The Official US President Election Thread

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Just to get in my rather valuable two cents, I have an opinion on this matter.

Now, it no secret that, in the coming US election, I would rather see a shaved monkey win as opposed to either Bush or Kerry, for Herbert the Chimp could equally well fight a war on terrorism. But.

Now, I've looked at all the propaganda, er, campaign commercials, and before anyone says it, yes we do get saturated with it in over here, though God alone knows why; and it seems to me that George Dubya seems just, well, really stupid. I dont know much about Kerry, but at least he seems to at least know what he is actually saying, as opposed to George's "We will terrorise the terrorists" (chortle).

Kerry actually seems to have a brain between his ears. Call me silly, but the leader of the US should at least have some sort of mind. Bush is really ridiculously un-impressive. And god bless republicans, after all. The only reason your all behind him is because Bush is the sitting president. Come on, you all know how much of a moron he actually is, dont deny it.

Though personally, I'm voting for the shaved monkey.

christ I love it, so :

[Starr Polish]

Psst: Vote libertarian! Get the third party in there!

edit: JD, you don't have to live somewhere to understand it's government. You just have to do enough research. Ask any poli sci major.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Not at all, perfectly clear.

Amazing! A man that understands a woman!

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

And I agree that a bias can be unintentional. The only reason I originally objected was that it seemed to me that you were implying it was NOT unintentional.

[Mercutio]

Pres. debate tonight!!!

St. Louis, MS. 9:00 EDT. Town meeting style---Bush & Kerry field questions from a carefully selected audience of undecided voters. Subjects: mainly Iraq & Economy (at least expected).


I don't quite understand the Libertarians. How can you expect everything to work right with more freedoms than we already have? You need a balance w/ them. Too much will make it all worse than before and turn towards chaos and anarchy.

[Rían]

My parents are coming over, we're gonna order pizza, and sit around and throw pillows at the TV! (joke) We've missed the other two debates.

(and I've read the Democratic platform, BTW, and am voting for Bush as of this time)

[Janny]

Opinions on the debate? (Missed it, stupid time zone *runs off to Reuters*)

[Mercutio]

Transcript for Pres Debate #2

FactCheck's article on Debate #2

My opinion? Pretty much of a draw. Bush seemed kind of tired and his voice was hoarse.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Transcript for Pres Debate #2

FactCheck's article on Debate #2

My opinion? Pretty much of a draw. Bush seemed kind of tired and his voice was hoarse.

I would go to C-SPAN - then he can watch it instead of just reading it. Reading a debate only gives half the story.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Psst: Vote libertarian! Get the third party in there!

edit: JD, you don't have to live somewhere to understand it's government. You just have to do enough research. Ask any poli sci major.

I wasn't just talking about UNDERSTANDING a government. There is far more to understanding the government than just the nuts and bolts. Someone in Europe or any other part of the world can not fully understand everything going on in the US or what goes into our decisions - because they do NOT get our local news, nor do they get our campaign commercials. Even the magazines and newspapers aren't the same as the local versions. Time Magazine - even though you can get it world wide - it isn't the same one that is here in the US. It is an international edition - same with NY Times.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I would go to C-SPAN - then he can watch it instead of just reading it. Reading a debate only gives half the story.

Interesting you should say that. George H. W. Bush believes televised presidential debates should be totally done away with because they take the focus away from what the candidates know and how well they can debate. Even if we say it doesn't, the candidate's looks do affect our perception of them.

The first tv pres. debate was between Kennedy and Nixon. The people who watched it on tv thought that Kennedy won. Those who heard it on the radio or read it thought that Nixon won.

Kennedy had the onscreen charisma. Nixon actually knew more.

