The Official US President Election Thread

[Rían]

and don't tell ME what MY intent was

and I wasn't aware of the facts on that one reporter, and I DID consider what you wrote, and the facts about that one reporter made me even MORE worried about it.

So what part of my conclusion - "report the facts impartially and let the people decide" - do you disagree with?

[Millane]

[QUOTE=Fenir_LacDanan]Well Fox News, news that I have seen you argue, god bless their unbiased souls, QUOTE] yeah i seem to remember it was Fox that painted Manson as responsible for columbine, ohhh when you think of it like that maybe Michael Moore can portray the truth better than Fox
Im just curious (because in Australia its compulsory to vote) if anyone is planning on not voting in this election or what your thoughts on people who dont vote are? i know over here you always get the people who take voting as the most serious thing theyve ever done, mum thinks she's one of those people so i told her i was voting for the Family First party, she didnt think that was funny

[Valandil]

For you who support the Kerry / Edwards ticket, could you please tell me about what those candidates have done?

Kerry, to my understanding, has never introduced any significant legislation. In 1990, he opposed the first Gulf War, but that possibly cost him serious consideration as a VP running mate choice. So, in the late 1990's he FAVORED an invasion of Iraq, even while Clinton was President, and obviously before 9-11 of 2001. He voted in favor of Bush's proposed invasion, then voted against funding for it. In a crowded field of Democratic candidates, who were mostly anti-war, he probably pulled out the nomination because he was the most pro-war. Now that public sentiment is swinging the other way, all he can do is condemn the war. What does he REALLY think about it? What would he REALLY do? Do we even have anything to go on to make a good judgement about that?

Edwards, as I understand it, has been 'Senator No-show'... what has HE ever done?

[brownjenkins]

here's a expansive list of what kerry's done while in congress >here<

on the war... from all i've heard, he seems to have thought of taking out saddam as a good thing... but he is very against the way it was carried out... not enough planning on winning the peace, and not enough effort to bring the rest of the world behind us on the effort

on the funding, he said his issue was with the way the money was being spent... when reps vote in congress, nine times out of ten they know whether or not a bill is going to pass... they don't have to all vote at once either... so often they make "statement" votes... basically saying, this bill can be constructed in a better way

it was never a question that the money would be appropriated one way or another

the world of politics is full of grey areas... and a good politician must play the game to get their initiatives ahead... which sometimes means accepting some things you are against in order to get something for your own constituants

[Rían]

One thing that bugs me about Sen. Kerry is how he keeps saying he'll bring allies in. I don't see how he has the authority or knowledge to speak for what other nations will choose to do. I think it would be more honest to say "I'll try harder to bring allies in", or something along those lines. But he's just flat-out saying he'll bring allies in.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and I wasn't aware of the facts on that one reporter, and I DID consider what you wrote, and the facts about that one reporter made me even MORE worried about it.

based on what exactly?

So what part of my conclusion - "report the facts impartially and let the people decide" - do you disagree with?

um perhaps you missed the part where I said “and as far as reporting the ‘facts impartially’ thats ALL he was doing by analyzing EACH instance as he did.

So what part of that original reply did you interpret as me disagreeing with your statement exactly?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

One thing that bugs me about Sen. Kerry is how he keeps saying he'll bring allies in. I don't see how he has the authority or knowledge to speak for what other nations will choose to do. I think it would be more honest to say "I'll try harder to bring allies in", or something along those lines. But he's just flat-out saying he'll bring allies in.

I agree with that. Although I think Kerry is basing this on the fact that a one eyed rattle snake has the potential for "bringing more allies in" then George Bush currently. And who knows who he has talked to behind the scenes already. is that considiered unethical to do that if you arent yet president?

[Janny]

As an aside, I mentioned recently (ie. 100 and something pages back ) that an English paper had suggested letter writing to people in swing states to persuade them not to vote for George Bush. I have now done research.

The idea is from the broadsheet The Guardian, a great bastion of typos, and a paper more to the tastes of The Gaffer than to mine.
In the daily suppliment, it suggested people write to voters in Clarke County, Ohio, on of the swingest of swing states.
A quote from suggested wording by Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:
An idiot he [George Bush...] may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive... thuggish idealogues... pariah state... brazenly lying... cynical mendacity...

