The Official US President Election Thread

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yeah he did - but the comparison with Al Qaeda is apples and oranges - which you seem to want to ignore.

Yes. Terrorist apples and terrorist oranges.

See - I told someone that people were starting to think that Bin ladin really was just a "man in a cave" again - they didn't believe me. Thanks for confirming it for me. let's see - that's what the world was telling Clinton when he started going after him, he backed down, we then suffered 9/11. Lucky most of the people weren't in work at the time, lucky that the NY/NJ Port Authority was quick thinking enough to move the trains out from underneath the buildings - 3,000 would have been a SMALL number. That man with "dad's pocket change and a gang of frustrated muslim virgins" killed 3,000 people and destroyed two buildings whihc contained more office space than all of San Diego.

LOL. It's just that he is always pictured in a cave. It's rather amusing really. 9/11 was really bad, but compared to large scale wars, world wars, the continual terrorism in periods in Israel and elsewhere, it was just one bad day. Many Sudanese would have sawed off thier own arm to have their misery limited to one bad day. The loss of office space is horrifying indeed.

Are we becoming a nation of delicate flowers were we remain tramatized for years after such an event? So many nations have been through so much worse. Our own civil war was so much more horrific than anything OBL has come up with. We paid a terrible price for letting our guard down for the sake of convenience to the point where such a pathetic plan actually could succeed. We need to get off the permenent orange alert, stop the fear mongering, and just go about the business of addressing the security problems along with the other problems facing us. And, yes I do think the defencive measures are the higher priority than pre-emptive wars. The steps the president and the government have gone a long way toward preventing similar attacks but are too focused on a repeat event and not proactive towards other posibilities. Kerry is right about securing the ports. Bush, instead of just agreeing and adding to his goals, ignored the issue. To partiasn to see a good point.

My neighbor is an FBI agent and he agrees that before 9/11 we, as a nation, were more concerned about car jackings than hijackings. We all bear the resposibility for ignoring the embassy bombings. If I remember the goverment was busy spending millions of dollars finding out where the president's winky had been. The "Wag the Dog" slam dismissed the real threat as a political manuevre.

Isn't that the big question? How would you suggest finding him in mountains which are more hostile than the Rocky Mountains, in an area which is inhabited by tribes who take him in and support him?

I bet they would stop taking him in if we napalmed a few. But seriously, we need to stop trying to put a face on these terrorist groups. It only serves as a recuitment poster for them. It would be better to only identify operatives, finances, and weapons flow and stop making it a personal. I understand what Bush tried to say in the oft quoted "I don't think about him (OBL) very much". I hope he meant that there is a larger terror problem than just OBL.

Unfortunately while we have the Pakistani leader on our side he is in too precarious a position to do everything needed to clear out his country of Al Qaeda. It would be impossible to track down every terrorist in the world. Like the "War on Drugs" we may eventually realiz it is unwinnable in any final sense and that the best thing to do is address the causes and ameliorate the effects, and recognize that more force often leads to "unexpected consequences".

Believe me - I seem to have my eyes opened and mind opened a lot further than you do... it's like your a mouth piece for them at all

You are so funny sometimes.

You don't analys cause and affect, you don't look at the way the world is - as is the case with all liberals you look at the world in terms of the way you wish it was. Well it's not that way.

I thought the "liberal" characature was the hand-wringing pessimist. Is it possible to see the vision of the way the world could be improved? This is the dumbest thing you have ever written. You know nothing of whether I analyze cause and effect. You may as well be telling that my favorite color is red. Are you so bigoted you see the world in black and white? 100% liberal or 100% conservative. The cuurent administration is NOT conservative BTW. They are very radical. Jumping into wars, busting the budget, trying to change to change the constitution for religious agendas. I like the old school conservatives like TR and Ike. They were truely cautious regarding change.

I remember you used to claim to be an independent or sometimes a libertarian. At last the sheep's clothing comes off and reveals the radical neo-con hawk underneath. I'll be you consider RNC flyers to be reference material. Now could we not resort to personalizing political discussions, unless you *want* to just desend into name calling and character asassination.

Kerry is saying "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" - so tell me - how does that fit in with him voting for war?

It was a war powers act not a vot to go to war without completeing the weapons inspections.

All intelligence - all the world's intelligence said that Hussein had WMD - so the "bush lied" statement can't be used.

NO. The NRC told him the aluminum tubes were not usable for uranium refinement. He choose to ignore this opinion. Time after time he used the intel that fit his agenda. He jumped the gun because he knew that they would not find anything significant and his excuse would be gone. The only thing the intel confirmed was that not all the pre-1991 WMD materials were accounted for. A big leap to "mushroom clouds" over US cities.