Transcript of first televised debate

Documentary on the first tv debate

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Interesting you should say that. George H. W. Bush believes televised presidential debates should be totally done away with because they take the focus away from what the candidates know and how well they can debate. Even if we say it doesn't, the candidate's looks do affect our perception of them.[/URL]

I was only saying he should SEE the debate - because that's how most people have seen the debate. To get the same perception of the debate as everyone else - he would have to see it. Reading it - which would only give you a third of the experience as everyone else used to make their decision.

As you said - those who saw Nixon and kennedy on TV thought Kennedy won, those who only listened to it on the radio thought that Nixon won. Now reduce that down to where you don't even hear the debate in the person's own voice but only read it.

The one thing I think the media should do completely away with is the damn polls. It has a way of influencing people and causes "group think". people should base their decisions on who they want to vote for. If people feel, becuase of polls, their candidate is losing by a landslide - they may think it's a complete waste to go vote - thus producing a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other end - someone who is unsure may see that one side is doing really well in the polls and say - "well everyone else thinks he's better - I'll just vote for him." Polls have a way of influnencing people and I think should be done away with.

I also do not think that the media should be announcing winners for the various states until ALL polling places in ALL states are closed, this includes Hawaii and Alaska. If a candidates supporters see that their candidate is losing in the eastern states - they may not feel that their vote will matter. The same can actually go for the person who is winning too. California actually usually matters - but seeing who is leading could influence someone's decision on the west coast as to whether they will just head home after a hard day at the office - or go to the polls to cast their vote.

Anyway - the election isn't even official until the House of Representatives "counts the electoral votes" and declares a winner. I think the media has become too much of an influence on how people vote, from the pundits that analyse everything the candidates wear and how they present themselves, to the polls they use that tell us how "everyone" thinks. It's as if they feel the American public can't make up their mind for ourselves or make judgements on who did better in a debate - so they've taken it upon themselves to tell us what to think because they're the so-called experts. That's why I've gone to watching C-SPAN more - I can see the press conferences without the pundits and reporters telling me what to think - I then watch the news to see how they've presented it. I've gone and downloaded the Duelfer Report becuase I want to see what is exactly in it. The media isn't going to report everything - they're going to just pick and choose. I want to see what it really says - that's also why I got the 9/11 Commission Report.

I trust the media far less than I trust the candidates. I also don't trust websites. If I read something - I want the source, I don't want it picked over by someone who is going to spoon feed it to me, or in the case of websites especially - put their own political bias into it.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I was only saying he should SEE the debate - because that's how most people have seen the debate. To get the same perception of the debate as everyone else - he would have to see it. Reading it - which would only give you a third of the experience as everyone else used to make their decision.

Yep. I didn't mean to say he shouldn't watch the debate; just tried to point out how it affects people.

I also do not think that the media should be announcing winners for the various states until ALL polling places in ALL states are closed, this includes Hawaii and Alaska. If a candidates supporters see that their candidate is losing in the eastern states - they may not feel that their vote will matter. The same can actually go for the person who is winning too. California actually usually matters - but seeing who is leading could influence someone's decision on the west coast as to whether they will just head home after a hard day at the office - or go to the polls to cast their vote.

I thought they did wait? Or do merely they wait until CA is done but not Hawaii and Alaska?

I think the media has become too much of an influence on how people vote, from the pundits that analyse everything the candidates wear and how they present themselves, to the polls they use that tell us how "everyone" thinks. It's as if they feel the American public can't make up their mind for ourselves or make judgements on who did better in a debate - so they've taken it upon themselves to tell us what to think because they're the so-called experts.

no kidding!

That's why I've gone to watching C-SPAN more - I can see the press conferences without the pundits and reporters telling me what to think - I then watch the news to see how they've presented it.

We just get the basic tv channels (no cable or whatever its called at this point )

I want to see what it really says - that's also why I got the 9/11 Commission Report.

Random: Someone told me that the 9/11 Comm. Report reads like a novel.

I also don't trust websites. If I read something - I want the source, I don't want it picked over by someone who is going to spoon feed it to me, or in the case of websites especially - put their own political bias into it.

hahaha. When I mentioned the factcheck.org articles to my dad the first thing he said was, "Who checks up on factcheck?"

