The Official US President Election Thread

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey Janny, how much of your signature is you joking around?

The bit about The Boss is my heartfelt feeling.

The middle bit is lifted from the editorial of last week's The Spectator. (Btw, is Mark Steyn known in the USA?)

The last bit. That's just a conceit.

Originally Posted by JD

IN Britain - has it been reported about the millions killed and tortured in Iraq since 1991 under Saddam Hussein?

Heeheehee!!! ROFL. Anything that could possibly support Mr. Blair?! Anything that could possibly challange the view of the comfortable Guardian stroke BBC class?! (Sorry Gaffer...)
Two reasons why the answer is 'no'.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Janny

Yes... but from my history lessons I recall some terrorists... who were... erm... left wingers and who were slightly more... erm... prominent than Seneor de Salazar of Portugal...

I was only citing a couple names, but I was going to say lenin aswell, he may not have been a military terrorist, but he was certainly a social terrorist, but yes left and right are both as bad as each other.

I find your signature rather amusing also

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Janny

Heeheehee!!! ROFL. Anything that could possibly support Mr. Blair?! Anything that could possibly challange the view of the comfortable Guardian stroke BBC class?! (Sorry Gaffer...)
Two reasons why the answer is 'no'.

do i detect a hint of cynicism?
remember ye, the tale of Lord Hutton!!

[jerseydevil]

I feel the parallels with WWII and the war on terrorism are valid. I think there is a part of the world - just like prior to world war II who seeks appeasement and the status quo - while another part - lead by Bush wishes to make the hard decisions and take on the middle east.

Hitler may not be a terrorist - but if saddam hussein had the capability - he would have been a Hitler.

As for Churchill being articulate and so forth. Prior to WWII - a lot of people did not like him at all. In Peace to End All Peace - which I was reading yesterday.

...Churchill was insenstive to the moods and reactions of his colleagues, and oblivious to the effect he produced on others. When he gave orders that naval officers felt ought properly to have been issude by one of themselves, he inpired a collegial and institutional hostility of which he was unaware; he did not know that they viewed him as an interfering amateur, and that his imprescision in the use of their technical language fueled their resentment.

He also did not know (for they did not tell him) hoiw much his colleagues in the Cabinet were alienated by his other traits. He bubbled ober with ideas for their departments, which they regarded as meddling. He talked at such length that they could not endure it. Neither subordinates nor colleagues dared to tell him to his face that he was often impossible to work with. Even Fisher, his naval idol and mentor, whom he had chosen as First Sea Lord, found it difficult to communicate with him; though, it should be said, the problem was mutual.

We look at world war II and Churchill and Roosevelt through 20/20 hindsight and 50 years of time. Not to mention we won. As Kerry said when asked if the war in Iraq was worth it - "it depends on the outcome" That basically goes for ALL wars. Do you really think we would have been bitching these 30+ years about Vietnam if it was a victory?

Bush may not be the greatest speaker - but that does not mean he does not understand the importance of changing the Middle East to destroy the terrorists. A lot of people suck at speaking - it has nothing to do with their intelligence. Hell most southerners - sorry to say with their accents - sound like morons (sorry Khamul ). Listen to how Edwards pronounces most of his words. Khamul even had said on this board (think it was the venting thread) that he wishes people wouldn't reduce 10 IQ points from him after they hear him speak.

I think the main importance is to "shrink the gap" - as Thomas Barnett says in "The Pentagon's New Map". The gap is the area which is cut off from the modern world - North Korea, Middle East, central America. The importance is to bring them into the world and make them a part of the world community. Barnett states the importance of having our allies understand this concept. I'm not sure how well Bush has done this - it seems in many respects he has done a good job, in others not so good. But then again - France has generally been a thorn in our side. In the book, Barnett stresses that the worst thing that can happen would be for the "Core" (that part of the world that is ruled by trade and economics) to fracture and split into the America versus the EU (and Russia) versus China. France wants to create this world, as Chirac has stated this repeatedly. For those who have high speed net connection - you can watch a 3 hour presentation Barnett gave or there is a link to buy it from C-SPAN.

