The Official US President Election Thread

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then you are the ONLY democrat I guess that isn't trying to blame Bush - amazing. I wonder - did you see the democratic Convention? I did it - "bush lied" - didn't you hear it? Oh finally - we have a democrat on record saying that Bush didn't lie.

Well Bush was given information by the CIA which is suppose to be credible information. It isn't his fault that the information was incorrect. Perhaps he could have looked more closel yinto that information, but to blame him isn't right.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I am focusing on your argument. You kept going back and forth between anti-war and necessary war and then Kerry leaning toward being anti-war and you actually went so far to defend his anti-military record in the Senate. You know damn well that the democrats don't want to discuss that because he needs the moderates to believe he can actually support the US in this war and that he's not going to fold. I believe he will fold though if he was elected.

I am glad that you agree that being anti-war is idealistic. Too bad most liberals are idealistic instead of looking at the facts of the world.

As most liberals/democrats hate kerry.

When I say necessary wars, that pretty much means they would be very rare. I tend to be idealistic but there has to be a line drawn at some point if you want to be taken seriously. I don't like Kerry but I am in favor of a president who is cautious about military and war so that is why I defended him on that issue. However his stance on the war and military is the only thing I like, overall he doesn't meet my expectations. I won't be voting for him nor Bush.

[Cirdan]

It's not lying, just "selective inattention". I could believe the reports about the Iraqis getting aluminum tubing used for refining Uranium, or I could choose to believe the Nuclear Regulation Commission experts that said the tubing was too poor a quality for such use.

So, last year after the war was declared over, the hawks were trying to decide whether to invade Syria or Iran next. How's that plan working out, anyway?

Funny how Clinton got broiled by the GOP for a helicopter going down in Somalia (Bush Sr's parting gift), but now they feel thousands of dead and wounded are acceptable losses for a mistake of judgement and planning and bad intelligence.

Do you know why the rebuilding of Japan and Germany went so smooth? We fire bombed every significant sized city and disarmed every individual. If we are going to wage war we should be sure that they enemy has lost the will and ability to fight before we call it a day. Vietnam was the same "hearts and minds", unilateral, confused motivation type of bull**** war as this Iraq mess. Johnson and W. display the same muddled and decisive approach to war. Must be something about Texas.

Check out Robert McNamara's "Fog of War". Interesting for all viewers regardless of political orientation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

When I say necessary wars, that pretty much means they would be very rare. I tend to be idealistic but there has to be a line drawn at some point if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't draw the line. A war with particular circumstances may be correct at one time and in correct in another. War with iran woudl be very bad right now. Hopefully though there will be something we can do to get them to overthrow their damn theocracy though. They were so close - but then the Iranian clerics outlawed all the canidates that supported change. The Iranians have enough freedom though to where they can uprise against their government - whereas the Iraqis had no freedom to do that.

I don't like Kerry but I am in favor of a president who is cautious about military and war so that is why I defended him on that issue. However his stance on the war and military is the only thing I like, overall he doesn't meet my expectations. I won't be voting for him nor Bush.

I think we were more than cautious. Hell we didn't even go into Afganistan right away. it's funny - democrats at the national convention were complaining that Bush waited too long to go into Afganistan and let Bin Ladin get away. They seem to forget that he was trying to NEGOTIATE with them and have them peacefully turn Bin Ladin over to us. It wasn't until all negotiation had failed that we even went into Afganistan. I call that pretty damn cautious. We spent almost a year negotiating with Irag and the UN prior to the war in Iraq. Hussein kept coming up with one more restriction, one more roadblock. Time was up. Time was up in the Clinton adminstration.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

It's not lying, just "selective inattention". I could believe the reports about the Iraqis getting aluminum tubing used for refining Uranium, or I could choose to believe the Nuclear Regulation Commission experts that said the tubing was too poor a quality for such use.

I'm not talking about the aluminum tubing - I'm talking about the meetings Iraq had to actually OBTAIN nuclear material. It had nothing to do with the tubing.

So, last year after the war was declared over, the hawks were trying to decide whether to invade Syria or Iran next. How's that plan working out, anyway?

They weren't deciding who to invade next - they were deciding how to handle those two countries. Iran is a serious problem - but there is a difference between iran and iraq. The iranian citizens actually have relative freedom, they are more likely to be able to organize an uprising or be able to bring down their theocracy. It might require some help - but it probably won't require military action.