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I thought they did wait? Or do merely they wait until CA is done but not Hawaii and Alaska?

No - they usually merely wait until the polls close in that particular state - with 4 times zones in the contiguous 48 states - that results in a lot of reporting and influence on the western part by the eastern states.

Random: Someone told me that the 9/11 Comm. Report reads like a novel.

It actually does read like a novel, but presents all the facts. The Duelfer Report doesn't read like a novel, it just presents the findings.

hahaha. When I mentioned the factcheck.org articles to my dad the first thing he said was, "Who checks up on factcheck?"

I've also thought about that too. ABC has their "fact check" thing after the debates - they can very easily pick and choose what they are going to fact check. For instance - if they lean more heavily toward supporting Kerry (which the memo that came out from ABC indicates) they can easily pick a fact that Bush exagerated which is very damaging - while choosing to only pick a softball for Kerry. I don't trust the media.

I do trust VoteSmart because they present the candidates voting records. For instance here is the public statements made by President Bush - here is a list of all the people running for president and vice president - here is the information on Kerry.You can also go to the congressional records and see what was included in any bill and find out. I have key issues I vote on - I don't care what the candidates feel about many issues. I also don't care whether Kerry felt the need to have his face painted so he looked tan.

BTW - I love the candidate - Mr. HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte Emperor of the "Good Party" He seems to want to overthrow the US government or something by his public statement.

[Mercutio]

I've been to that vote smart website before.

Here is the guy running for Pres. under the United Facist Union from Elkton, MD.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I've been to that vote smart website before.

Here is the guy running for Pres. under the United Facist Union from Elkton, MD.

I went through his NPAT questionaire - he's a real wack job.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I went through his NPAT questionaire - he's a real wack job.

No kidding. The party website is...interesting...too.

Bush and Kerry can't afford to give direct answers for everyone to see can they---hence no NPAT for them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

No kidding. The party website is...interesting...too.

I just watched the third party candidate debate on c-span. The Green Party and the Socialist parties are hilarious with their views, not to mention the candidates themselves. The only person I really agreed with on some things is the libertarian - I just don't agree with them enough to generally vote for them. I''ll vote locally for them (depending on the candidates) - but not nationally so far.

I really liked how the Socialist candidate stated raising the minium wage to over $8 an hour, how it doesn't cause unemployment because it works so well in oregon and that it doesn't hurt businesses at all. I guess he hasn't noticed that Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the country which was exactly what the questioner was basically saying. As was pointed out - a business has a choice - pay someone $8 an hour or not hire them. In oregon it seems that a lot of businesses have decided not to hire people since their unemployment rate is between 8 - 10%, while NJ's unemployment rate is below 5%. Raising the [edit] minimum wage [/edit] does NOTHING to solve poverty - because when the lowest wage is raised - all other wages above it must be raised. In addition, the cost of good produced by those new wages would have to go up, or else businesses would have to cut it's workforce to save money.

[Nurvingiel]

I started reading the second debate at the C-SPAN website, thanks for the link JD. I couldn't find where you can actually watch it.

I thought it was quite interesting. Probably I would find it even more interesting if I was American and/or followed the politics and government policies more closely.

There's a comic on "No Child Left Behind" here. Would anyone care to explain to me why this is funny?

Anyway, I remember, JD, earlier you mentioned that only Americans can truly understand the workings of American government and politics. (paraphrase) I think what you're referring to is the "feel" of it - something you have to experience directly. But a foreigner could still study and understand the government, knowing the nuts and bolts well is means that person has a legitimate opinion, regardless of nationality.

In addition, George W. Bush or any other American president affects other countries too. In this respect all nationalities are entitled to their opinion (though I don't think that's what you were referring to in your earlier statements).