But here's the interesting bit:
Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy.

[Tony Martin was a farmer in England who shot and killed an intruder on his property in 1999.]

Now. I would like to know. Would this make you vote Democrat?

[Valaru]

Originally Posted by Janny

As an aside, I mentioned recently (ie. 100 and something pages back ) that an English paper had suggested letter writing to people in swing states to persuade them not to vote for George Bush. I have now done research.

The idea is from the broadsheet The Guardian, a great bastion of typos, and a paper more to the tastes of The Gaffer than to mine.
In the daily suppliment, it suggested people write to voters in Clarke County, Ohio, on of the swingest of swing states.
A quote from suggested wording by Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:
An idiot he [George Bush...] may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive... thuggish idealogues... pariah state... brazenly lying... cynical mendacity...

But here's the interesting bit:
Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy.

[Tony Martin was a farmer who shot and killed an intruder on his property in 1999.]

Now. I would like to know. Would this make you vote Democrat?

well I can't vote (Canadian) but if I could I would vote Kerry (well truth to tell not so much a vote for Kerry, more of a vote against Bush).

But I doubt such a pley would swing my vote, if it was the other way around. People have been saying this kind of thing for so long, so many elections so much mud slinging that people are becoming desensitized.

If you want to make a point I would suggest finding hard facts, andpresenting them in a clear uncluttered, unbiased way. Along the lines of

In a speach on Oct 3 2004 George W. Bush stated "fact#1" but these reports prove that "fact#1" was false and this other report proves that Mr. Bush knew that "fact#1" was false prior to Oct 3 2004

[Janny]

Thanks, welcome and I think I need to rephrase.

I'm not quite sure to whom the 'you' in paragraph three refers, but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to ask. (Certainly the question was indeed cluttered and biased. )

Especially with reference to the case of Tony Martin, would the parallel drawn here make you more or less likely to vote democrat?

[Valaru]

Originally Posted by Janny

Thanks, welcome and I think I need to rephrase.

I'm not quite sure to whom the 'you' in paragraph three refers, but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to ask. (Certainly the question was indeed cluttered and biased. )

Especially with reference to the case of Tony Martin, would the parallel drawn here make you more or less likely to vote democrat?

oops the you meant whoever was handing this out. Tony Martin, hometown tragedy, it would enrage me against the author, while some people would take up the connection right away, those people would probably already be voting Kerry....but that is just my opinion, so is worth nothing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I agree with that. Although I think Kerry is basing this on the fact that a one eyed rattle snake has the potential for "bringing more allies in" then George Bush currently. And who knows who he has talked to behind the scenes already. is that considiered unethical to do that if you arent yet president?

I don't think that's unethical, esp. since Sen. Kerry is a U.S. Senator. And you could be right about the one-eyed rattlesnake. But it still bothers me.

And another thing that bugs me is when the non-incumbent, of whatever political persuasion, talks like "when I'm president, I'll do such-and-such", like speaking of it as a fact somehow will dupe people to vote for them! Or to a lesser degree, when the incumbent says "in the next 4 years, I'll do such-and-such". At least he is President already, but that's no guarantee that he'll be in for another 4 years.

Politics bug me, because there is so much spin and deception going on. The number of conflicting stats is amazing! How can one person have one count of something and another another count of the same thing? Then you read how they got their counts, and they're both semi-valid, but intended to promote THEIR side. A classic example was the percentage of deaths on "our" side of the conflict. The Dems had one percentage, the Reps had another. Turns out the Dems did NOT count the Iraqui deaths, and the Reps did. They both had somewhat valid reasons, but it's just irritating that they aren't up-front about how they obtained their figures, and you have to waste valuable time figuring it out.