In a PowerPoint presentation Professor Barnett talked about developing a global perspective that integrates political, economic and military elements in a model for the post-September 11 world. He argued that terrorism and globalization had combined to end the great-power model of war that has developed over 400 years, since the Thirty Years War. Instead, he divided the world into an increasingly expanding "functioning core" of economically developed, politically stable states integrated into global systems and a "non-integrating gap," the most likely source of threats to U.S. and international security. Professor Barnett used this map to call for a new system for deployment of the U.S. armed forces. Following his remarks he answered questions from military officials in the audience. Professor Barnett is the author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, published by Putnam Publishing Group. In the book he described the changing natures of war, security, and foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. He explained a theory of the effects of globalization that combines security, economic, political, and cultural factors to forecast future military needs. He also uses autobiographical elements to explain the behind the scenes workings of the Pentagon and how his PowerPoint presentation has been used.

People can agree with the US or not - but if you want to know what Bush is attempting to do - this person is the one setting the new direction for the military. Bush is attempting to impliment Barnett's ideas - that is why we are moving our troops from the "core" (germany and central Europe) and moving them closer to the gap. That is why we are attempting to bring demcracy to Iraq and Afganistan. Bush is NOT going on short sighted ideas - but does have a long range strategy. A strategy which I think is very sound and important to see to the very end - whether it is Bush in the White House or anyone else. I hope that if Kerry is elected that he will NOT go back into the appeasement strategy of the past - that is a formula for disaster.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

The bit about The Boss is my heartfelt feeling.

I'm currently ashamed he's from NJ.

The middle bit is lifted from the editorial of last week's The Spectator. (Btw, is Mark Steyn known in the USA?)

Nope - don't know who that is. Can you tell me?

Heeheehee!!! ROFL. Anything that could possibly support Mr. Blair?! Anything that could possibly challange the view of the comfortable Guardian stroke BBC class?! (Sorry Gaffer...)
Two reasons why the answer is 'no'.

I figured not.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sunstar - yes - it has been reported about the 100,000 dead. IN Britain - has it been reported about the millions killed and tortured in Iraq since 1991 under Saddam Hussein?

So what do you think then? The necessary consequences of a geopolitical experiment?

It's interesting that Bush is implementing this high-minded Project. Two things though:
1) he doesn't tend to mention it in public too often;
2) how many potential Bush-voters realise they're voting for an unspecified military intervention in unspecified countries for as long as they tell you it will take?

With the greatest respect, up yours, Janny . I was demonstrating against Saddam when Reagan and Thatcher and all the rest of those oh-so principled free marketeer types were bankrolling Hussein. In the 80s, a good friend of mine was an Iraqi Kurd refugee whose family were killed by Saddam and it was him to opened my eyes to what "our man in Baghdad" was up to.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So what do you think then? The necessary consequences of a geopolitical experiment?

It's interesting that Bush is implementing this high-minded Project. Two things though:
1) he doesn't tend to mention it in public too often;
2) how many potential Bush-voters realise they're voting for an unspecified military intervention in unspecified countries for as long as they tell you it will take?

Actually - Bush has stated his plans numerous times - either it doesn't get heavily reported on the media you listen to - or else people don't pay much attention.

And it hardly has anything to do with "unspecified military intervention". That is what we did throuhout the 90's actually - was jump and put out fires - without any clear plan or objective.

With the greatest respect, up yours, Janny . I was demonstrating against Saddam when Reagan and Thatcher and all the rest of those oh-so principled free marketeer types were bankrolling Hussein. In the 80s, a good friend of mine was an Iraqi Kurd refugee whose family were killed by Saddam and it was him to opened my eyes to what "our man in Baghdad" was up to.

So - did you march against Iran and the Soviet Union also - who were attempting to control the Middle East?

[Rían]

I'm voting early tomorrow - I think it will be a zoo after work hours! I just hope there's a clear winner tomorrow and it won't get dragged out...

[Valandil]

I plan to vote first thing as well...

