The Official US President Election Thread

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find it interesting to contrast the experiences of certain voters of a non-white persuasion who are denied a vote because of their criminal record, with those of Halliburton, who get caught with their hands in the till yet get to keep their job!

Let me explain this again to you. I know you are a foreigner - so probably don't understand this. The only thing the constitution guarantees is that 18 years and older get to vote, that the vote can not be denied by race or sex or religion. Everything else is up to the states. It is the satte who determine if criminals can vote - NOT the federal government. As for it being a race issue - it doesn't have anything to do with that. It doesn't matter if you are black or white - if you have a criminal record - most states don't allow you to vote. It's also only for SEVERE crimes too in most states.

I like you twisted that into a race issue.

Anyhoo, there are two issues here: one is the underhand way the contracts were awarded without a tender process (which is illegal in the UK, for example);

Well you might not have noticed - this isn't the UK - we fought a war NOT to be part of Britain. As for the contract process - the goal was to get the rebuilding process up as quickly as possible - which WAS actually up and running rather quickly. The insurgents have destroyed a lot of the progress that had been made on that front though.

the other is the far bigger one of who is really running the Bush administration.

Now, let's see::

- Vice President is former CEO of a company that makes money out of rebuilding war-torn countries

Whart does that have to do with anything? He doesn't own any stock in the company anymore, he doesn't work for the company anymore.

- VP is still receiving an income from said company

He's not receiving income from the company any longer. So I don't know where you got that information from.

- VP's administration starts a war on a false pretext

What false pretext? First of all - WMD was NOT the only reason Bush stated for going into Iraq, second - EVERYONE'S intelligence came out with the same conclusion - that Iraq had WMD. Kerry even says knowing what he knows today - he would still have voted for the war resolution. Bush did not go in without Congress' approval. Clinton even made a statement on tv that stated that Iraq was a danger and must be taken out. That all intelligence in his adminstration showed that Iraq had WMD.

- VP's administration hands multi billion dollar contracts to said company behind closed doors prior to the war starting

It wasn't behind closed doors and there were many companies that were being hired by Halliburton. I guess all those hoistages from other countries - don't reallky work in Iraq - do they?

I appreciate that lots of people disagree with the "false pretext" statement above, but can you not understand why, for many people, this stinks to high heaven? Personally, I can't believe that they have got away with it.

The only reason why you think it stinks to high heaven is because you forget a lot of the stuff, or else your media doesn't report everything (which is very believable from reading BBC.com) Dont' think you know EVERYTHING about what goes on here just becuase you get some news or read some things. You most likely only read the things that already support your views anyway.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Now, let's see::
- Vice President is former CEO of a company that makes money out of rebuilding war-torn countries
- VP is still receiving an income from said company
- VP's administration starts a war on a false pretext
- VP's administration hands multi billion dollar contracts to said company behind closed doors prior to the war starting

I appreciate that lots of people disagree with the "false pretext" statement above, but can you not understand why, for many people, this stinks to high heaven? Personally, I can't believe that they have got away with it.

Well said. Really what it comes down to is even if there was NOTHING wrong done (no corruption or abuse of government money or sleazy back handed deals) then simply having the vice president's former company in this kind of position should automatically set off alarm bells for its sheer corruption potential. And Im a little baffled at anyone defending this position ESPECIALLY after corruption has been prove. Honestly it seems theres better holes in the dike to defend then this. Its ridiculous.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How is it a chasm- you seem to have a problem with Halliburton being used at all - "Because the current VP is their former CEO perhaps? Might have something to do with it." You didn't say anything about them being able to be used - you stated why they shouldn't be used though.

ah no I stated a response to YOUR question of “So why was it never an issue before?� Youll notice there was never any blanket statement made by me of “they shouldn’t even be considered�. But thanks for trying.

Clinton had a lot of backroom deals. You must have lived through the Clinton adminstration with your eyes closed.

I love the “well others did bad stuff so its ok if Bush & Company does� argument. But since you are on the subject which backroom deals were you speaking of exactly? Healthcare? Oh woops that didn’t work out.

you don't have to have an association with the VP to get away with wasting millions. Halliburton didn't get away with it either.

