The Official US President Election Thread

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hanging chad was caused by punch cards. People either didn't push the stylis all the way through (generally caused the pregnant chad) or the "chad" became dislodged during the numerous times it was handled. Anyway - basically it was just dangling from the ballot. If that happened to me - I would rip off the chad before handing it in. A chad is just a perferated disc which is bunched out of the ballot to mark the vote.

I usually spend time look over everything - about a minute or 2 to make sure I have everything marked right and I didn't miss anything.

I knew what the chad was, but I wasn't quite sure how the "danglers" came to be. Thanks for clearing that one up.
I would check my ballot too (I already do, even though all we have to do is mark an X in a square, you'd really have to be a git to mess Canadian ballots up) - given all the effort we put into researching who you vote for, I darn well want my vote to count.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well democrats like to call this - "disenfrancisement", but he hasn't stated any of his position on this matter concerning illegal immigration. They also argue that illegal aliens should be allowed to get drivers licenses in California. Excuse me - they ARE ILLEGAL - they aren't even supposed to be HERE - so why the hell do we give them free health care, free education and why are students who are ILLEGAL able to apply and get scholarships which are meant for US citizens? Why would they or should they get a drivers license in this country? It's not being against immigration - it's being against ILLEGAL immigration.

Erm... it would be disenfranchisement if they were US citizens. The policy would make more sense if they wanted to have more liberal immigration laws. Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I knew what the chad was, but I wasn't quite sure how the "danglers" came to be. Thanks for clearing that one up.
I would check my ballot too (I already do, even though all we have to do is mark an X in a square, you'd really have to be a git to mess Canadian ballots up) - given all the effort we put into researching who you vote for, I darn well want my vote to count.

It's easier for you to count the ballots though. Canada has a smaller population than California and only about 3 times as many as NJ. Canada has 31 million people, NJ has 9 million, California has 34 million. Also - you disenfranchised your ballot counters (according to what you said) - I disagree with that. Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Why should they be forced to give up their vote because they have to count? [edit] I don't think ANYONE is impartial anyway. Whether they vote or not - they most likely have an opinion - even if they don't state it.

Erm... it would be disenfranchisement if they were US citizens. The policy would make more sense if they wanted to have more liberal immigration laws. Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter.

We can't let everyone in. You don't have a country next you with people who will do anything to cross. Can you imagine how bad it would be if we just let anyone in? They might as well just put up a HUGE sign in mexico saying "left for America".

I'm for immgration - but limited. Just like it was during ellis island time. There is NOT a inherint right except for US citizens to be in this country. The US does not belong to the world, as much as the world would like a say in our elections - they have no say, as much as people think that our constitution protects none US citizens - it does NOT. Our Constitution stops at our shores.

Yes it would be disenfranchisement if they were US citizens - it's also ONLY disenfrachisement if they are prevented from voting - not if they didn't vote properly. The democrats like to say that people were disenfranchised even though all the studies have shown that in 2000 it was because of their own stupidity of not voting properly. it's the same with segregation. they say that schools are mroe segregated now than they were in the past. They aren't segregated - it's just that people go to school where they live. Segregation is a GOVERNMENT enforced thing - there is no forced segregation. Democrats love to twist these kind of facts and come up with new definitions for these words. This is one of the reasons I'm for vouchers - it gives inner city students (blacks and other minorities) a chance to go to a different school than just their local one where they live.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by 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!

My dear sir, please do not misread 'I was not born' for 'I do not care'. I do not ignore the lessons of the past, I just pick the relevant ones. An encyclopeadic knowledge of the past is certainly useful, but possessing one does not mean that you can learn the correct lesson, nor does it permit you to see the future.

I shall select the latter of your two examples. There is no direct comparison between Hitler and terrorism, thus one could claim the whole analogy is flawed. However, Hitler wanted war. It was his solution to Germany's problems. If you support GWB, you will say: 'Some people want war. You must confront them.' If you do not, you may well say something very similar.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

My dear sir, please do not misread 'I was not born' for 'I do not care'. I do not ignore the lessons of the past, I just pick the relevant ones. An encyclopeadic knowledge of the past is certainly useful, but possessing one does not mean that you can learn the correct lesson, nor does it permit you to see the future.

I agree. What's important about history is not the facts and dates, but the cause and affect. Knowing that Pearl Harbor occurred Dec 7, 1941 does nothing to understanding the event. It's great to know that we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima - but the real thing to understand is why, what would have happened if we didn't, and many other questions.

I shall select the latter of your two examples. There is no direct comparison between Hitler and terrorism, thus one could claim the whole analogy is flawed. However, Hitler wanted war. It was his solution to Germany's problems. If you support GWB, you will say: 'Some people want war. You must confront them.' If you do not, you may well say something very similar.