Funny how Clinton got broiled by the GOP for a helicopter going down in Somalia (Bush Sr's parting gift), but now they feel thousands of dead and wounded are acceptable losses for a mistake of judgement and planning and bad intelligence.

You really have a twisted view of things - don't you? Us being Somalia was a peace keeper and to protect the UN food supplies. If you read the 9/11 Commission report - you will learn that Solmalia was supported by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda trained them on how to take down our Black Hawks.

I don't believe that iraq is a "mistake of judgement". There were always many reasons for going into iraq.

Do you know why the rebuilding of Japan and Germany went so smooth? We fire bombed every significant sized city and disarmed every individual.

Actually - you might want to do some research on that little bit of history. The rebuilding of Germany was ANYTHING but smooth. There were continued suicide attacks. There was a documentary on the history channel a couple of months ago - it was eerily like Iraq. People want to think that the war with Germany ended so cleanly - when it didn't.

If we are going to wage war we should be sure that they enemy has lost the will and ability to fight before we call it a day. Vietnam was the same "hearts and minds", unilateral, confused motivation type of bull**** war as this Iraq mess. Johnson and W. display the same muddled and decisive approach to war. Must be something about Texas. \

Too bad most of the fighters right now aren't Iraqis. You might have noticed - they really aren't attacking us anymore - they are attacking iraqis. What did the christian churches that were attacked this weekend have to do with the US Military? What about the Iraqi police? You might want to rethink what their goal is. They want to get us out - so they can create the islamic state. Iraq is NOTHING like Vietnam.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't draw the line. A war with particular circumstances may be correct at one time and in correct in another. War with iran woudl be very bad right now. Hopefully though there will be something we can do to get them to overthrow their damn theocracy though. They were so close - but then the Iranian clerics outlawed all the canidates that supported change. The Iranians have enough freedom though to where they can uprise against their government - whereas the Iraqis had no freedom to do that.

I think we were more than cautious. Hell we didn't even go into Afganistan right away. it's funny - democrats at the national convention were complaining that Bush waited too long to go into Afganistan and let Bin Ladin get away. They seem to forget that he was trying to NEGOTIATE with them and have them peacefully turn Bin Ladin over to us. It wasn't until all negotiation had failed that we even went into Afganistan. I call that pretty damn cautious. We spent almost a year negotiating with Irag and the UN prior to the war in Iraq. Hussein kept coming up with one more restriction, one more roadblock. Time was up. Time was up in the Clinton adminstration.

I was refering to "drawing a line" in reference to being idealistic, you just can't hold too strong to those views because there are too many controversies, as you said the world doesn't work that way..

If you are trying to convert me into a Bush supporter it won't happen , I have several problems with his beliefs and ideas that stretch far beyond the war in Iraq, My main problem with him would be his ban on gay marriages and allowing big companies to disregard environmental policies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

If you are trying to convert me into a Bush supporter it won't happen , I have several problems with his beliefs and ideas that stretch far beyond the war in Iraq, My main problem with him would be his ban on gay marriages and allowing big companies to disregard environmental policies.

Well those two things bother me too - but for one - I know that he can't ban gay marriage without congress and even then the Supreme Court can over rule it. It will not make it as an Constitutional Amendment. My feelings on the war on terrorism though overrides those issues - because they aren't completely in his hands anyway. With issues - I also look at where the president has power and where he doesn't.

Oh and I would never try making you a Bush supporter - that would be a losing battle.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm not talking about the aluminum tubing - I'm talking about the meetings Iraq had to actually OBTAIN nuclear material. It had nothing to do with the tubing.

Yes, but I was. And the Uranium bit was of a dubious unconfirmed sorce and only dtrengthens my poinyt that the proclivity to got to war with or without hard proof was there.

They weren't deciding who to invade next - they were deciding how to handle those two countries.

Obviously we must be referring to different "Theys".

You really have a twisted view of things - don't you?

Ah, the new improved non-flaming JD. What should I say to comments like this? If I remember correctly the developmentally equivalent response would be "takes one to know one".

If you read the 9/11 Commission report - you will learn that Solmalia was supported by Al Qaeda...

Ummm... no I won't because I knew that before 9/11 even occured. This was believed to be the case after the embassy bombing.

Ddi you notice they thought more emphasis should be placed of domestic security (ie defensive measures) which you previously displaraged over a primarily overt offensive posture? Using conventional war to some global terrorism is like using water to put out a chemical fire.

The Chinese are currently researching computer attacks as a way to wage an asuymmetric war against the US. Time to put some tarriffs on those cheap good to help pay for port security.