But when you DO have a very strong “association� with the second most powerful man in Washington, blatant displays of corruption is a HUGE issue. Simply because of the image it gives if nothing else. I don’t see why you want to defend them against that charge really. But it says something about blind loyalties I guess. Which also says something about the more “legitimate� defenses you make of the bush administration. Take my advice, you don’t want to lump the half decent ones in with defending this whole Halliburton fiasco. You really don’t.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find it interesting to contrast the experiences of certain voters of a non-white persuasion who are denied a vote because of their criminal record, with those of Halliburton, who get caught with their hands in the till yet get to keep their job!

Gaffer, this statement seems really unworthy of you

In America, we have a justice system. It's not perfect, of course, but I think it's pretty good, considering the imperfections of people. (BTW, is Chancery still around in England? Great book - "Bleak House"!) And if someone has NOT been convicted, then they're considered innocent. Sure, some people get off, but what do you suggest - lynch mobs based on personal opinions? I sure hope that our justice system starts to deal with white-collar crime more, but in the mean time, we gotta go with what our current legal system is.

Now if "certain voters of a non-white persuasion" were denied a vote because of their criminal record, while "certain voters of the WHITE persuasion" were NOT denied a vote because of THEIR criminal record, then that is CERTAINLY a valid complaint and a travesty to justice.

However, your complaint seems to be that "certain voters of a non-white persuasion" were denied a vote because of their criminal record, while people at Halliburton, who did NOT have criminal records, were allowed to vote. To me, that's not a valid complaint, except maybe in a philosophical sense (and again, I hope we start cracking down more on white-collar crime). America has laws on who can vote and who can't. It seems that these laws were followed. We don't go on opinions of guilt; we go on guilt as found by legal process.

Your (apparent) charge of racism is just totally unfounded, IMO, unless you're claiming that white felons are being allowed to vote while non-white felons aren't.

[jerseydevil]

Why do I defend them? Becuase your whole argument is based on "perception". You yourself just said --

Really what it comes down to is even if there was NOTHING wrong done (no corruption or abuse of government money or sleazy back handed deals) then simply having the vice president's former company in this kind of position should automatically set off alarm bells for its sheer corruption potential."

"But when you DO have a very strong “association� with the second most powerful man in Washington, blatant displays of corruption is a HUGE issue. Simply because of the image it gives if nothing else."

So - basically you feel that they should not have a role - or the key because of perception.

And don't tell me what I want to do and what I don't want to do. I'm not happy with what Halliburton did - but has anything come out that actually says that Cheney had anything to do with it? NO - there hasn't. In this country there is such thing as "innocent till proven guilty" - but I guess here it doesn't matter. You just want to blame Cheney based on "perception", based on the fact that he WAS CEO. Just becuase Cheney was the former CEO - does not mean that Halliburton should not have been used for the rebuilding of Iraq, nor does it mean that Cheney had anything to do with the high bills they were giving to the government. You would be surprised at the advantages that ALL companies take on the government. People seem to feel that the government is like a big corporation and that a little extra charge won't hurt, just like so many people justify their actions in stealing from Wal Mart, or suing McDonalds. it's funny - you bitch and moan about Halliburton taking advantage of the country and people act like Cheney had a role in that. Well if he's so powerful - then why was Halliburton fined for MILLIONS of dollars and had to refund the government for the money? You seem to ignore that fact very nicely.

Also - I never said just because other adminstrations did stuff - that it makes it okay for the Bush adminstration. The thing is - private discussions are nothing new nor should they be a problem. The only reason why liberals find them a problem now is because they don't like Bush. Are private discussions with EVERY citizen and corporation public knowledge? What about the democrats in Congress - do they open up their private discussions with corporations and citizens open to public scrutiny?