As for lack of international cooperation - sometimes we have to take things on ourselves - if the world isn't going to come along. I'm not going to put our national security into the hands of the likes of the UN or France.

Another Bush Lie. Kerry states explicitly stated he would never do this. They justed grabbed the sound bite of "global test" which really meant does it pass muster in the larger context of the situation (ie Saddam was going nowhere) so a closer look at the WMD situation was needed).

I have never heard Bush say anythjing about Kerry on the Homeland Security Bill

In the 3rd debate.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So what military "adventurism" is Bush doing? Also - what "noble words" did hitler have?

I suggest William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or even Mein Kampf if you have a strong stomach (I found it a pathetic peice of crap and couldn't read much of it).

That's sort of funny - concidering that the genocide in iraq liberals only want to acknowledge is what happened during the 80's - NOT the milliions killed and tortured all through the 90's even while the Un was there.

Oh, yes, the Kurds and Shiites that helped us in the Gulf War only to suffer retribution from Saddam (the "turning our backs" part i said) was when the bulk of it occurred. Many political prisoners suffered after and until the end of he regime. Buit this is true of Uzbekistan (the high per capita rate of political prisoners in the world) but they are our allies.

The majority of people did support us in iraq and they DID throw flowers and kisses at our feet.

Polls in Iraq show our support among the Iragis has dwindled dramatically (1% now view us as liberators vs 35% a year ago). Logical or not they blame us for the lack of security and the terrorism.

Figured you wouldn't understand what I was getting at.

That's the way it is with statements that make no sense.
[quote]
You really do twist facts and spew the liberal crap - don't you.{/quote]Charming... you should run for office with your winning ways. Just watch the PBS link I posted which includes an interview with the former Army Chief of Staff and get back to me. Maybe he is lying but he was brought in with the current administration. Do you really deny that and administration officials that publicly disagree with policy suddenly "retire"?

- you won't even watch Fox.

And you know this because.... I actually watch FOX and CBS the most. I like Chris Matthews Sunday Show. O'Reilly is a creep and a rude jerk (and a perv lol) "When was the last time you watched Fox?" tonight lol I like the BBC and World News Tonight. The Daily Show is the best but I cancelled cable to much crap for too much money.

It will be long and hard - that's a fact.

I often find myself saying that.

It's not a choice of whether to fight terrorism or not, it's about what way will be the most successful. Levelling and rebuilding entire countries just might not be the most effective way to do it. Japan and Germany had long histories of education, government, industry and economic longevity. Iraq and Afganistan have a long history of corruption, depotism, backsliding, and warlordism. Each case is as unique as each individual.

[Janny]

Note to self: never mention Ireland.

Erm, I meant that there hadn't been attacks on UK soil by Islamic fundamentalists. Of course we've had terror attacks. A few years ago, for example, a man by the name of Guido Fawles tried to blow up parliament...

I can't really talk about Ireland, since most of it happened before I was born...

[inked]

O, Janny,

Thucydides long ago said, those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

Please don't take the attitude "that was a long time ago" and ignore its lessons!

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Janny

Note to self: never mention Ireland.

Erm, I meant that there hadn't been attacks on UK soil by Islamic fundamentalists. Of course we've had terror attacks. A few years ago, for example, a man by the name of Guido Fawles tried to blow up parliament...

I can't really talk about Ireland, since most of it happened before I was born...

I wouldn't worry about your knowledge of the Troubles. At least your involved, and have grown up with both British and Irish Hostility. Perhaps you and I are better qualified to make claims about such things, as we don't come from the other side of the pond?

And before any Yank says they know more than we about Ireland, or knows anything about the loss and the blood, consider this: You lot fire up if we say the damndest little thing about the US and her politics and her history, and you then say to us "how could you know, you wern't born here..."


The term I'm looking for....rhymes with wypocrite......

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Though I do find it funny that Eire is the discussion in a debate about a US election.

Unless, through either candidate winning, the price of imported beer to our own homes rises, that is.

Note how no one imports US beer anyway? Australians laugh at the US beers, and call them "light". And my compatriots don't even waste their time on it.

And speaking of wasting time, perhaps one of you fine Americans should bring us back to topic, eh?

[inked]

Okay! But you do pay attention to history, I note.

Given that post WWII and the subsequent dismantling of the British Empire and forced relinquishment of the role of Global PolicePerson, GB did manage to establish the nation of Israel as an act of compassion, what responsibility do the succeeding governments and generations have to that policy?

