Reply #19: For one thing, they were lied to, although to me that is not as acceptable [View All]

[unpossibles]

I mean, many of us weren't fooled by it, and it's their job to be on top of things.

Another thing though, is that the timing of it was intentional by Bush & Cheney, according to the book Hubris which makes sense. Sure, that means they voted the way they did because of politics, but... come on. Again, not the best excuse but it's human and understandable.

The best answer for me is that NONE of the candidates matches me perfectly. Kucinich comes far closest, but I disagree with his stance on handguns, or at least the severity and impossibility of it.

But no one in elected office truly represents me. Does that mean I should never vote? I personally do not see the problem with stating that sometimes voting for the lesser of two "evils" is a really good thing, as opposed to abstaining from voting because of it. Obviously, that is about the general election, and not the primary, but it still sort of applies. Back to what I was saying about not being represented perfectly by anyone, I am going to always choose the person who I feel either comes closest or at the very least, will oppress people the least even if we disagree on issues.

Bottom line: yes, the war votes sucked, but don't forget they were planned that way, and at the time many people (most, based on polls) truly did not know what the truth was regarding Iraq. But when it comes to the GE, I'd rather vote for a relatively conservative "war monger" in the Democratic party over a religious nutjob in the Republican party who wants to destroy the first amendment any day. Hell, even if that other person is an anti-war nutjob like Ron Paul. Know why? Because his other stances make him far less desirable than anyone on the left. Anyone.

I would have thought that was obvious, especially after the 2000 selection, but I guess I was wrong.