[Valaru]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Politics bug me, because there is so much spin and deception going on. The number of conflicting stats is amazing! How can one person have one count of something and another another count of the same thing? Then you read how they got their counts, and they're both semi-valid, but intended to promote THEIR side. A classic example was the percentage of deaths on "our" side of the conflict. The Dems had one percentage, the Reps had another. Turns out the Dems did NOT count the Iraqui deaths, and the Reps did. They both had somewhat valid reasons, but it's just irritating that they aren't up-front about how they obtained their figures, and you have to waste valuable time figuring it out.

I find all recent elections (not just US, but here in Canada as well) are all about spin. It's like politicians think we are dumber than the last generation, or that we are not worth the facts.

That or that politics have become so corrupt that they can't give us a simple basic fact because it will show us what the powers that be have done. What makes me laugh is when both sides (or all the sides in the 4 party system we had last election) use the SAME fact but twist is so grotequely that they can use it each to prove their own, drasticaly different view.

[Rían]

Continuing to work backwards up the thread ...

Originally Posted by IRex

So what part of that original reply did you interpret as me disagreeing with your statement exactly?

The first and third sentence. Here's your entire post:

Originally Posted by IRex

way to cut it up and discount it out of hand rian without even considering it. i went out of my way to point out the imperfect nature of the report. doesnt mean it needs to be rejected out of hand as was your intent. because it certainly COULD enlighten us in a way we werent aware of before. when we originally assumed ah its just liberal bias. flush it!

and as far as reporting the "facts impartially" thats ALL he was doing by analyzing EACH instance as he did. are you suggesting you have knowledge that it was anything other then that? im impressed you know so much about this reporter and his sinister motives.

and your other 2 questions/comments -

Originally Posted by IRex

based on what exactly? ... um perhaps you missed the part where I said “and as far as reporting the ‘facts impartially’ thats ALL he was doing by analyzing EACH instance as he did.

My objection about the whole issue is NOT "ah its just liberal bias. flush it! " I would object if ABC decided that KERRY distorted more, and more attention should be given to KERRY'S distortions. My objection is ONLY that a news outlet was directed by a high-up-guy to give greater emphasis to one candidate's distortions over another (no matter WHICH candidate it was), and apparently NOT inform the public that they were doing this, and base their judgement on very little outside analysis (ONE reporter's analysis?!) I think it is a dangerous and deceptive thing to do, no matter WHICH candidate they're biased towards. I thought that news outlets were supposed to report the news accurately and fairly. I don't have any problem with them presenting an opinion, as long as it's labelled as such, but to bias the data by emphasizing one side over another - well, that's scary.

[Insidious Rex]

Valaru nice to see a familiar face (icon?) posting here on the moot. Gives me a bit of an alice in wonderland feeling but in a good way. All my message boards are mating with each other… mixing of the gametes is a good thing though. Makes the place less stale and predictable.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I would object if ABC decided that KERRY distorted more, and more attention should be given to KERRY'S distortions.

would you really? careful. psychology is a powerful thing. when things go against the candidate you favor who doesnt share your political point of view there is a tendency to assume its a verification of what you thought all along. where as when things go against your candidate the first instinct is to be defensive and assume its a subversion or a scheme by the other side. that your candidate is the victim of distortion or lies. its really quite hard to resist. although ill go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are quite uneffected by any semblance of bias whatsoever since you insist it would work both ways with you so easily...

My objection is ONLY that a news outlet was directed by a high-up-guy to give greater emphasis to one candidate's distortions over another (no matter WHICH candidate it was), and apparently NOT inform the public that they were doing this, and base their judgement on very little outside analysis (ONE reporter's analysis?!)

and I never disagreed with you on that in fact I never responded to your original vent about the whole thing. I thought it was kinda sleazy myself. I was responding to jersey’s comment about it which made me recall the piece I had heard about the reporter actually investigating the issue and finding out that Bush DID in fact tend to distort more. Does that give some faceless suit at ABC the right to alter focus of the stories they make because of this? Not at all. What they SHOULD have done is what the reporter did and investigate and SHOW what the facts were. Of course they knew if they did that theyd be screamed at for being liberal and biased and making crap up but at least it would be legitimate journalism.