Having neglected Hitler through the '30's and suffered the aggression that Chamberlain's appeasement policy resulted in, do you have any thoughts for either political candidate here in the USA?

What benefit of those historical realities would you suggest either candidate should use?

[Insidious Rex]

wow you east coast boys were up awful early. coffee fueled passion is always fun.

so what do people think of this whole colorado thing? they want to have an amendment that would allow the electoral votes for the state to be divided according to the percentage of vote. so instead of all 9 votes going to the winner and 0 votes going to the loser (even if its 51% to 49%) it may be 5 republican and 4 democratic. as is to be expected, the republicans are up in arms over this since it essentially takes away 4 of their votes even though they may just barely win the state. if that had happend in 2000, Gore would have won the election. But others argue that its not fair to disinfranchise completely half (or more!) of the electorate (err.. of those that actually vote) by having it be an all or nothing system. if you barely squeek out a huge state why should you be allowed to eat 100% of the winnings? so if this amendment passes in Colorado it could have quite an interesting effect on the election. although i have been told there already is a system similar to this in both Maine and Iowa currently. although its not as radical as the one proposed for Colorado (it has to do with districts or something).

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by inked

Okay! But you do pay attention to history, I note.

And it's good to see that others, not just the excitable and uninformed, also pay attention in history. In this place, though many deny it, there are few who do consider the past.

Originally Posted by inked

Given that post WWII and the subsequent dismantling of the British Empire and forced relinquishment of the role of Global PolicePerson, GB did manage to establish the nation of Israel as an act of compassion, what responsibility do the succeeding governments and generations have to that policy?

Great Britain has had as many hits as misses, but at least the are having a fair dinkum crack at it. The US and GB are responsable for almost all of the world's trouble spots, and they both seem to have a differing approach to crisis. (I'm not having a go, and those that have seen me do so can back me on this). Kashmir, Israel, basicaly the entire Balkans, Ireland, Vietnam, Korea, oh and of course, the "middle" east.

The question is the individual approach. No planes slamming into Westminster, and alike. And as, most dear Yanks will note, GB is responsible for more that the dear innocent Americans are, so one onders why the Brits are not besieged....

Oh but of course, the US is apparently pivitol to "the west" (snigger), and should the US "fall", of course, so should the rest of us follow... and so on.

Am I alone in noting that there is no rash of car bombing's and terrorist killings in Basra, a city occupied by U.K. forces, the second largest city in Iraq? Gee, did the Brits just get lucky, and bag a peaceful city, or what.... OR perhaps, the UK forces have run the shop a little differently?

Originally Posted by inked

What benefit of those historical realities would you suggest either candidate should use?

I think either "candidate" winning or losing wont be of immediate assistance to those actually patrolling Bagdad proper, so to hell with both of them.


One wonders if Iraq an Kuwait didn't have oil in abundance, would the US be so interested?

And apparently the US campaign revolves around Iraq. And Iraq is, in many and many political ways, Viet Nam without the jungle.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so what do people think of this whole colorado thing? they want to have an amendment that would allow the electoral votes for the state to be divided according to the percentage of vote. so instead of all 9 votes going to the winner and 0 votes going to the loser (even if its 51% to 49%) it may be 5 republican and 4 democratic. as is to be expected, the republicans are up in arms over this since it essentially takes away 4 of their votes even though they may just barely win the state. if that had happend in 2000, Gore would have won the election. But others argue that its not fair to disinfranchise completely half (or more!) of the electorate (err.. of those that actually vote) by having it be an all or nothing system. if you barely squeek out a huge state why should you be allowed to eat 100% of the winnings? so if this amendment passes in Colorado it could have quite an interesting effect on the election. although i have been told there already is a system similar to this in both Maine and Iowa currently. although its not as radical as the one proposed for Colorado (it has to do with districts or something).

I am against it - for one reason - it is the STATES which elect the president. We are merely voting on WHO the state should elect - we are NOT voting directly for president. There isn't even a guaranteed right that private citizens vote for president - it's left up to the states. In the beginning - most of the elections for president were handled by the state legislature and THEY voted for the president. No one is being disenfranchised - it's just that too many idiots haven't bothered to read or understand our Constition and why things we done the way they were.

I love how the media is now explaining what will happen if the vote is tied for president and claiming how people will be outraged when they find out how that was set up. It shouldn't be of any surprise to people if they would read the damn Constition and if schools actually taught it.