I don't believe that iraq is a "mistake of judgement". There were always many reasons for going into iraq.

Yep, just not very good ones I believe. Excellent reasons for going into Afganistan, however.

Actually - you might want to do some research on that little bit of history.

I just go by what my uncle tells me since he was in Japan (Nagasaki, among others). It was a big mess for sure. There wasn't a growing resistance however, with armed factions positioned for civil war. The difference will show in the outcome.

Too bad most of the fighters right now aren't Iraqis.

The leaders of some heavily funded groups are externals, but they are requiting dissafected Sunnis and radical shiite muslims. The experts have said that there are multiple independent factions at work; sometimes coordinating. It's much more complex that you indicate.

You might want to rethink what their goal is. They want to get us out - so they can create the islamic state.

Well, since that is their declared goal I'm not sure why you think I would believe any different. Thinking it once will be plenty.

Iraq is NOTHING like Vietnam.

Yes, it's much drier. If you read what I said it was the decision making process and style of leadership I was comparing.

Vietnam was much worse, but there are simlilarities.

It was a primarily unilateral action on the part of the US (pleas don't bother reminding me about the contributions of the 52nd state or the few hundred Italians). I mean the decisionmaking process, the behind the scenes negotiations and "inducements" just to get a few reluctant participants.

The strategy failed to understand the negative effects of foreign occupation, the resentment of accumulated civilian casualties, the failure to negate insurgence.

The belief that installing a western style government will bring peace and happiness to the poor misguided natives. It may just turn out that the majority do what a theocratic Shiite controlled state. It is a very likely long term outcome once our troops are out. Of course, we will be "defending our interests" in Iraq for some time to come, regardless of elections or Iragi security forces.

The decision to "go" based on unconfirmed intelligence.

Of course they are different in many ways but "NOTHING like" is not accurate.

[jerseydevil]

I don't have time to read all this because I'm going to the reopening of the Statue of Liberty - but I will respond to this...

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Ah, the new improved non-flaming JD.

Since when has saying that you have a twisted view on things been a flame - I didn't personally attack you. As for using the word - I was using it to mean "skewed view". You can however take it how you want.

Damn if you think that was a flame - then you and the others must have been putting me through blazing inferno before.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't have time to read all this because I'm going to the reopening of the Statue of Liberty - but I will respond to this...

Since when has saying that you have a twisted view on things been a flame - I didn't personally attack you. As for using the word - I was using it to mean "skewed view". You can however take it how you want.
Damn if you think that was a flame - then you and the others must have been putting me through blazing inferno before.

Here, try this: "My view is very different from yours on this issue."

Okay it's bit dry but the point is when you talk about the person instead of the topic it just drags it into the mud. I know we have had some great discussions in the past but lately it seems like a bad marriage, wher the least little disagreement is an occasion to dredge up every hard feeling from the past. I can easily provoke this scenario without ever going on line, so why would I want to come here for that.

It is possible to discuss the merits and shortcomings of a position without trying to analyze what personal defect may have brought it on.

I only pointed it out because I don't want to go down that road again.

Give Lady Liberty a big wet one for me.

[Ragnarok]

Since this is the presidential election thread, I'll share with you who I finally decided to vote for. I'm going to go with Michael Badnarik. Heres the link to his website http://www.badnarik.org/ There you can read his background info, his stance on issues blah blah blah

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm just confused by the liberal logic in all that I guess.

Heres my ideas on national security... ( I got this from the World LIbertarian Order website)

National Security

This issue makes minarchists out of a lot of would-be anarchists. One view is that in a libertarian society everyone would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky. This is what the Founding Fathers clearly intended for the U.S. (the Constitution made no provision for a standing army, entrusting defense primarily to a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizenry). It works today in Switzerland (also furnishing one of the strongest anti-gun-control arguments). The key elements in libertarian-anarchist defense against an invader would be: a widespread ideology (libertarianism) that encourages resistance; ready availability of deadly weapons; and no structures of government that an invader can take over and use to rule indirectly. Think about the Afghans, the Viet Cong, the Minutemen -- would you want to invade a country full of dedicated, heavily armed libertarians? :-)

Minarchist libertarians are less radical, observe that U.S. territory could certainly be protected effectively with a military costing less than half of the bloated U.S. military budget.

[Ragnarok]

68% Say Badnarik Should Be Invited to Debates

Should Badnarik Be Invited to Presidential Debates?

