The Official US President Election Thread

[Nurvingiel]

*reads JDs last post* Hmm... so would I be right in saying you're a Republican yourself?

That's pretty cool that you got a note from Condoleeza Rice herself! Right on.

Anyway, here's what I got thinking in the 9/11 Comission Report thread:
Kerry says he will handle homeland security better than Bush. What do you guys (Americans) think of his statement?

(I think I have a feeling of what you think already JD... By the way, what is a "snowjob" exactly?)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Anyway, here's what I got thinking in the 9/11 Comission Report thread:
Kerry says he will handle homeland security better than Bush. What do you guys (Americans) think of his statement?

I don't think he can. For one thing - we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 - that's a pretty good record. Right now we are under high terrorist alert. The Prudential Building in Newark is a prime target right now. The intelligence on this stuff today seems to be very specific. I think Kerry will sell out American security to the UN and to Europe.

(I think I have a feeling of what you think already JD... By the way, what is a "snowjob" exactly?)

A snowjob is like trying to hide things that you don't want people to see or know - like right now kerry is doing a snowjob on his voting record - by not addressing it. Nothing was mentioned in the convention that Theresa Heinz was a republican until January. Her speech was quite amazing when you put into that context of what her political party was only 6 months ago.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And Bush will have the same thing at the Republican Convention. Really doesn't mean much as to who Kerry had, because of his record on things.

course it means a lot. you now actually have a democratic presidential candidate who has a better military background (VOLUNTEERING for Vietnam. Three purple hearts) then his republican opponent who went out of his way to avoid serving in Vietnam and whose military service as it was seems awful shady. Of course Kerry is gonna be all over the military thing. Its a great plus for him in regards to the more conservative middle grounders who arent sure which way to go. And considering Bush touts himself as this super war president and Mr. Flag Waving Patriot its a good strategy to counter that hollow image by having significant military folks extol his leadership ability and to remind people over and over and over about his service.

I wanted to address the comments concerning Theresa and how she is her "own person". I find it rather ironic that she has always been a Republican and only changed her party affiliation in January. Her speech was laughable when one considers what her stands were BEFORE her husband won the primaries. But hey - everyone would consider it was rather odd to have a person running for president with his wife being of the opposite party. So much for her being opininated and not "toeing the line" like so many other candidates wives and being her "own person."

You think Kerry forced her to become a democrat? I doubt it. Remember this is a guy that wanted a republican as his RUNNING MATE more then anything.

Yeah - I know how she said that her reasons she gave were for the way the rebublicans treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002. If she was so upset - then why did she wait so long? Hmmmm - I think it has more to do with "stand by your man." while her being her "own woman" is just a joke and political ploy.

well then she better rush home and start baking cookies then since deciding to become a democrat means she isnt her own woman.

She was a Republican - contrary to some people's opinions - there are MANY great individual Republican women

Well the discussion of whether Condalezza Rice is a "great woman" is another thing entirely... But i certainly didnt say all republican chicks are nobodys and had no life. In fact I think that was my very point. That BOTH stereotypes were wrong. I mean i DID bring up Elizabeth Dole didnt I?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

course it means a lot. you now actually have a democratic presidential candidate who has a better military background (VOLUNTEERING for Vietnam. Three purple hearts) then his republican opponent who went out of his way to avoid serving in Vietnam and whose military service as it was seems awful shady. Of course Kerry is gonna be all over the military thing. Its a great plus for him in regards to the more conservative middle grounders who arent sure which way to go. And considering Bush touts himself as this super war president and Mr. Flag Waving Patriot its a good strategy to counter that hollow image by having significant military folks extol his leadership ability and to remind people over and over and over about his service.

Bush also has MANY military personnel supporting him. Kerry has not supported the military at all in his history of being in the Senate. From what my brother said and I have heard this from others - they don't trust Kerry and his "military waving". He is trying to garner the military support - because he knows he needs it. But it's all whitewash. I don't really care too much how many medals he won - doesn't mean he can actually lead the country. A lot of what Kerry is saying is half truths - such as stating Bush "lied" about wmd - every intelligence in the world felt that Hussien had wmd. Now it has come out that iraq actually did make inquiries on nuclear weapons - but that is as far as it went. Both Bin Ladin and Hussein were in contact with each other.