OK - I asked earlier about predictions/projections. Now I have a more specific question:

Most people are projecting a close race, but if the first thing you hear when you wake up Wednesday morning is, "...won by a landslide." What is your first thought? That it was Kerry who won, or Bush?

[Nurvingiel]

I think it would be... Bush... *cries* I know I'm not American and not voting, but the outcome does matter to the rest of the world. We all have our preferences. (I'm the second-most prolific poster in this thread! )

So who's coming to the election after-party? What time should we have it (people who know when the results are in)?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think it would be... Bush... *cries* I know I'm not American and not voting, but the outcome does matter to the rest of the world. We all have our preferences. (I'm the second-most prolific poster in this thread! )

As I have my preference for Australia, Canada, Britain, France, Russia, Spain, etc etc etc.

We get very pissed though if you do something like the damn Guardian did though.

So who's coming to the election after-party? What time should we have it (people who know when the results are in)?

It might be a while though. Ohio supposedly has the possibility of 200,000 provisional ballots, not to mention the absentee ballots in all the states. it may be a sure winner Tuesday night - it may not be.

I still think that the election coverage should be restricted to when the electoral votes are counted in the House of Representatives.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As I have my preference for Australia, Canada, Britain, France, Russia, Spain, etc etc etc.

Fair enough, that's what I was getting at. (That citizens of the world care about the leaders of the world.)

We get very pissed though if you do something like the damn Guardian did though.

I'm confused about what the Guardian did. Erm... what was it? *rereads last two pages of posts*

EDIT: Oh, it's right on this page. You mean the death toll survey in Iraq? (We just studied surveys. I'm not convinced about the statistical significance of their results. They might have accidentally introduced bias [as in wrong data] into their results by doing the surveys in clusters. I should look at the initial post on that again.)
Well, the Guardian isn't the only biased newpaper out there... every paper is biased on something. Some are more biased than others. Some manage to even keep reporting complete and factual stories despite the bias. *cheers for her home town newspaper*

It might be a while though. Ohio supposedly has the possibility of 200,000 provisional ballots, not to mention the absentee ballots in all the states. it may be a sure winner Tuesday night - it may not be.

I still think that the election coverage should be restricted to when the electoral votes are counted in the House of Representatives.

We can have the party then! Up to that point, it's a pre-election party.

EDIT: Cross-edited with Fal's post.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I plan to vote first thing as well...

OK - I asked earlier about predictions/projections. Now I have a more specific question:

Most people are projecting a close race, but if the first thing you hear when you wake up Wednesday morning is, "...won by a landslide." What is your first thought? That it was Kerry who won, or Bush?

Im not looking forward to it. Im gonna try to vote in the morning but Im anticipating lines and they dont give the day off from work on election day (why the heck isnt it an official holiday! Youd increase turn out from the working class and...! oh wait i think i just answered my own question ). Plus there like a billion little ballot measures on my particular voting plate. And you have to kill yourself to find out whats up with all those. All you see around is VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE H or VOTE FOR JOE BLOW FOR COUNTY COUNCIL, SHERRIFF & CHIEF BOTTLE WASHER! who?? for what?? ah! i guess ill be doing a little research tonight.

Im also leary about all the problems that have now been magnified after the 2000 debacle. It sounds like you are going to have warring factions of republican and democratic lawyers in a tug of war over every debatable voter situation. And that sounds like chaos to me. Lets hope it doesnt work out that way. Also, they are having a real hard time getting volunteers to work the polls. They only have as many as they had last time and they are anticipating MUCH greater turn out on TOP of all the extra scrutiny. That too is a recipe for disaster so steel yourselves people.

As to the winner well Bush still seems to still have an effective spell over many of the populace with his security/terrorism hypnotics. And I just cant imagine that changes on the last day. But then the Redskins DID lose yesterday...