The thing I look at at world war II is how the whole world, including the US, wanted to be in denial with hitler - until it was too late. Churchill wanted to fight against Hitler and have preemptive strikes against germany - he was fired. Now who do we look up to 50 years later, the appeasers or Churchill? If Churchill had been listened to - millions of people might have been saved and just think - Britain would most likely still be a world power, Europe would still be the center of the World, Europe would never have been split into east and west, the Berlin Wall would never have been built, the US would currently not be a world power (which many of you seem to resent).

Only History will be able to judge whether Bush or the appeasers were correct. Based on history and the stated goals of al qaeda - I think history will come out on the side of Bush (as long as we aren't destroyed in the process - since the winner always gets to write the history).

[brownjenkins]

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.

that's not really true... in reality it has nothing to do with big or small... it has to do with how close the vote is... bush spends very little time in states that are solidly democratic... and kerry very little in the solidly republican ones... and they also both spend much less time in states that are strongly in their respective favors

with the current system "swing states" not "small states" are the most important (florida is large and coastal and has many major cities)... without an electoral college... every vote, every group and every minority would be equally important

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's not really true... in reality it has nothing to do with big or small... it has to do with how close the vote is... bush spends very little time in states that are solidly democratic... and kerry very little in the solidly republican ones... and they also both spend much less time in states that are strongly in their respective favors

with the current system "swing states" not "small states" are the most important (florida is large and coastal and has many major cities)... without an electoral college... every vote, every group and every minority would be equally important

That isn't true - because a small state that is 50/50 can become VERY important - where as if they were 50/50 it still doesn't matter if it goes to national vote. hawaii can be a deciding factor under the electoral college - nationally it is insignificant. Contrary to your beliefs EVERY group, EVERY minority is equally important right now. It is important at the STATE level - where the vote should stay. Ohio would NOT be very important, except for the large cities, there would be no need to go to rural areas.

BTW - Bush has been in New Jersey THREE times now - which so many people consider a democratic state and right now NJ is 46% Bush - 46% Kerry.

[inked]

Janny,

"I shall select the latter of your two examples. There is no direct comparison between Hitler and terrorism, thus one could claim the whole analogy is flawed."

I must disagree on this. Ever hear of Kristallnachte? the Blitz? the pogram against Germans of genetic defect or mental imbalance or defect who were not Jewish? the Brown Shirts against Hitler's political foes? the treatment of the Jews in Germany prior to "the Final Solution"?

Hitler was a terrorist, he merely had the backing openly of a country who legislated his empowerment and activity.

I await, Janny, your refutations!

[Janny]

He was a political leader. He had to get things ratified by a parliament before he did them, or at least he had to employ diplomatic means to remove this necessity (The Enabling Act, March 1933).
Diplomatic means. That was actually his political stratergy post The Munich Putsch. And what has The Blitz, the German bombing of London got to do with terrorism. Legitmate warfare at the time, need I quote Dresden at you?
And being the leader of a country, he could use its army and engage in non-terrorist war with stratergies (zB. Blitzkrieg) which didn't revolve around killing as many civilians as possible.

Islamic terrorists have given themselves carte blanche to kill whoever they like, because they carefully studied the situation and discovered that they are the only real Muslims. Who are they accountably to? Not any of the states from which they derive.

[Janny]

Now. I consider myself an officianado of Bruce.

After banging my head against the nearest wall, I realised that there is possibly no more Republican song to sing than 'No Surrender'.

[inked]

And this absolves him from terrorism? Rather it justifies it as state sponsored terrorism, doesn't it? I rather think the residents of London thought it a weapon of psychological terroe which I believe is how Hitler et alia intended it! And it was not only Russians under Stalin who feared the "knock on the door in the night".

Are you aware of the German resistance movements who opposed him at the cost of their lives? The White Rose comes to memory. They labelled him as such, IIRc!

edit: cross post! I am referring to Hitler, not Bruce!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

And being the leader of a country, he could use its army and engage in non-terrorist war with stratergies (zB. Blitzkrieg) which didn't revolve around killing as many civilians as possible.

Well that's like people bitching about us bombing japan - but ignoring that more civilians died in the bombing of Germany with conventional weapons.

Islamic terrorists have given themselves carte blanche to kill whoever they like, because they carefully studied the situation and discovered that they are the only real Muslims. Who are they accountably to? Not any of the states from which they derive.

