The Official US President Election Thread

[matthew]

Both candidates support a large military, and through back doors the military contractors can support them for it after their terms are over. Most Americans support a smaller military, however. In 1989, 60% of people wanted a 50% reduction in the military budget over five years. They realize that with the approximately 40% of the budget that America spends building nukes and helicopters, we could instead have a socialized health care system, better education, clean up the environment, and pay off the deficit AT ONCE!!!!!
Neither party wants this. Instead, they support the capitalist subsidy of the military contractors through taxes, and when we the people complain, they scare us into submission with a paper tiger (communism, terrorism).
The other issue is that the rich end up paying a smaller percent of taxes than the poor, which is simply wrong. The rich do not need all that money while people are starving, and they should pay more, not less, in taxes.
With these two simple expedients, we could get approximitely half of our budget back! Just think of the things that could be done with half our budget! A trillion dollars! Candy! Free health care! Anything we want! All we have to do is to get the 150 million Americans who do not vote into the voting booth, and we could have a trillion dollars to spend as we please!
Thats why I'm launching my 2028 presedential campaign. Spread the word! Vote Matthew and get free stuff! I already have a base of 31 fanatic supporters, so now's your chance to be #32! Bow down and worship me, your savior !!!

[matthew]

Okay, maybe I got a little bit over enthusiastic there
The other thing you should know is that I support socialist health care for dead people. After all, they need it the most!
Vote Matthew in 2028! One by one, we're bringing them back!

[Janny]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ah HAHAHAHAHA! ah HAHAHAHAHA! ah ... oh nevermind ...

Scandal? Sadly, but NOT surprisingly, not at all. It was quickly buried. As JD said, he had to hunt for it. The faked CBS memo (against Bush), however, got lots of airtime, and not much time when it was proved a fake.

Sorry, there's a lot to read here... I zone out sometimes. Sorry, if I missed the glaringly obvious.

It's just in the UK was have a news station which is (supposed to be) impartial. If the BBC said that kinda thing, well, it would be on the verge of losing funding.

I was under the impression that such a stand in church was illegal. Would it have been if he'd refferred to campaign issues in his address? Please don't laugh (meanie) and bear in mind my qualification for askingthis question is the fact I watched The West Wing entitled The Red Mass.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, but usually it's misapplied, as in Val's examples

Perhaps "illegal" was the wrong word - from what I understand, non-profit entities cannot endorse candidates. That's what I meant. And Kerry was clearly being endorsed. He should know better (I'm sure he DOES). And he can't even say he was just going to a Baptist church for regular Sunday worship and *surprise!* Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson showed up - Kerry's Catholic! - he wouldn't go to a non-Catholic church for Mass

Yeah - I know with Princeton Battle Area Preservation Society - we can't endorse any candidates. I am working with Bill Spadea. He's going to be at the Battlefield on the 25th to talk about the development the Institute of Advanced Study wants to do right next to it. Rush Holt had come out once - but he seems to be all talk and no real action.

Jim Carrey just became a "US Citizen". In the car I heard it on the radio - and they said he was going to be a dual citizen and keep his Canadian citizenship also. I think dual citizenship is wrong and I had thought about the voting situation when they said it - he gets to vote in both Canadian and American elections. When I came home - CNN had it on. Guess why he decided to get US Citizenship? So he frigging vote in OUR elections. I wonder - maybe I should gettiung dual citizenship in Canada - so I can vote there for people I want, and still be able to vote in US elections. Either you ARE America - or you are not - you are NOT both US Citizen and a citizen of another country as far as I am concerned. I think the US should do away with dual citizenship. It is completely unfair that non-citizens can become citizens - just so they can vote here - and then not even have to give up their citizenship to their "other" country.

[Janny]

What if Carrey was a Republican?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

What if Carrey was a Republican?

I don't care if I was running for president and they were suporting me - I'm still against dual citizenship. Either a person wants to be American - or they don't. A person shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen just so they can vote.

[inked]

Well, if Jim Carey were a republican dual citizenshippist for dead people? I'd let him have all the votes of all the dead people who resurrected to go to the polls. If he remained a Democrat, he wouldn't have to resurrect...somebody could use the dead peoples names!

Let me hasten to add I am an Independent and reserve the right to lampoon politicians and comedians. There has been no candidate of the stature of Pat Paulsen since Laugh-In@.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Janny

Sorry, there's a lot to read here... I zone out sometimes. Sorry, if I missed the glaringly obvious.