How many parties do you have that aren't mainstream? The one you pointed out Mercutio looks... um... exciting. Is that like when Barbie ran for governor of California a few years ago (IIRC)? (Though maybe they're not much better off now. )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I started reading the second debate at the C-SPAN website, thanks for the link JD. I couldn't find where you can actually watch it.

No problem. The "watch it" link was on the first page. it's sort of misleading because it sort of indicates that you can only watch it live, but I've gone in their after the debates and it's still worked.

Anyway, I remember, JD, earlier you mentioned that only Americans can truly understand the workings of American government and politics. (paraphrase) I think what you're referring to is the "feel" of it - something you have to experience directly. But a foreigner could still study and understand the government, knowing the nuts and bolts well is means that person has a legitimate opinion, regardless of nationality.

By nuts and bolts - I'm referring to the ins and outs of the constitution and so forth. Without seeing our political commercials, full debates, press conferences, etc - an outsider can not get a full picture of our politics. An outsider is merely basing their opinions on the media filter of their country and the way it is presented to them.

In addition, George W. Bush or any other American president affects other countries too. In this respect all nationalities are entitled to their opinion (though I don't think that's what you were referring to in your earlier statements).

Other countries have a right to their opinion - just like I was hoping that John Howard was going to win the Australian elections - which he did. But I don't know what the internal issues are with Australia that Australians might have been voting on. I know there was ONE reason why I wanted him to win - and that was based on the war on terrorism. He is a close ally to the US. On the other hand - outsiders seem to think they should have a say in who our president is. I would never campaign or openly support a foreign leaders election - because as far as I am concerned - that leader represents that country. I think it's a bit presumptious to do that. On the hand - others don't seem to have a problem - such as BoP who has a poltical avatar ("Anyone but Bush") as if she has some say in who our president is. The president represents the interests of the US - and outsiders seem to forget that fact. Our president is NOT there to represent the interests of New zealand, France, Germany, or Canada. Who the leader of France, Australia, Canada, etc - also affects us too.

By the way - I did watch the Canadian Parliament on C-SPAN tonight. It was the parliamentary question period. The conservatives were bringing up the anti-american statements which have been coming from some key figures in the Liberal party. There was one positive thing, it did bring an uproar of support to reprimand the people in government who are making these statements and that the majority of parliament were against the anti-american statements and agreed that it does affect our relationship. The point was made - how can the Canadian government expect us to negotiate trade issues and so forth - when you have people in the government saying "Americans are idiots" or "I hate those American bastards". I guess someone who was just made foreign minister or something (can't remember) was one of the key anti-americans and has repeatedly made statements against us and our country.

How many parties do you have that aren't mainstream? The one you pointed out Mercutio looks... um... exciting. Is that like when Barbie ran for governor of California a few years ago (IIRC)? (Though maybe they're not much better off now. )

I have a list of links of some of the various parties on my website Here is the listing I have...
Republican National Committee
Democratic National Committee
Communist Party
Constitution Party
Green Party
Hawaii Independence Party
Libertarian Party
Natural Law Party
New Party
Patriot Party
Reform Party
Socialist Party

There are also many other parties too.

[The Gaffer]

I agree that polls are over-done, and that journalists are often incapable of, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, telling the difference between the end of the world and a bicycle accident.

However, I don't agree that the best approach is to read all the primary documents yourself. Here are three reasons why:

1) Doing that has never been practical for the vast majority of any electorate.

2) Even primary documents have a source, and are subject to bias, censorship and/or manipulation.

3) A good quality secondary review will give you a much more informative view of any topic.

If you had heart disease, would you spend 5 years studying medicine then read every article in the medical literature on the topic before deciding on your treatment?

No, you'd go and see a doctor. These people are experts for a reason, and the same rationale applies to journalism.

In politics, it's particularly important, because politicians are particularly expert at evading the truth.

Of course, most journalism is ratings-obsessed populist trash, but that doesn't mean that it's not a cornerstone of a free society.