What I didn’t appreciate was actively going out of my way to point out the limits of the quick one person study done with PLENTY of caveats and then you swooping in using my own caveats against me by saying essentially: “Pssh! ‘one reporter’, ‘arbitrary’, ‘his conclusion’ Bogus!!� when ALL I was trying to do was point something interesting out that I had heard. Not to present it to you on a silver platter so that you could find a way to reject it outright at all costs. which is sure the feeling I got from your particular reply. I wasn’t looking to use it as a weapon. It was just interesting to me that’s all. Thought it might be interesting to others.



Been meaning to ask here what are peoples most important issues in regards to how you are voting in this election. By issues I mean Terrorism, Economy/Employment, Iraq, Environment, Deficit, Social Security, Healthcare, Gay Marriage, Education, Taxes, etc., etc. NOT any particular thing about the candidates per se but more specific issues independent of the candidates themselves. So whats it for you that really is important to you? for me it’s a number of things (healthcare, economy/jobs, social security, environment) but honestly I find myself worried most of all about the deficit and to some extent the national debt. It seems to be the issue with the most potential for disaster down the road if we continue to ignore it as we have been. But it seems like you could fit the number of people who care about/understand the deficit issue into one room and still have room left over for a pick up volley ball game. Why is that? Are most people really so unconcerned about this potential economic train wreck that could make life for our kids and grand kids horrific? Or is it just too esoteric and confusing to them? Does the notion that in 40 years ¾ of our tax base could be going to paying interest on the national debt really worth a shrug and a “whatever�? I hope not…

But anyway whats yer hot button issues? And all you know nothing ferriners feel free to respond to this as well regarding the issues you think are most important in this election on a global level. Would be interesting to see the differences between citizens and non.

[Rían]

IRex - I'll just say that it's unfortunate that we seem to misunderstand each other a lot. From our chat on IM, you cleared up for me that it was AFTER the fact that the reporter did his check-up. I read your post as it was a basis for the ABC high-up to issue his memo. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

But I still view ANY bias by the news, including those towards candidates I favor, as WRONG - just plain WRONG. (and it's not even an issue of "verification of what you thought all along" - it's an issue of a directive by a news director to emphasize one person's distortions over another.) That's all. I hope you can believe that. It's true. I hate unfairness, and I think people should be given the facts straight up, no matter WHAT they favor.

[Nurvingiel]

Not meaning to sidetrack you RÃ*an, but what does everyone think of this article?

3 Simple Reasons Not to Vote for Bush
By: Gary Bloom
October 21, 2004

One. The environment.

This is an issue where I would think there would be little argument, unless you happen to own a coalmine or chemical factory. The rest of us should be terribly concerned about what President Bush is doing to the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the global climate changes that may affect where we live. Bush has launched an all out assault on the environment that rivals his war on Iraq, with about the same level of planning for the aftermath. There are too many examples of Bush’s contempt for the environment to list, but a couple of highlights include the abandoning of the Kyoto treaty and the easing of regulations on mercury emissions from power plants.

Down where I live, in the Deep South, even the “Kill It and Grill It� crowd has woken up to the fact that Bush’s environmental policies are so destructive that there may not be anything left to kill. Bush’s plan to pave over as many wetlands as possible in the Midwest was opposed by Louisiana duck hunters, who need those wetlands for the ducks to thrive up there so they can kill them down here. I’ve never been able to figure out why so many hunters and fishermen support Bush. I understand that the gun toting crowd is deathly afraid of losing their right to tote guns, but what good are guns if there’s nothing left to kill, except other people? Every outdoorsman should be on the side of the environment. This President is diametrically opposed to the environment. Why? One reason may be the large contributions he receives from utility, oil and gas interests. You think?

Two. The rebirth of trickle down economics.

Made famous by the great communicator. Unfortunately, the trickle most of us receive is urine, literally as well as figuratively. Literally, in that the only prescription drugs the poor can afford are those in the drinking water. You can’t be serious! Unfortunately, I am. A number of studies have found anticonvulsants, sex hormones, and other popular prescriptions in our tap water. I don’t know about you, but I’m not too keen on the idea of getting a dose of estrogen in my water.

