(no subject)

[terrypurple73]

There really are some people who can make you feel better about everything. I didn’t even go over to Shannon’s until 11:30 last night, so by the time I got home, it was, uh, 5:30 in the morning..... It just felt immensely good to catch up, to hash everything out, to voice frustrations, and to actually not really gossip at all for a night. That felt really good in itself. And the fact that I am not the only person who plans on voting for neither Kerry nor Bush- that’s really comforting and encouraging.

I feel like there is a lot more waiting to spill out of me about Our Conversation, but it’s not coming out right now. Other than to say, it was an evening we both seemed to be desperately needing.

Comments

sacred time equals bliss

[(Anonymous)]

It's really good to hear that my wife is feeling "relieved." It sounds like you and Shannon had some quality sacred time. I read your livejournals while I was in TN for more wedding goodness... babies and weddings and Portland Oh My! Anywho- I was really worried about you and wanting to give you a hug.
Wow what a strange weekend for me. I really like David's girlfriend, but babies? wow just wow. There was definately some interesting uses of language and Bible in Jen's wedding as well... I was wishing that you were there to agree with me. ;-) I'm never "submitting" to you Theresa even if you are my wife... then again, it was more sexist than that... I suppose that it only applies to husbands, and I don't want one of those any time in the forseeable future. There are obviously more stories here than I am telling. Methinks that I would like to call you tomorrow night because it will be my last chance for a while, and I would very much like to talk to you. I think that I might also like to have a livejournal account now that I am going off to a place I've never been and all. Would that still be possible? Much Love to Sweet T!
hugs, katie

[peachnettie.livejournal.com]

You guys still haven't learned your lesson?
Seriously, in politics, it's the lesser of two evils. Damn it. If you don't vote for Kerry Bush can win again. And that is so much worse than not voting your conscience. People thought it didn't matter with Nader. Not a dime's worth of difference? Are people still that moronic? Is there anyone who thinks Al Gore would have fucked the country over like Bush has? Idealism has its time and place, but dammit. Not now.

[(Anonymous)]

...and if you plan on protesting lousy things that Kerry does, it helps to say that you voted for him. ...because that way, you can threaten to not vote for him again.

--Jastien

[peachnettie.livejournal.com]

That's the French political thought. I understand your gripe. I understand why you would want to vote for a third party candidate. But such statements are rendered unimportant during times like these. We have, what I believe to be, a truly evil man in the White House. Evil in that he cares only for himself and those like him. Evil in that he has no respect for human life or freedom, in my concept of freedom. If this election were all sewn up, as the 1996 elections were, I'd say fine, make a statement. But this election is too important for that! We're at war! The country is in a crisis and, to me, the only moral thing to do is get rid of Bush. Save the gripes and protests for another day. There are times we liberals need to band together, and this is one of those times.

[peachnettie.livejournal.com]

Also a good point. Sorry. I replied to that as if you were Theresa. My bad.

[demonbaby19.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm taking the bait.

Seriously, in politics, it's the lesser of two evils. Damn it. If you don't vote for Kerry Bush can win again.

Unfortunately, Bush can win even if I do vote for Kerry. As cliche as it sounds, I'm sick of all the negative campaigning. I want to vote for someone I believe in, not someone who's being advertised as 'the only other choice.' The very fact of the Bush administration has dealt a large enough blow to American democracy (it's still clear to me that he didn't win the 2000 election in the first place). It would be a terrible defeat for democracy, in my opinion, for people to vote based solely on who they think can win. It's an election, not a horse race. You don't get a prize for picking the winner. You vote for the person who best represents your beliefs, and you hope that enough other people agree with you. I think both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, do a disservice to the country by fighting to maintain their exclusive hold on government. Maybe more people would vote if there was a broader range of candidates. Or, if the major party candidates were willing to stop dancing around the issues and talk directly about what they believe in, that might also encourage better voter turn out. I don't want to believe that our democracy amounts to nothing more than playing politics, and I absolutely won't decide who to vote for on the basis of that belief.

People thought it didn't matter with Nader.

Actually, people voted for Nader because they believed it did matter. I obviously can't speak for others, but for me it wasn't a statement or a protest. It was a vote. I believed in what he stood for, and I thought he would make a good president, so I voted for him. If he were running the same campaign this year that he was in 2000, I would vote for him again.