Not only that - but they aren't even attacking Americans anymore. So who are they attacking? The human aid workers. Why? Becuase they want to turn public opinion against the action so we will back off. They don't care about the wellfare of iraqis or the children or anyone else - it's just a front. if they laid down their arms - there would be rebuilding all over Iraq right now. There would be new businesses, new schools, new hospitals and a flood of money and support coming in. But they aren't interested in that - they're interested in developing a new islamic terrorist training camp - something that Hussein had already offered to bin Ladin before (according to the 9/11 Commission report)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That isn't true - because a small state that is 50/50 can become VERY important - where as if they were 50/50 it still doesn't matter if it goes to national vote.

what isn't true... that i said "swing" states are more important?

i said that a small state can be important under the current system... it can also be ignored if one candidate has no chance there... this is also true of large states... so size of the state has absolutely nothing to do with it... how much attention a candidate pays is all about how close the race is in a given state

on the flipside... look at how close the last popular vote was... about 500,000 votes in a nation of over 100,000,000 voters... with numbers that close... every vote is important to a candidate... even some rural town with a few thousand voters in the middle of nowhere could make a difference

[Janny]

Originally Posted by inked

And this absolves him from terrorism? Rather it justifies it as state sponsored terrorism, doesn't it? I rather think the residents of London thought it a weapon of psychological terror which I believe is how Hitler inter alia intended it! And it was not only Russians under Stalin who feared the "knock on the door in the night".

It doesn't change the fact that Hitler was a leader who had a purpose within his country, namely to overturn the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
How on earth can you take lessons from the past from fighting Hitler to use in the modern world? Shall we make pals with Russia to get them to open up a second front in our war against Terrorland? No. Because the terrorists don't all happen to be in one place.

Hitler also had the restriction of being just one guy. Get him, you got your problem. Terrorism isn't the same. If you get Osama, then you have to get Al-Zakarwa too, and all the other groups. There is no nice, easy organisation that you can necessarily crush.

Has there ever been a war ever, ever, where no psychological terror was used? I hear even the Romans liked threatening barbarians with spears. Awful.
And Alexander the Great. How many people did he kill? Over a million. Do we hold it against him? Only those of us who refuse to see it in the context that it occurred.

Are you aware of the German resistance movements who opposed him at the cost of their lives? The White Rose comes to memory. They labelled him as such, IIRc!

zB. The Abwehr. Dietrich Bonhöffer et al.

Vis-a-vis ol' Bruce's song selection:
Chorus:
We made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers on a winter's night with a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender

[COMMENT] What? This is a pro Democrat song to sing?! Not whimping out on given responsibilities? [/]

Verse 3:
Well on these streets the light's growing dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging, you say it ain't ours anymore to win,
I want to sleep beneath the peaceful skies in my lover's bed
With the wide open country in my eyes and those romantic dreams in my head

[COMMENT] This bit seems pretty Democrat to me. There is a war going on, it's just not us that's gonna win it.
And from the 'peaceful skies' bit. Desire to ignore what is going on the real world for a peaceful world that doesn't exist.
Sounds a bit September the 10th to me.
Seems like this embodies the whole Democrat campaign. We don't understand what's going on. We're genuine, but we don't get it.[/] I'm gonna get killed by everyone apart from JD...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what isn't true... that i said "swing" states are more important?

i said that a small state can be important under the current system... it can also be ignored if one candidate has no chance there... this is also true of large states... so size of the state has absolutely nothing to do with it... how much attention a candidate pays is all about how close the race is in a given state

on the flipside... look at how close the last popular vote was... about 500,000 votes in a nation of over 100,000,000 voters... with numbers that close... every vote is important to a candidate... even some rural town with a few thousand voters in the middle of nowhere could make a difference

That isn't true - because they would just concentrate more heavily in the more populace area to gain those 500,000. Between Philadelphia, NJ and NY (roughly a 100 mile radius) live 30+ million people. All they have to do is concentrate in this 10% of the US population center to gain that small 500,000 number. They don't have to crisscross the country like they do now. 7 states contain over 50% of the US population - those are the states that will ALWAYS be in charge of the election. Right now - any state can be a turning point in the elections.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The thing I look at at world war II is how the whole world, including the US, wanted to be in denial with hitler - until it was too late. Churchill wanted to fight against Hitler and have preemptive strikes against germany - he was fired. Now who do we look up to 50 years later, the appeasers or Churchill? If Churchill had been listened to - millions of people might have been saved and just think - Britain would most likely still be a world power, Europe would still be the center of the World, Europe would never have been split into east and west, the Berlin Wall would never have been built, the US would currently not be a world power (which many of you seem to resent).

Only History will be able to judge whether Bush or the appeasers were correct. Based on history and the stated goals of al qaeda - I think history will come out on the side of Bush (as long as we aren't destroyed in the process - since the winner always gets to write the history).

The more anlogous circumstance of preemption is WWI. Both Germany and France mobilized their forces out of fear of attack. The initial invasion was based on military intel that suggested attack was imminent and preemption was the only recourse to avoid invasion.