Figuratively, in that the disparity between the rich and the poor has increased dramatically. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States more than doubled from 1979 to 2000. A study by National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group, found that in 2000, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans had the largest share of before-tax income for any year since 1929. I’m no economist, but I have trouble believing that giving the rich more money is going to solve the problem. Here’s a radical idea. Why not give the middle class tax cuts to stimulate the economy? Heresy, you say. Only the rich help the economy by starting new businesses and making investments. There’s some truth to that. But most of the rich are hired hands, just like you and me, though you wouldn’t know it by their paychecks. They are not the founders or the owners of the company, but CEO’s and upper management hired off the street. Do you know what those hired hands make? CEO’s at major U.S. companies averaged over 8 million per year in 2003. The ratio of CEO pay to the average worker has reached 530 to 1. Those are pretty good odds if you’re a CEO. They’re not investing in new businesses, but lavish mansions, toga parties, and private jets, with a mistress or two on the side to ease the stress. It’s tough being at the top. And it’s nice to know that the progeny of these CEO’s will not have to pay a single dime of estate taxes, thanks to Mr. Bush. My main argument against the exemption of estate taxes? Paris Hilton (pictured on right).



Three. Abortion rights.

Though not of monumental importance in the vast scheme of things, this is a battleground issue between the religious right and the rest of us. Bush has steadily chipped away at abortion rights since he took office. If he is re-elected and is able to appoint one or two Supreme Court justices, there’s a good chance abortion will be illegal by the end of his second term. That is, illegal for poor Americans. The rich will fly off to some country where it is legal. The poor will have abortions in back alleys where many will die. Once again, the religious right inflicting its morals on the poor, who will pay the ultimate price. You may not think this topic, if you’re an older male or female, is of much importance to you. Think again. Born again Bush applies the same logic to prohibiting federally funded stem cell research and the right of terminally ill patients to die peacefully and painlessly. Nancy Reagan has become an advocate of stem cell research in the hope that it will one day lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s and a host of other debilitating diseases. She won’t succeed if Bush is elected to another term.

Three simple reasons. With the possibility of Supreme Court appointments looming, we may have to live with Bush’s vision of America not for just another four years, but for the rest of our lives.

(I quoted the article here because the link I gave doesn't take you directly to it. Up with tables! Down with frames!)

There is also a rebuttle to this article, by Patrick Hynes. The link is located at the end of the first article.

I think the second guy writes better, but "Three Reasons Not to Vote for Bush still presents some convincing arguments, especially on the environment. I think Bloom and Hynes both do not present convincing arguments about the economy, or abortion rights (a subject which perhaps should not be broached here because it might be too hot even for this thread.)

What do you think about the first article (by Bloom) and the rebuttle (by Hynes)? I found both an interesting read.

Incidentally, "ideological and funded by a radical foundations" is not a quote from Bloom's article. Hynes was unclear about that and I had to go back and check. It appears here in Hynes' article.

On economic matters, Bloom falls into the trap of citing research from “non-partisan, not-for-profit� organizations. Of course, all that means is that they are “ideological and funded by a radical foundations.�

[inked]

Nurvingiel,

I should say those were the correct reasons to vote FOR President Bush's re-election.

Not that I wish to deny the few remaining political cartoonists paying work...and Kerry certainly presents a longer face to work with !

[Insidious Rex]

Interesting:

When the federal government issues a terrorist warning, presidential approval ratings jump, a Cornell University sociologist finds. Interestingly, terrorist warnings also boost support for the president on issues that are largely irrelevant to terrorism, such as his handling of the economy. Robb Willer [...] tracked the 26 times that a federal government agency reported an increased threat of terrorist activity in the United States between February 2001 and May 2004. He also tracked the 131 Gallup Polls that were conducted during the same period. He then conducted several time-series and regression analyses on the relationship between government-issued terror warnings and Gallup Poll data on approval ratings of President George W. Bush.

"Results showed that terror warnings increased presidential approval ratings consistently," says Willer. "They also increased support for Bush's handling of the economy. The findings, however, were inconclusive as to how long this halo effect lasts."

source

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Not meaning to sidetrack you RÃ*an

Me? I love sidetracks! Have you seen my new, improved title?