You think Kerry forced her to become a democrat? I doubt it. Remember this is a guy that wanted a republican as his RUNNING MATE more then anything.

yes - I do think that having Theresa be a democrat was a political ploy. Come on - the only reason he wanted McCain was because he's middle of the road. The problem is that Kerry is far left. McCain and Theresa were on two different ends of the republican party. Anyway - Kerry said he NEVER asked McCain to be on the ticket - even though McCain said he did - so who do you believe? One of them is lying.

well then she better rush home and start baking cookies then since deciding to become a democrat means she isnt her own woman.

I don't think it was her decision completely - I think it was suggested that she should and she bowed down to them.

Well the discussion of whether Condalezza Rice is a "great woman" is another thing entirely... But i certainly didnt say all republican chicks are nobodys and had no life. In fact I think that was my very point. That BOTH stereotypes were wrong. I mean i DID bring up Elizabeth Dole didnt I?

Yet you continue to make that sexist "cookie baker" comment.

We went to the international community - several members were REFUSING to negotiate - I don't want to have our national security vetoed by the likes of the do nothing UN or the slimeball Chirac. His true colors are coming out in his dealings with the EU.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Bush also has MANY military personnel supporting him. Kerry has not supported the military at all in his history of being in the Senate. From what my brother said and I have heard this from others - they don't trust Kerry and his "military waving". He is trying to garner the military support - because he knows he needs it.

oh no no this isnt about getting the support of the military. He doesnt need the support of the military to become president. What is this Chile or something?! Hes doing this to get the middle of the road folks. The undecideds who tend to be more conservative (by definition) then the hard core liberals who are already in Kerry's corner. When they see all this military talk and how he was a hero and actually fought in vietnam and how significant military figures are now coming out talking about Kerry as a GREAT LEADER in every third sentence well your typical undecided thinks well thats refreshing. Finally a politician who didnt try to weazel his way out of military service and who has been a leader in the military. Its also an attempt to wrestle back the whole flag waving patriot thing from the republicans who have done a good job capturing that as their own alone. This is the democrats way of saying hey just because you are a democrat doesnt make you automatically unpatriotic. Its a good approach I think considering who its being focused on. We'll see how much traction they get with it though.

Anyway - Kerry said he NEVER asked McCain to be on the ticket - even though McCain said he did - so who do you believe? One of them is lying.

no the quote was that he never formally asked him to accept the position of running mate with him. Because he never got past just talking about it casually and McCain saying dont even ask me that John. Apparently they had numerous phone calls about the issue. Kerry never denied that at all.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh no no this isnt about getting the support of the military. He doesnt need the support of the military to become president. What is this Chile or something?! Hes doing this to get the middle of the road folks. The undecideds who tend to be more conservative (by definition) then the hard core liberals who are already in Kerry's corner. When they see all this military talk and how he was a hero and actually fought in vietnam and how significant military figures are now coming out talking about Kerry as a GREAT LEADER in every third sentence well your typical undecided thinks well thats refreshing. Finally a politician who didnt try to weazel his way out of military service and who has been a leader in the military. Its also an attempt to wrestle back the whole flag waving patriot thing from the republicans who have done a good job capturing that as their own alone. This is the democrats way of saying hey just because you are a democrat doesnt make you automatically unpatriotic. Its a good approach I think considering who its being focused on. We'll see how much traction they get with it though.

Let's not be stupid here - the military is made up of both democrats and republicans just like the general society. So what if kerry has some military personnel backing him. Is Kerry MORE of a hero than McCain who backs Bush???? My concern - as is my brother's and most of the people I have talked to in the military - is that Kerry will leave america's nation interests and security in the hands of the likes of Chirac and the UN. You think Bush won't have military personnel represented at the Republican National convention - give me a break. Kerry didn't support the military when he was in the Senate and that's what my brother and other people in the military are remembering - how he voted AGAINST so much when it came to the defense of this country. Now he wants to hide that by running on the "military" platform. I think Bush did a lot more by bringing the country through 9/11, the Afganistan War and Iraq. I think Bush's ideas of what has to be done to combat terrorism is a lot more accurate than Chirac's and Schroeder's who kerry will be listening to. I would much rather be offensively dealing with the terrorist in other countries - particularly where they live in the Middle East - than fighting them on the streets of NY and waiting for them to attack before responding.