Idealism has its time and place, but dammit. Not now.

I disagree with you on that. I think that idealism needs to be strongest at times of greatest crisis. The reason we have ideals is to guide us in moments of crisis. I always struggled with Mr. Raths' questions about relative versus absolute morality because I believe in both. I believe that flexibility is important, but I also believe that there are some things I can never support. Proliferation of weapons is on that list, and Kerry and Edwards both seem to believe that our army can't kill people quite as efficiently as it should. They talk about new weapons technology that can 'save American lives,' operating on a belief that the lives of Americans are more important than the lives of other people around the world. I think that is both immoral and dangerous. I firmly believe that line of thinking is what got us where we are today. I've seen the results of that type of nationalism, and I'm not going to support it with my vote.

That's the French political thought.

At the risk of being labeled entirely unpatriotic, maybe we should take a cue from the French.

I'm not trying to argue that nobody should vote for Kerry, or that my approach to the question is the only legitimate one. I am trying to argue that I have a right to my approach. If you want to try and change my mind on a specific issue, then by all means, lets argue it out. If my positions on the issues change, that will probably lead to a change in which candidate I prefer. But don't try to tell me who to vote for. And please don't call me moronic, or suggest in any way that I haven't given this serious thought. That's just disrespectful.

[terrypurple73.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I even need to say it, but thank you, thank you, thank you, for explaining this. I appreciate that you can put into words how I feel.
And now I need to put my bags together.... to go! Eep!
with love,
~Dorothy

[peachnettie.livejournal.com]

Um, I didn't. I'm kinda pissed at your last comments, but I'll let it slide. I know you have given this serious thought. So have I. As I said in my last comment, I understand your gripe. So don't call me disrespectful. I'm not saying anyone is moronic. Read me clearly. And I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm telling you why your reasoning is going to make things worse, not better.
I understand the gripe. I'm not saying that the fact that it's French means it's bad. It just makes things more chaotic. French politics are far more chaotic than American. The french believe they shouldn't vote for anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same way on every issue. So you get a million parties and general chaos in the system. Quit reading stuff into my comments that isn't there.
Ralph Nader was an arrogant jerk in his last campaign. His comment that Bush and Gore were the same was highly insulting, rude, and, most importantly, wrong.
The problem with idealism is that it sees everything in black and white. It makes issues simple when they're anything but, the same thing I dislike about W. This is good, that is bad. Done. The death penalty is always wrong. War is always the wrong answer. Environmental protection should always be more important than economic matters.
In an ideal world, sure. But this world sucks. And so we need to deal with things as they are, not as we'd like them to be. The problem with idealism is that the world will never be ideal. Ever. That's life.
Weapons proliferation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. What if, by saving American lives, we can also save others? What if, by bullying the rest of the world around, we can keep it in check and keep violent acts from occurring? I hate to sound like Machiavelli, but maybe he had a point. Giuliani put people in jail for peeing in the streets. That's horridly authoritarian, but NYC did clean up some. I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm just saying that the issue is more complicated than just "Kerry and Edwards think American lives are more important than others."
And you cannot presume to know what's in their minds when they make statements, either. It's terribly sad, but they have to play to the crowd. And the fact is that the crowd is more concerned about their own lives than others'. That's a fact. And in America, the crowd is the one that gets to make the decisions, not the fringe left or fringe right. This is a democracy and no one on the extreme is going to win an election. Politicians must play to the crowd. If they don't, they get no power. Perhaps a better education system would help improve the electorate? Bush surely won't give us that.
The problem is, I often agree with you. I think people should vote for the person they agree with most. I think the Nazis should vote for Buchanan and the radicals should vote for Kucinich. Normally. But our country is in a crisis. These are not normal times. If you're vote was going to be superfluous, throw it where you want. BUt in this election, every vote counts. In these times, relative morality is called for, not absolute. In this context, we need to put all of our forces behind Kerry, because he's the only one who has a possibility of winning.
I know this may sound extreme, but I honestly view Bush as a man who could become a Hitler type of leader. He comes in, I think he's a little insane, and he starts taking away civil liberties. Now, what if in 1930's Germany liberals had lost the elections because there were two candidates and they divided the vote. Tragedy, right? I think we're in those kind of extreme circumstances right now. Normally, though, I'd say you were right to vote for Nader.

Sorry this is such a jumbled response. I have a massive headache right now.