WWI was a disaster for the European Pennisula so leaders where reticent to jump right into another war. Had Woodrow Wilson had his way it is likely that Hilter would never have been a serious political force and hence not gained power in Germany. He fed off of the resentments of the people toward the victors heavy tolls against the German people in the post war period.

One wonders what kind of leaders will arise in Iraq once our troops leave. I doubt we will ever truely "leave" unless forced out by an elected goverment.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

One wonders what kind of leaders will arise in Iraq once our troops leave. I doubt we will ever truely "leave" unless forced out by an elected goverment.

You mean leave - like we've left from Germany? Japan? and Bosnia? How long is Bosnia going on now and there are STILL peace keepers and troops there? Is Germany an "occupied" territory because our troops have been there since World War II?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Janny

... What? This is a pro Democrat song to sing?! Not whimping out on given responsibilities?

LOL Okay children, get out your history books. Count the wars entered into and won by democrats. Wars lost by Republicans.... good good... now who's "batting average" is higher? Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton. Oh, wait, Nixon lost Vietnam, but didn't start it. Reagan... well, Lebannon (the tuck and run campaign) and Grenada (beat up the nerd) cancel out. Bush Sr. gets.... Kuwait AND *drum roll* PANAMA!!! wow a two-fer. Clinton sqeaked out the victory over Serbia and the Chinese embassy (a sort of two-fer). So, whose the wimp? Really thick comment, Janny. (I once beat a roomie for using that word on me. Sort of raises my hackles.)

The most important thing to remember is that the troops serving come from both political parties and neither has a unique claim on valor.

I'm gonna get killed by everyone apart from JD...

LOL Such a brave conservative. I wonder if JD thinks that FDR or Truman were wimps. Considering your country is run by PM Jeeves I wouldn't go slamming half of the American.... oh, never mind... time for the melting. Truman... pass me that nuke.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

LOL Okay children, get out your history books. Count the wars entered into and won by democrats. Wars lost by Republicans.... good good... now who's "batting average" is higher? Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton. Oh, wait, Nixon lost Vietnam, but didn't start it. Reagan... well, Lebannon (the tuck and run campaign) and Grenada (beat up the nerd) cancel out. Bush Sr. gets.... Kuwait AND *drum roll* PANAMA!!! wow a two-fer. Clinton sqeaked out the victory over Serbia and the Chinese embassy (a sort of two-fer). So, whose the wimp? Really thick comment, Janny. (I once beat a roomie for using that word on me. Sort of raises my hackles.)

That is the most ridiculous conclusion I have ever heard. All wars are different and all people are different - whether they are republican or democrat. You seem to conveniently forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he saved the Union. As for Nixon losing Vietnam - that was lost based on public opinion and many things he inherited.

The most important thing to remember is that the troops serving come from both political parties and neither has a unique claim on valor.

I agree with that.

LOL Such a brave conservative. I wonder if JD thinks that FDR or Truman were wimps. Considering your country is run by PM Jeeves I wouldn't go slamming half of the American.... oh, never mind... time for the melting. Truman... pass me that nuke.

No - I don't think they were wimps - but the democratic party has CHANGED since the 60's - that is why Reagan left and went to the Republican. The democratic party I must agree with Janny on - has become the party of the flower children of the 60's. You are trying to compare too different times. There is a drastic change in the democratic party between the 50's and the 60's.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You mean leave - like we've left from Germany? Japan? and Bosnia? How long is Bosnia going on now and there are STILL peace keepers and troops there? Is Germany an "occupied" territory because our troops have been there since World War II?

And don't forget Korea. Basically the concept of moving from "occupant" to "peace-keeper" is shades of grey. The reason Japan has no nukes is that we won't let them. Our troops helping keep "compatible" governments in place and repelling undesirable countries from taking control or invading is still a form of military control.

I'm not sure what you think I meant, but I believe that we will be using Iraq as a base of operations in the region as long as we can. It is a strategic operation at this point. The "Pottery Barn Rule" is in effect now. I'm only referring to that transition from "active combatant" to "peace keeper".

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

I'm not sure what you think I meant, but I believe that we will be using Iraq as a base of operations in the region as long as we can. It is a strategic operation at this point. The "Pottery Barn Rule" is in effect now. I'm only referring to that transition from "active combatant" to "peace keeper".

I have always felt we would be using Iraq as a base of operations. It's a strategic location as I have ALWAYS said. It is in the heart of the war on terrorism - right next to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is also a good staging ground for the CIA. The other benefit to Iraq is that if it becomes a democracy - which I think it will - and Afganistan does - it will be putting internal pressure on Iran for reform. I know you don't believe that - but Iran has been tetering for a while now.