As you point out - kerry is using the flag waving and patriotism that you criticize Bush for. I guess that's acceptable now since it's the democrats using it. I have no problem personally with him using it - just let's look at his history in the senate and his voting record - not what he did in vietnam which was roughly 35 years ago. The military issue for Kerry is a politcal ploy, because let me remind you - Bush LED the nation during 9/11 and afterward and in my opinion did a really great job. It doesn't really matter too much to me if Kerry was a war hero during vietnam. A TRUE leader makes decisions that may not be popular but are necessary. A true leader does NOT give foreign powers veto over what we do. It is also very funny that MOST liberals want the troops home from Iraq and want us to bail out of there. I don't believe Kerry will continue too long with his stand of finishing the jobs if he makes it in office with his supporters being so anti-war. If that happens - we will end up losing the war.

It's sort of interesting - democrats are saying that Bush hasn't succeeded in stopping terrorism - well of course not - it's a long hard fought battle and will take years. But now the attitude is that the warnings are just to scare Americans because there hasn't been an attack. I wonder how many terrorist attacks have been foiled because of these notices and because of things having been put in place by the Bush administration AFTER 9/11. Bush adminstration in my view is in a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation. if they don't issue the warnings and an attack occurs - they will be blamed for not warning, if they warn and nothing happens (maybe even because they actually STOPPED the planned attack) they are criticized for scaring people needlessly. I can understand if the streets of NY looked like the West Bank and Kerry and the liberals were getting up there and saying everything is terrible - but there hasn't been an attack on US soil in nearly 3 years.

As far as I'm concerned - it's the democrats who are running on the fear platform of "we are worse off than before 9/11" because they have to make it seem like we are losing this battle. I disagree with their assessment of the situation though. All it is is that when a person or country goes from an defensive position to a offensive position - the group you are fighting with fights harder.

no the quote was that he never formally asked him to accept the position of running mate with him. Because he never got past just talking about it casually and McCain saying dont even ask me that John. Apparently they had numerous phone calls about the issue. Kerry never denied that at all.

Well what McCain said in a speech was that Kerry had ASKED him to be his running mate and he declined and he was backing Bush. Kerry then said the next day he never asked nor was it discussed. So - believe what you want.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Remember this is a guy that wanted a republican as his RUNNING MATE more then anything.

I figured I'd address this statement a little more. You hit the nail on the head - "this is a guy that wanted a republican as his RUNNING MATE more than anything". Hmmm - I wonder why? Let's see here - he's FAR left in his voting record and his convictions - yet he's willing to bring on a REPUBLICAN to get the votes. Yeah - really seems like a true leader who goes with what he believes. There is only one reason he wanted to get McCain and people can sidestep the issue all they want. I don't want a president during this war to be making decisions based on opinion polls - and that is a pure example of what Kerry did by asking McCain to be his running mate.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And Bush will have the same thing at the Republican Convention. Really doesn't mean much as to who Kerry had, because of his record on things. My brother sent me an e-mail say...



I my cousin who just joined the marines is undecided - but he is leaning toward Bush. When I talked to him - it seemed like most of the people in his recruitment office think Kerry is just doing a snowjob. he will wait until he sees the debates though.

I wanted to address the comments concerning Theresa and how she is her "own person". I find it rather ironic that she has always been a Republican and only changed her party affiliation in January. Her speech was laughable when one considers what her stands were BEFORE her husband won the primaries. But hey - everyone would consider it was rather odd to have a person running for president with his wife being of the opposite party. So much for her being opininated and not "toeing the line" like so many other candidates wives and being her "own person." Yeah - I know how she said that her reasons she gave were for the way the rebublicans treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002. If she was so upset - then why did she wait so long? Hmmmm - I think it has more to do with "stand by your man." while her being her "own woman" is just a joke and political ploy.

Theresa is herself not John Kerry. Believe it or not, people can still be married and have different political views. To base relationships with the opposite sex on the basis of polotical views is completely ridiculous. I'm curious as to why so much attention is being stressed on his wife, she isn't running for office...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Theresa is herself not John Kerry. Believe it or not, people can still be married and have different political views. To base relationships with the opposite sex on the basis of polotical views is completely ridiculous. I'm curious as to why so much attention is being stressed on his wife, she isn't running for office...

No - I believe that a wife and husband can have different political views. But obviously you had completely understanding of my post. The problem I have is the convention speech she gave and the fact that she only changed her political party in January. Her speech was completely laughable and the delegates response to her was laughable. If she had such strong convictions and was her own person - she should have stayed Republican.

