech tonight about any part of his party's platform besides, "September 11, 2001!!"

 

Do you think he will mention the constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage? I have heard nothing of that in any speeches so far.

[Off_White]

There has been virtually no effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons under Bush.

 

What, you mean contingency plans to invade Iran don't count?

[slothrop]

And now even South Korea got caught enriching uranium! We are losing influence in Asia... bad news.

[scott_harpell]

So are you complaining that Kerry lacks a unifying vision (what is Bush's)? I thought you wanted to hear him speak about his platform, which it seems that he has done.

 

We managed to have strong nuclear arms anti-proliferation with our arch-enemies, the Soviets, during the Cold War. Remember START and all that? I'm sure that, unless we pursue the policy unilaterally (Kerry's not for this, as he himself has said), we can help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush is capable of swallowing his pride and dealing fairly with other countries in pursuit of non-proliferation. There has been virtually no effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons under Bush.

 

Discussion of the fine points of policy is beyond the scope of an acceptance speech. I don't think you'll find Bush delving into more detail than Kerry, and I wouldn't expect him to. That's what all those staffers are for--to write the long, detailed policy documents that hardly anyone reads. You can find the details on both the GOP and Dems websites, if you're so inclined.

 

But I think you'd rather argue semantics ad infinitum.

 

You are missing the point slothie. I said NEITHER candidate has SAID what their platform is; other then ANTI-the other candidate.

 

But I think you would rather be mired in bi-partisan bickering despite the fact that this has nothing to do with the statement that started this thread.

 

[scott_harpell]

ChucK

 

 

"You got snitty because you thought that the candidates themselves should be voicing their platforms. Ralph showed you that Kerry stated many positions of his platform right in his speech, that you implied that you watched!"

 

I think that should be the goal of an election race

 

"It makes me wonder why you are posting this question?"

 

Because obviously none of you can answer it. I can. Neither have made any statments.

 

The point of this is to show that this is a popularity contest. We are not electing the best leader but rather the guy whotalks the most shit. Is this not an issue worth adressing? Or is this kinda thing something you feel is vital to the electoral process?

[pope]

Heard a guy from Log Cabin report that the GOP platform will oppose gay marriage and civil union. If they win, we can expect them to oppose interracial marriage in 2008. By the time we get to 2050, perhaps we will have "devolved" to the 1950's.

 

[scott_harpell]

I am curious if Bush will actually outline something in his speech tonight about any part of his party's platform besides, "September 11, 2001!!"

 

Do you think he will mention the constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage? I have heard nothing of that in any speeches so far.

 

NO. and that is precisely the point I was adressing.

[slothrop]

I don't get you, Scott. Kerry laid out a lot of his platform in his speech. I'm hoping GW will do the same, because I'm sick of the nitpicking and clever spinning of quotes taken out of context ("I voted for the war before I voted against it", "We can't win the war on terror", etc.) done by both sides. The Swift Boat thing was the lowest of low points so far.

[scott_harpell]

I don't see policies outlined in Kerry's speech. I see him saying: "I want a stronger America," "I will end nuke arms prolif" and "I will make all the other nations like us". That is the kind of platform you hear at a presidential election at the H.S. level. How are you going to do this? Are you going to impliment a 3.2% tax increase to enable spending for essential resources? or are you gonna snap your fingers and make all the baddies go away?

[scott_harpell]

...and there it is.

[Stonehead]

Maybe the current state of politics is a reflection of how we truly are. We'd rather downgrade someone else's character rather than focus on the issues. Maybe we shouldn't give a damn because the issues appear too damn complex or are simply unsolvable. Maybe we should focus on developing more effective ways of killing and maiming people because killing can seem to be a simple (and final) solution. Maybe we should focus on the War on Terror and target more governments (who cares about collateral damage anyway?--we're saving them from themselves!) for elimination because we think we can solve those problems better than domestic issues. Maybe we're lazy and hedonistic. Maybe leisure is better than rolling your sleeves up and working towards a solution to problems.