The thing is though - you act like the Clinton adminstration was completely honest. And as you pointed out - there was the whole medicare thing which was behind closed doors. I didn't have a problem with the whole medicare crap - just from who engineered it. Hilary Clinton had NO adminstrative position WHATSOEVER - who the hell is she to be making policy? If Laura Bush started presenting stuff to Congress and acting like part of the Bush Adminstration - the liberals would be outraged. There was also MANY political favors given to Clinton's friends and previous partners. If Clinton wanted Hilary to have a high profile adminstrative role - then he should have made her part of the adminstration.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well if he's so powerful - then why was Halliburton fined for MILLIONS of dollars and had to refund the government for the money? You seem to ignore that fact very nicely.

because they got caught

but in general you are right... however, it is a simple fact in the US (and elsewhere) that the more money you have the more likely you are to get away with a crime... and the poorer (and more of a minority) you are, the more likely it is that you will be put in prison, even if innocent... so gaffer's comments aren't completely out in left field

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... however, it is a simple fact in the US (and elsewhere) that the more money you have the more likely you are to get away with a crime... and the poorer (and more of a minority) you are, the more likely it is that you will be put in prison, even if innocent...

Sad but true ...

so gaffer's comments aren't completely out in left field

(What's the cricket equivalent of that expression? I'd love to hear it!) Yet it was framed as a racist charge (at least the one that I was remarking on), and the laws about who is able to vote are not inherently racist, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

btw, i have no problem with criminals voting... they are still citizens and should have a say in what happens in our country

[Rían]

I'm not aware of all the details in regards to criminal records/voting - is anyone else? (or I could be unlazy and look it up, I suppose ... ah, no, it doesn't really matter to me what all the details are, as long as they're applied fairly.)

[brownjenkins]

basically decided state to state... some can, some can't

[Rían]

oh, ok - thankee

(actually, I think the state concept in the USA is pretty cool)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I know you are a foreigner - so probably don't understand this.

LOL! Banjos at dawn!

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You most likely only read the things that already support your views anyway.

You don't know what I read so can it, buster.

Rian, I appreciate the way you framed your criticism of my statement. BJ has basically explained it: these guys got caught, to the tune of millions of dollars of YOUR money, yet how many went to jail?

The race element is to do with how (and this is true in the UK as well, so please don't take it as Americaphobia) black people are more likely to be both convicted and imprisoned than white people charged with the same offences. So, our judicial systems tend to discriminate against black people.

Now, if you've also got an electoral system that denies the vote to people with a criminal record, then you've also got an electoral system that is biased against black people.

Florida has such a system. Some people in Florida have their criminal records because of, wait for it, crimes committed during Civil Rights protests in the 60s!

EDIT: I don't think there's an equivalent phrase to "left field" that comes from cricket!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

oh, ok - thankee

(actually, I think the state concept in the USA is pretty cool)

not me... i'd rather see a slow dissolution of states rights... or even better, let new england become it's own country... then everyone else can be as socially-conservative as they like

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Whart does that have to do with anything? He doesn't own any stock in the company anymore, he doesn't work for the company anymore.

He's not receiving income from the company any longer. So I don't know where you got that information from.

Point of information: Cheney receives "deferred salary" payments from Halliburton. Try this CBS report, or if you don't believe the pinkos at CBS, try his tax return. He also has unexercised stock options.

[Insidious Rex]

What! You mean yall feriners understand bout our tax system?! Well cut my hair! I was lead to believe that you were still living in mud huts and trading with beads. I mean Ive seen the way that there Shakespeeyor feller writes and that aint no proper english. when will yall ever learn to speak english like normal folk anyway? Its clear he still needs some major skoolin. No wonder ya cant understan when we type in american on here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What! You mean yall feriners understand bout our tax system?! Well cut my hair! I was lead to believe that you were still living in mud huts and trading with beads. I mean Ive seen the way that there Shakespeeyor feller writes and that aint no proper english. when will yall ever learn to speak english like normal folk anyway? Its clear he still needs some major skoolin. No wonder ya cant understan when we type in american on here.

I some how seriusouly doubt by some of the comments the Gaffer has made on this board concerning the US Governmental system that he has a full understanding of it. I can call him a foreigner - because that is what he is when it comes to America. I am foreigner of England and don't fully understand the system there - I don't live there. I have studied it though, both on my own and in college. C-SPAN DOES carry Parliament and I have watched that several times, when I know it's on. He is foreign to the United States and does NOT experience the US system at all. Has he taken a US government course? He doesn't even get to see our political ads - but he seems to have a lot of opinions on them and who has the most outrageous ads possible. I wonder where he gets that since he doesn't see them for himself. You can be snotty all you want. It's just like you to be ass like that.