As for bringing up the wives - you might want to talk to IR about that - he's the one that brought up the wives. I just pointed out the contractions of Theresa's speech and reaction to the democratic party which you seem to have the problem with.

If Kerry and her are going to stress that she's her own person - i think it's important to know that before he got the nominatin she was a republican and didn't agree with her husband on most of the issues. Now that he's the nominee - she's a democrat.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

course it means a lot. you now actually have a democratic presidential candidate who has a better military background (VOLUNTEERING for Vietnam. Three purple hearts) then his republican opponent who went out of his way to avoid serving in Vietnam and whose military service as it was seems awful shady. Of course Kerry is gonna be all over the military thing. Its a great plus for him in regards to the more conservative middle grounders who arent sure which way to go. And considering Bush touts himself as this super war president and Mr. Flag Waving Patriot its a good strategy to counter that hollow image by having significant military folks extol his leadership ability and to remind people over and over and over about his service.

George Bush Sr. made sure his son got into the Texas National Guard to avoid the Vietnam war, that is nothing to be proud of. Maybe Kerry's strong opposition to war is because he actually experienced it. Kerry knows the horrors and atrocities that occur in war, which is something Bush wouldn't know a damn thing about.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No - I believe that a wife and husband can have different political views. But obviously you had completely understanding of my post. The problem I have is the convention speech she gave and the fact that she only changed her political party in January. Her speech was completely laughable and the delegates response to her was laughable. If she had such strong convictions and was her own person - she should have stayed Republican.

As for bringing up the wives - you might want to talk to IR about that - he's the one that brought up the wives. I just pointed out the contractions of Theresa's speech and reaction to the democratic party which you seem to have the problem with.

If Kerry and her are going to stress that she's her own person - i think it's important to know that before he got the nominatin she was a republican and didn't agree with her husband on most of the issues. Now that he's the nominee - she's a democrat.

My guess is she switched parties to eliminate controversy and to support her husband. But then again that really isn't important... I was asking in general about focusing on president's wives it wasn't directed to anyone specific.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

George Bush Sr. made sure his son got into the Texas National Guard to avoid the Vietnam war, that is nothing to be proud of. Maybe Kerry's strong opposition to war is because he actually experienced it. Kerry knows the horrors and atrocities that occur in war, which is something Bush wouldn't know a damn thing about.

Hmmm - funny- democrats were pissed off that republicans were using Clinton running off to England to avoid the vietnam war as a way of criticizing Clinton. I don't think whether Bush 41 got Bush 43 into the National Guard is an important issue. What I don't like is Kerry's voting record in the senate - which you as any democract seems unwilling to address. I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam - that was 35 years ago. Why is ignoring his voting record when it comes to the military now?

Also - remember - Bush 41 was a war hero too. Just because someone fought in a war doesn't make them a better American. The democrats finally have a veteran as a canidate and they are trying to make the most of it.

[Ragnarok]

I just got done watching Bush give a speech, and I couldn't take anything he said seriously. He made several claims but gave no support or examples. He kept repeating "America is alot of safer", but failed to give any proof or evidence.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I just got done watching Bush give a speech, and I couldn't take anything he said seriously. He made several claims but gave no support or examples. He kept repeating "America is alot of safer", but failed to give any proof or evidence.

And where did Kerry and his supporters during the Democratic Convention give any proof of anything?

There is ONE proof you can't deny - we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and MANY MANY terrorists and key leaders of Al Qaeda have been captured. That is a fact that can not be denied.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hmmm - funny- democrats were pissed off that republicans were using Clinton running off to England to avoid the vietnam war as a way of criticizing Clinton. I don't think whether Bush 41 got Bush 43 into the National Guard is an important issue. What I don't like is Kerry's voting record in the senate - which you as any democract seems unwilling to address. I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam - that was 35 years ago. Why is ignoring his voting record when it comes to the military now?

Also - remember - Bush 41 was a war hero too. Just because someone fought in a war doesn't make them a better American. The democrats finally have a veteran as a canidate and they are trying to make the most of it.

I don't care what Clinton did, that was 35 years ago. I mentioned Bush's military experience in reference to Kerry's voting record when it comes to war. And I gave my thoughts as to why he has though beliefs... it had nothing to do with Kerry being a better American.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And where did Kerry and his supporters during the Democratic Convention give any proof of anything?