[brownjenkins]

personally... i'd rather lose the electoral college altogether... and i do understand the system

i'd rather see the candidates cater to the people of the US as a whole, not just to regions

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

personally... i'd rather lose the electoral college altogether... and i do understand the system

i'd rather see the candidates cater to the people of the US as a whole, not just to regions

I don't think we shold do away from the electoral college - because then too many small states would be ignored. Right now many states are being targeted because of the electoral voting system - if it wasn't - then only the coastal areas and large city areas would be concentrated on and ignore the smaller states and small cities.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No one is being disenfranchised - it's just that too many idiots haven't bothered to read or understand our Constition and why things we done the way they were.

many constitutional experts agree that this aspect of our election system is about as antiquated as it gets and isnt at all practical in todays society. as im sure you must have heard if you sit all day watching all the news programs you yell about watching. what do you say to them? is your stance we cant change anything about the electoral system simply because its 18th century tradition?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

many constitutional experts agree that this aspect of our election system is about as antiquated as it gets and isnt at all practical in todays society. as im sure you must have heard if you sit all day watching all the news programs you yell about watching. what do you say to them? is your stance we cant change anything about the electoral system simply because its 18th century tradition?

NOT ALL CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS ARE AGAINST IT. It also has nothing to do with 18th century tradition. The electoral college is about state rights, about protecting the integritity of the states, about making sure that ALL states have a voice.

Right now it's a possibilty that Hawaii may be a swing state - if it wasn't for the electoral college - you wouldn't hear anything about Hawaii at all. But right now - they are 50/50 and have always voted democrat. The election can very well hinge on Hawaii with only 4 electoral votes.

[Insidious Rex]

the same could be said if it went 3-1. I dont see the distinction. are you saying hawaii wouldnt matter once california and new york hash it out? id like to see how often hawaii mattered in the past century of elections even in this system frankly. and has anyone done a break down on how close the election would have been last time if we did it all by percentages within states? that would be interesting to look at.

[inked]

Fenir,

We did our spot to get the thread back on, but look where it's gone!

by the bye, do you think there is a connection between "ire" and "ireland", given that you weren't puttin' on or so? Given the temperment of Irish folk (legendary, even), I've always thought the E in Eire was a way to avoid the obvious I !

Would either candidate be a pro-Ireland pick?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't think we shold do away from the electoral college - because then too many small states would be ignored. Right now many states are being targeted because of the electoral voting system - if it wasn't - then only the coastal areas and large city areas would be concentrated on and ignore the smaller states and small cities.

As you say, the current system seems to result in swing states getting more attention.

As an outsider, it seems that people identify more with the USA as a whole than with their state; if that's so, maybe they'd be better voting directly for the president.

one thing matters to me in this election and that is terrorism. That is NOT restricted to just capturing bin Ladin - but changing the middle east to prevent future bin ladins down the road. This will take time and WILL NOT and CAN NOT be done in 4 years or maybe not even in 10 years. It will be long and hard - that's a fact.

It's interesting that this is not being discussed more openly as being the Bush foreign policy.

I hope all potential Bush-voters will note that they are endorsing a hidden agenda, the Project for a New American Century, which they and their children will pay for.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Note how no one imports US beer anyway? Australians laugh at the US beers, and call them "light". And my compatriots don't even waste their time on it.

its true, we do

[Draken]

And Anheuser-Busch has the temerity to attack Budweiser Budvar over the use of the name Budweiser. I say temerity because the Czech version is one of the world's great beers, while Anheuser-Busch is responsible for some of the worst tasting beer available on the planet.

Is this election thing over yet by the way? Drags on a bit, doesn't it?

[Sween]

As with all elections its come down to black and white issue of just who do you like more. Now Bush has one good thing going for him and in america it appears to be held a virtue amd that is is certinally is strong willed. Hes shown this through his term in office he decideds what hes going to do and he does its no matter what any other country might think or what the long term conaquences are theres another man who is famos for doing what he though and without thinking of the conquences and thats Turin (ok so he might be fictional but whatever)

As for Kerry he seems a bit more level headed so hes got my vote (shame i aint allowed eh?) i have not been impressed with bush i dont think hes stupid as hes made out hes clever he plays on peoples fears.

But what i would say to the American people is if 9/11 had not happened would you be re electing Bush on the strength of his domestic policy? has the state of the economy got better? Has welfare got better? Are more people in jobs? are more people getting the health care they need? Or is he too busy protecting his country (and that debatiable) to worry about such trival matters? And is your country more safe? Have you made any new friends (our government may like you but our people dont like you as much) have you managed to make terrorists think oh i dont want to hurt America anymore or have you made them more determined?

The American people have a huge responablity to the world the person they elect is not just the most powerfull person in there country but in the whole world your choice effects all of us. Please pick the right person