People outside the US seem to have a lot of opinions on the election and things - and they only get bits of information which are filtered through the media. I posted the C-SPAN links so people OUTSIDE the US could watch the debates unfiltered. French 2 News had said they would have "hilights" of the debates. That is seeing the debates ONLY as that news media wants you to see them. The best thing to do is to see the press conferences live, watch C-SPAN, look up the voting records of the candidates.

I wonder though - does the Gaffer get C-SPAN where you can see the press conferences as they are? Does he get ANY of his information WITHOUT the media cutting it up into bite size pieces or putting their own spin on it? I watched the the press conference Rumsfield made yesterday on C-SPAN. The FULL questions AND the FULL answers without them being cut up by the media. I then watch CNN - and they had one of the quotes from Rumsfield. They completely left off the second part of his answer which changed everything of what he was saying.

Gaffer - you make accusations about me all the time - live with it like I have to put up with the **** from you. I do think you only read what supports your views. If you don't - oh well. It's not like you haven't said in that past what you think my news sources are.

And BrownJenkins - I agree with state rights and I feel that the federal government is getting WAY TOO big. State rights is the cornerstone of our Constitution.

[Nurvingiel]

The full debates were shown in Canada. Drgnslyer got to watch them, I hope he posts his views here. Alas, I did not see them.

Does anyone know of an online transcript of the debates? (ie. the debates word for word.)

Cheers, Nurv

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The race element is to do with how (and this is true in the UK as well, so please don't take it as Americaphobia) black people are more likely to be both convicted and imprisoned than white people charged with the same offences. So, our judicial systems tend to discriminate against black people.

Now, if you've also got an electoral system that denies the vote to people with a criminal record, then you've also got an electoral system that is biased against black people.

I see what you're saying, and I agree that blacks are more likely to be convicted than whites when charged with the same offense (a tragedy ). Yet I still can't agree with how you're saying it, because it's not a "bias" in the true sense of the word, IMO - IOW, I don't think it was intentional (altho it may have been, none of us will ever know). And if somehow, God willing, we are able to erase the injustice of unequal convictions, which is based solely on people's prejudices and NOT in the law itself, then you'd call our justice system fair, altho the system itself hasn't changed, right?

Well, I think I just won an award for being unable to explain myself well, but hopefully you see what I'm saying.


EDIT - oh, how's this : an unintentional effect of our laws about felons being unable to vote (in some states) is that blacks are unable to vote in a unfairly higher proportion than whites, given that blacks are more often convicted than whites when charged with the same crime. Hopefully this will be corrected some day, and the unintentional bias will then disappear.

And again, I don't know - perhaps those voting laws were made to cut blacks out of the vote. I sure hope not. Personally, I think the concept is not "out in left field" - a felon has committed an offense against society, and I think it's not unreasonable to restrict his societal rights, at least for awhile.

[/ramble]

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I think I just won an award for being unable to explain myself well, but hopefully you see what I'm saying.

Not at all, perfectly clear.

I agree that it's not intentional. However, a bias can be unintentional, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And BrownJenkins - I agree with state rights and I feel that the federal government is getting WAY TOO big. State rights is the cornerstone of our Constitution.

i realize that... sometimes i just wonder if we'd be better off if the different regions of the country were on their own... us northeasterners are mostly for keeping religious morality out of the government and against things like farm subsidies... polar opposites to the midwest... maybe both would be better off if allowed to take their own course entirely... we could certainly still have a unified defense pact, much like russia does these days

[Mercutio]

Transcript


I suggest that everyone checks out www.factcheck.org -- the nonpartisan U. of Penn website that well...checks the facts. Cheney mistakenly sited it as www.factcheck.com in the debate.

The most recent article talks about Halliburton, combat pay, job #s, small businesses, Iraq, No Child Left Behind, etc. There also previous articles about the pres. debate, speeches, and ads.