There is ONE proof you can't deny - we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and MANY MANY terrorists and key leaders of Al Qaeda have been captured. That is a fact that can not be denied.

This is true, however I think that has more to do with terrorist not acting upon their threats. I gurantee you that if terrorists really wanted to attack the U.S. there would be no stopping it, even Bush admitted this during his speech.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

My guess is she switched parties to eliminate controversy and to support her husband. But then again that really isn't important... I was asking in general about focusing on president's wives it wasn't directed to anyone specific.

Well it is important when she's presented as her "own person" and a person with "strong convictions". It was fine if she wanted to chnage partied to support her husband - just don't go on and on in a speech as if she always supported him. It's very transparent.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

This is true, however I think that has more to do with terrorist not acting upon their threats. I gurantee you that if terrorists really wanted to attack the U.S. there would be no stopping it, even Bush admitted this during his speech.

Yes - there isn't much that can be done in certain situations - but to say that we are no safer than we were before 9/11 is assinine. Of course we are safer - we are more vigilant and are taking action against threats - which before 9/11 we didn't do. We're not 100% safe of course - but Kerry can't bring that either - it will be many years before that is the case and it will only come about by taking decisive action in the Middle East to stop the fundamentalism and cut off the money supply and support.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Let's not be stupid here - the military is made up of both democrats and republicans just like the general society. So what if kerry has some military personnel backing him. Is Kerry MORE of a hero than McCain who backs Bush????

Ok who's being stupid exactly. The fact of the matter is the republicans feel they need to OWN the military issue as a rule. So ANY deviation in that traditional area of right wing support is a problem for them. So having all these military folk speaking in favor of Kerry IS an issue. Why do you keep side stepping that exactly? Its ok to say that its a problem for Bush because he sure knows it is. Its attacking the republicans on one of their core foundations. Its the last thing they want to see happening. It doesnt matter that not 100% of military figures arent behind Kerry. Can you imagine if Clinton had had some generals speaking in his favor? That would have been impossible. He couldnt touch the military issue it was too detrimental. But Kerry can take a slice of it. And thats dangerous for bush because as I said its the middle of the road voters this is all aimed at.

As you point out - kerry is using the flag waving and patriotism that you criticize Bush for. I guess that's acceptable now since it's the democrats using it.

The democrats are attempting to point out that its NOT a partison issue. Thats the whole point. That republicans dont have the right to say ONLY they are patriots. And ONLY they can wave the flag.

The military issue for Kerry is a politcal ploy

well of course it is. wasnt that my whole point all along? Thats the only way you win elections. Ask Bush.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ok who's being stupid exactly. The fact of the matter is the republicans feel they need to OWN the military issue as a rule. So ANY deviation in that traditional area of right wing support is a problem for them. So having all these military folk speaking in favor of Kerry IS an issue. Why do you keep side stepping that exactly? Its ok to say that its a problem for Bush because he sure knows it is. Its attacking the republicans on one of their core foundations. Its the last thing they want to see happening. It doesnt matter that not 100% of military figures arent behind Kerry. Can you imagine if Clinton had had some generals speaking in his favor? That would have been impossible. He couldnt touch the military issue it was too detrimental. But Kerry can take a slice of it. And thats dangerous for bush because as I said its the middle of the road voters this is all aimed at.

Kerry using his military record isn't the issue - it's him avoiding his anti-military record in the Senate. That is the part my brother and MANY people in the military have an issue with.

Also - it's funny with kerry because the democrats want the troops home and leave Iraq. Which isn't what kerry is saying he will do. Of course the thing is - he can't say he will pull out of Iraq - because then he loses the moderates he is trying to capture. So he has to give lip service to keeping troops in Iraq and not backing down, while at the same time saying he will be kissing europe's ass and asking permission to do things.

The democrats are attempting to point out that its NOT a partison issue. Thats the whole point. That republicans dont have the right to say ONLY they are patriots. And ONLY they can wave the flag.

Actually - I think cemocrats can wave the flag - the problem is they're usually in the streets burning the flag and writing articles about how we are the worst country to ever be on the face of the earth. Or haven't you read some of the liberal articles which are routinely written and published by college professors around America.

well of course it is. wasnt that my whole point all along? Thats the only way you win elections. Ask Bush.

I didn't say republicans don't use political ploys. But Kerry is ignoring his REAL military record - which is how he voted for 20 years in the senate.