Yes 68%
No 20%
Not Sure 12%
RasmussenReports.com

Tuesday July 27, 2004--Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American adults believe that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik should be invited to participate in the Presidential Debates this year. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 20% believe Badnarik should not be invited while 12% are not sure.

The Libertarian Party candidate has been on the ballot in all 50 states for each of the past three elections and Badnarik is expected to be on every state ballot this November.

When voters were asked to choose between President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, and Badnarik, 46% said they would vote for the Democrat, 43% for the Republican, and 3% for Badnarik.

However, 29% of voters said there are circumstances under which they would consider voting for Badnarik. That includes 25% of Bush voters and 30% of Kerry voters.

When voters are informed that Badnarik opposes both the War in Iraq and the Drug War, 34% say they would consider Badnarik. That figure includes just 11% of Bush voters and 50% of Kerry voters.

The survey also found that 10% of Americans identify their political ideology as libertarian rather than conservative or liberal. Sixty-two percent (62%) share the Libertarian view that tax dollars should not be spent to support the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.

I think he should be allowed to participate in the Presidential Debates, what do you guys think?

[Rían]

Did anyone else besides me hear about how homosexual advocates were not allowed to bring signs into the Democratic convention because of "security reasons"? Do we have some hypocrisy going on here? I doubt that homosexual issues play well in some of those swing states.

From a gay website: here

"Gay delegates also complained about the ban on bringing signs into the Fleet Center, the convention site, allegedly for "security" reasons. This prevented gay delegates from brandishing placards supporting same-sex marriage, since none of the signs provided inside the convention by the Kerry campaign took that position."

I did a Google search on "homosexual signs democratic convention".

[Snowdog]

I heard that, and that the Vietman veterans and Vietnamese immigrants that were protesting.. some 200 strong, got no coverage while kerry had 14 of "his band of brothers" on stage with him. The Swiftboat vets have alot to say about that, and also the old picture Kerry is using in his ads.

Seriously, the Dems sold out the Greens, so Nader is the right choice for you, otherwise you're just going to vote for another rich corporate guy .

[azalea]

To answer Ragnarok's question: Yes, I absolutely think he should be allowed. I also think Nader should be allowed, assuming he's on the ballot in enough states. The problem is that the Dem and Rep parties in effect "own" the debates, in that they have an agreement that neither of them will debate with any other candidate but each other.
This all came about because of Ross Perot being such a strong contender way back when. They had to do something to shut out any other strong third party candidate that might come along in the future.

It's really too bad, because having those third parties really forces the issues out in a way that just having the two does not. It would also bring in fresh perspectives, and of course allow voters to see more clearly the differences among the slate of candidates they have to choose from.

The good news is that with the Internet and a wide range of cable TV channels, third party candidates can debate with each other and have national exposure despite being shut out of the "official" debate.

[Lizra]

I got a letter from Robert Redford today! It's addressed to ME! personally, and the return address just says "ROBERT REDFORD" in large red letters! I can't wait to show my mom (who is always sneaking pictures of President Bush and his wife in with the stuff she gives me, just to bug me...and for fun )
The front of my letter say's "Liz M., I want you to know what's at stake in the White House attacks on our environment." There's a petition to sign that says...

"I am apalled that the Bush Administration is escalating it's attacks on our environment. Americans are opposed to letting corporations increase air and water pollution, cut down our wild forests, or destroy our public lands. I strongly support enforcement of our environmental laws and preservation of our natural heritage. I call on you to defend thirty years of bipartisan, environmental progress and urge the Administration to reverse it's destructive and shortsighted policies."


I'll sign it, and send some money to this NRDC.( Natural Resources Defense Council) I really do wonder why Bush has gone this route with the environment? So unpopular, and bad....Anyway....the only bummer is there is no picture of Robert Redford!

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I'll sign it, and send some money to this NRDC.( Natural Resources Defense Council) I really do wonder why Bush has gone this route with the environment? So unpopular, and bad....Anyway....the only bummer is there is no picture of Robert Redford!

I don't think he cares, I think there was some pay offs made to Bush by those companies. Otherwise, I don't see how any president in their right mind would want that to be known for that. I must say that has been one of the bigger factors that has geared my disliking to Bush.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I got a letter from Robert Redford today! It's addressed to ME! personally, and the return address just says "ROBERT REDFORD" in large red letters!...

He was in our office a few weeks ago. (we do land conservation stuff). We used the same bathroom.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

We used the same bathroom.

I don't think I'll touch that.