It's just in the UK was have a news station which is (supposed to be) impartial. If the BBC said that kinda thing, well, it would be on the verge of losing funding.

I was under the impression that such a stand in church was illegal. Would it have been if he'd refferred to campaign issues in his address? Please don't laugh (meanie) and bear in mind my qualification for askingthis question is the fact I watched The West Wing entitled The Red Mass.

Nonononono! Janny, I wasn't laughing at YOU at all! You're one of my favorite Mooters! I was laughing at the idea of the press reporting something that hints that they have a bias. That's all

Yes, I think it's illegal for a non-profit organization to endorse a candidate (in the sense that they'll lose their non-profit status if they do). The news article went on to say that they trashed Bush, tho they didn't mention him specifically by name (they used other references that made it very clear who they were talking about). And some of the things Jackson and Sharpton said were really pathetic and fear-mongering. But somehow they get away with it :-(

[Janny]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nonononono! Janny, I wasn't laughing at YOU at all! You're one of my favorite Mooters! I was laughing at the idea of the press reporting something that hints that they have a bias. That's all

Someone else laughing with me!
For future reference, I insulted you with a word ending '-ie', and was thus not serious. This is a general rule. With the exception of 'Commie'. I digress.

Now the obvious point has been pointed out to me, I rather like the idea of the press publishing something which calls into question its own integrity. In the same way I rather like the image of Che Gevaras, the greatest symbolism of capitalism ever.

Gaffer, what was that thing I caught a glimpse of in the Graniad 2 this morning? What was that about voters in Ohio (?) taking views from outside the US? I saw the interesting headline, but the inside pages had gone.

[Earniel]

This thread is for discussing the Us presidential elections. If you wish to discuss dual citizenship, please do so in an appropriate thread or make a new thread for it. This ends the message from your moderator.

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry Eärniel, we got quite interested in the new topic too. Do you think you could split the topic off for us?

I am Nurvingiel, and I approve this message.

[Earniel]

Splitting wasn't easy, the topics were very woven into one another in the posts. But I have moved most posts dealing with Dual citizenship to this thread.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Agan Gaffer - you point out stuff that happened during the cold war with the Soviet Union.

Also - the issue with Russia, China and France WAS NOT LEGAL. You must really have yoour head in the sand. Talk about having blinders on. Billions and billions of dollars were funnelled into Iraq, which did NOT go to support the Iraqi people. The oil was sold illegally.

Just a flying visit, but you've completely missed the point, JD.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that what I was saying was that the Oil for Food Programme was a legitimate plan to help alleviate the suffering of the Irqi people under sanctions:

The intent of the program was to sell Iraqi oil to pay for food and medicine for the Iraqi people, who were suffering due to sanctions.

The fact that they were run corruptly doesn't affect the fact that it was legitimate to set up the deals. I don't have any illusions about France, Russia or anyone else having particularly altruistic reasons for opposing the war; I do have my own reasons which, as you know, are not based on personal material benefit!

(For the record, IMO Chirac is a crook who may well get locked up as soon as he steps down as President)

Janny, I didn't see that story. You can probably find it on the Grauniad web site.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just a flying visit, but you've completely missed the point, JD.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that what I was saying was that the Oil for Food Programme was a legitimate plan to help alleviate the suffering of the Irqi people under sanctions:
The fact that they were run corruptly doesn't affect the fact that it was legitimate to set up the deals. I don't have any illusions about France, Russia or anyone else having particularly altruistic reasons for opposing the war; I do have my own reasons which, as you know, are not based on personal material benefit!

So becuase it was set up with goiod intentions - it doesn't matter that it was abused? I know it was set up to help the Iraqi people. That isn't the problem nor what I was even arguing about. The problem is that it was abused and mostly by the people who were against the war. People want to scream blood for oil - that is exactly what France, Russia and China were doing. They were selling the Iraqi people out - while giving Hussein BILLIONS of dollars.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So becuase it was set up with goiod intentions - it doesn't matter that it was abused? I know it was set up to help the Iraqi people. That isn't the problem nor what I was even arguing about. The problem is that it was abused and mostly by the people who were against the war. People want to scream blood for oil - that is exactly what France, Russia and China were doing. They were selling the Iraqi people out - while giving Hussein BILLIONS of dollars.