What I want to know is which state(s) do you think it will come down to. My prediction is Ohio and/or Pennsylvania. Lost of electoral votes available in those states and if either candidate gets both I think its a lock for them. And they are both really close (Pennsylvania at least). Although you will certainly see Minnesota and Iowa and Wisconsin playing a big part as well. And of course.... the dreaded Florida... did you all hear about how they LOST 60,000 absentee ballets already?! 60,000!! Imagine if they had lost 60,000 ballets in 2000 when the state came down to like 500 votes. yikes!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm confused about what the Guardian did. Erm... what was it? *rereads last two pages of posts*

EDIT: Oh, it's right on this page. You mean the death toll survey in Iraq? (We just studied surveys. I'm not convinced about the statistical significance of their results. They might have accidentally introduced bias [as in wrong data] into their results by doing the surveys in clusters. I should look at the initial post on that again.)
Well, the Guardian isn't the only biased newpaper out there... every paper is biased on something. Some are more biased than others. Some manage to even keep reporting complete and factual stories despite the bias. *cheers for her home town newspaper*

Nope. The guardian got the names of registered voters in Clark County Ohio - they went through and restricted the list to the 38,000 or so voters who were listed as independants. They then had their readers mail them letters telling them how they should vote and why. It pissed off people here - including Kerry supporters. people e-mailed the Guardian back. One of the best one's was this one who wrote something like this..."Thank you for informing me of how to vote, you see I live in an ignorant country with people who just eat fast food and which has no culture, so it was so nice to hear from someone who can tell this ignorant american how to vote - I would never have been able to do it on my own." That wasn't verbatim - but that was the general tone and statement of their letter to the guardian.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im not looking forward to it. Im gonna try to vote in the morning but Im anticipating lines and they dont give the day off from work on election day (why the heck isnt it an official holiday! Youd increase turn out from the working class and...! oh wait i think i just answered my own question ).

Actually that's a state issue. Go to your state and demand to have off. It has nothing to do with the federal government. I really don't see why it has to be a federal holiday since the polls are open till 8:00pm or so anyway. Of course again - polling times are STATE determined - and even different by district.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sunstar - yes - it has been reported about the 100,000 dead. IN Britain - has it been reported about the millions killed and tortured in Iraq since 1991 under Saddam Hussein?

I'd just like to point out that I did not say that. You're referring to The Gaffer's post, not mine.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I'd just like to point out that I did not say that. You're referring to The Gaffer's post, not mine.

Sorry - you're right. I guess either your avatars looked similar (in color) or something - anyway - when I read it I thought it was your post. I should have known better.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Valandil

"...won by a landslide." What is your first thought?

Kerry. *also cries*

JD, don't worry. You heard the song, the guys just confused.

Last Child, thanks. Lord who> Isn't that forgotten already? Any, wasn't the intelligence in that report faulty...

Did the Redskins win? Is it true that the result was controversial?! Oh the omens...

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sorry - you're right. I guess either your avatars looked similar (in color) or something - anyway - when I read it I thought it was your post. I should have known better.

It's OK

I see that Janny hasn't explained who Mark Steyn is - he's a pro-Bush journalist who writes for the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph. I think he's Canadian, but he's very pro-US, especially US foreign policy. He has this great style of writing of the "I can't believe he just said that" variety, and he's also very funny. Actually I tend to think of him as the Canadian JD

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

"Thank you for informing me of how to vote, you see I live in an ignorant country with people who just eat fast food and which has no culture, so it was so nice to hear from someone who can tell this ignorant american how to vote - I would never have been able to do it on my own." That wasn't verbatim - but that was the general tone and statement of their letter to the guardian.

Lol! Nothing like a little sarcasm to get your point accross. That totally rocks. I'd be quite offended if someone sent me a letter like that. And a bit worried that they got my address... big brother is watching you!

I might have written... thank you for your letter, I had just run out of birdcage liner...

I still think their statistics are suspect in that study, it does appear that way at least.

Eek! I sound like I support Bush! Noooooo go Kerry!

I really think Kerry has potential to be a good President. Just out of curiosity JD (or anyone who cares to comment) who did you want to see win our election?

EDIT: Cross-post with Janny and Sun-star.
Lol Janny!

I dunno Sun-star, JD isn't an 'I can't believe you just said that" kind of writer. Oh wait you were kidding.
I've never heard of the guy so I won't comment further. And no, I don't know Billy or Susie from Canada, though I'm sure they're really nice.