it was abused by people who wanted to make some $$, plain and simple... which happened to include some of our own

i honestly don't think the "morality" behind hussein even crossed their minds

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it was abused by people who wanted to make some $$, plain and simple... which happened to include some of our own

i honestly don't think the "morality" behind hussein even crossed their minds

There is a slight difference in the people who abused the system. In both the French and Russian cases it wasn't just individual corporations - but people in the government. It's funny how you and others are so willing to excuse this - but if it was the Bush adminstration doing this - it would be all hell here bitching about it. Just shows the double standard concerning this. Just look at people's reaction toward Cheney and Halliburton and yet that is just a "perceived" conflict of interest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There is a slight difference in the people who abused the system. In both the French and Russian cases it wasn't just individual corporations - but people in the government. It's funny how you and others are so willing to excuse this - but if it was the Bush adminstration doing this - it would be all hell here bitching about it. Just shows the double standard concerning this. Just look at people's reaction toward Cheney and Halliburton and yet that is just a "perceived" conflict of interest.

i never excused the french, russians or americans involved.. and honestly i'm getting kind of sick of being characterized by you JD... feel free to argue the issues... you do a good job at that... but please have enough respect to let the readers here judge others by what they post... not by your interpretations of the themes and motivations behind what they post... it adds nothing to your argument and just aint friendly

i also don't excuse cheney, bush or clinton for the things they have done wrong... i've always had one standard... recognize and point out wrongdoing wherever it appears... and then express it in terms of the "real world"... where all people do bad things and one has to weigh on each occasion whether or not such actions are bad enough to warrant change or not

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i never excused the french, russians or americans involved.. and honestly i'm getting kind of sick of being characterized by you JD... feel free to argue the issues... you do a good job at that... but please have enough respect to let the readers here judge others by what they post... not by your interpretations of the themes and motivations behind what they post... it adds nothing to your argument and just aint friendly

Hey - I'm just taking what you said. Such as this.. "it was abused by people who wanted to make some $$, plain and simple...i honestly don't think the "morality" behind hussein even crossed their minds" For some reason I dont' think you'd give the same excuse if it was Cheney or Bush or if it was anyone even remotely associated with them.

i also don't excuse cheney, bush or clinton for the things they have done wrong... i've always had one standard... recognize and point out wrongdoing wherever it appears... and then express it in terms of the "real world"... where all people do bad things and one has to weigh on each occasion whether or not such actions are bad enough to warrant change or not

The problem is - you bitch about Bush and Cheney repeatedly - when it comes to discussing the Oil for Food Scandel your response..."it was abused by people who wanted to make some $$, plain and simple...i honestly don't think the "morality" behind hussein even crossed their minds"

Double standard pure and simple. The left love the UN - therefore they won't criticize them - at least no where near as harsly as you would if it was republicans. Where are the demonstrations and calls for "blood for oil" and the greed posters? Where are the liberal demonstrations condemning the UN? They're non-existant.

By your excuse you have made yourself very clear for all to see. You won't condemn the UN or France or the others, but you will at the drop of the hat condemn and bitch about republicans and especially Bush and Cheney.

Since you mentioned Clinton - let's hear what you think he did wrong? Isn't he the apple of liberal's eyes - the do nothing wrong president?

This from my brother who is in Afganistan...

I did my voting today and let me tell you that Kerry's name did not have a check in it!!! I just have to mail it off. I'll do that tomorrow. I can't even be in the same room with someone who is Pro-Kerry. Ahh they just piss me off so much. He has no plan for our country what so ever.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not giving the UN or France or Germany a free ride... i'm saying the US does it too...

from a few pages back... but a good friend reminded me how pointless it was to bang my head against a certain wall... i can't have a discussion with one who only reads the pieces he wants to and not the rest

but as the french say, se la vie

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

from a few pages back... but a good friend reminded me how pointless it was to bang my head against a certain wall... i can't have a discussion with one who only reads the pieces he wants to and not the rest

Oh - believe me - I read everything. But as I said - you bitch and moan about everything that Bush and Cheney does and in some cases even just has the perception of possibly doing. But again - you just had this "oh well" attitude when it came to the Food for Oil scandal. That is in your own words -"it was abused by people who wanted to make some $$, plain and simple...i honestly don't think the "morality" behind hussein even crossed their minds"

but as the french say, se la vie

I suppose you were trying to make some point by highlighting "french" in there.

BTW - I have more things going on in real life than to have to worry about what you MIGHT have said a few pages back - which would have been several days ago , a week or even a month ago. Do you know anything that I said last week, last month, two years ago? I've said many things to explain my stand on things, but you and others wish to ignore them and not accept them.