Quick Vote: Who's your candidate for President? [Archive]

Marcus Telcontar

May 28th, 2004, 06:11:46 PM

Likewise, I have to say voting out of the Dem. and Rep. party is lame. You can think it's neat to "take a vote away" from both major party candidates, but you're really wasting your vote. Yes, you have a right to vote any way you want, but do you want your vote to count, or not? Either way, a Dem. or Rep. will win. If you vote for another party (at least nowadays) you may as well not even vote. It would be one thing if a third party had a chance and strong base, but that is not true right now.

Voting within two party is no better. Right now, tow party politics is corrupt and narrow, it does not address the real issues and both parties have polices designed to appeal to where they think the majority of people are - not whats genuinely the best.

It may have been different when both major parties were split along left / right lines, but that's no longer the case.

Personally, a blind vote for one party is more of a waste than thinking about the issues and voting for exactly who you think will be best, even if that person has no chance. The fact that there is a base support that just will not shift means those peopel are not genuinely thinking about their vote. Now, that is a waste.

Always voting two party means no one will have the will to develop alternatives. That's bad, that's not how true democracy works.

Too many parties means a smaller majority wins the leadership (and therefore a smaller majority gets it's issues first up). It also means different parties may have to ally to win votes on issues/bills/referrenda, etc. (which defeats the purpose of having several seperate parties, doesn't it?).

Yopu mean, the parties might have to sit down, discuss and talk, craft legislation with alternative POV in mind? Have to appeal to others outside their base support?

What's wrong with that? Sounds pretty good to me - The Ausr Senate has 6 voting blocks and is not controlled by the Government. You have Liberal (Republican), Labour (Democract), Aust Democrat, Green, One Nation and Independants on the cross benches. This means that Liberal (the present governemt) cant ram legislation through, it has to pander to at least 4 Senators of the minor parties, so there's always horse trading and legislation modification to make it more palatible to a wider range of POV's.

dont knock it, it stopped an Aust version of the PATRIOT act and other knob jockey ideas.

That's why I vote usually for a small party, reminding the Government or major opposition that I think for myself and I'm prepared to vote as I see fit, for the issues I think are important, not their agendas.

Edit note : Aust was very much two party until early 90's. IMO, the present fracturing is a damn good thing.

Jedieb

May 28th, 2004, 06:12:07 PM

Total so far
Bush (4)
Eve
Alex
AmazonBabe
Lilaena De'Ville

Kerry (10)
Jedieb
Madmartigan
Darth McBain
Jedi Master Carr
Marcus Telcontar
jjwr
Master Yoghurt
Jinn Fizz
Salvestro
Dru

Nader (1)
CMJ

Libertarian (1)
Sanis Prent

McCain
It won't happen, but don't think that McCain isn't secretly taking pleasure at causing Bush all this grief. He's said that he'll campaign for Bush's re-election, but it's not all that genuine. Personally, he respects Kerry a hell of a lot more than he does Bush.

Moral Standards
I think the gap between the moral standards of Bush's image, and the actual man are HUGE. Do I think the man is inherently evil? No, of course not. What I think he is spoiled, hypocritical, and unworthy. Drunk driving, dodging drills, getting out of Vietnam, probable cocaine use, dirty campaigning, a drinking problem until his early 40's, getting a free pass into Yale and Harvard without EARNING them, failed businesses proped up by his family's resources, etc. The REALITIES of Bush's life fly in the face of the upstanding moral IMAGE his handlers like to portray. If you could pin those on Kerry the Republicans would be having a field day. It'd be Bill Clinton II: The Return of the Immoral!

Defense
First of all, cutting defense spending isn't inherently a weakness. It depends on the situation. Who bragged about cutting the defense budget back in the 90's? That's right, then Secretary of Defense DICK CHENEY! He even said he would have cut it more than if allowed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it made sense. Kerry voted for many of those votes, as did moderate Dems and Republicans. As for Star Wars, it's a JOKE. It should be cut. There's no proof that it's viable. Even if you did get a system in place, all you do is force the other side to build a better missile. It's common sense. Uninspected cargo containers pose a graver threat than missiles from N. Korea.

Right now, we're in no position to cut defense spending because of the war in Iraq. But, because of Bush's tax cuts, we're running big defecits and future budgets are calling for cuts in Veterans programs and benefits. Over the next few years thousands of Iraq vets are going to need care. Where's the money going to come from? Taxes and spending cuts. I don't trust Bush to do either correctly.

Independent Candidates
If you're an Indie, good for you. If you're not in a swing state then go vote your heart. Vote for Nader CMJ! In California it probably won't matter. It may lay the groundwork for a viable 3rd party if you get enough votes nation wide. I doubt it, but you never know. But if you're in a battleground state any vote besides Bush or Kerry is a wasted one. You're tacitly saying, there's no difference between the two parties, each guy is the same, blah, blah, blah. Nader may use that tag line, but it's not true. There ARE differences between Bush and Kerry. They'll handle the economy differently, the environment, and foreign policy. They're not clones, not by a long shot.

Foreign Policy
Over the last few weeks, Bush has actually moved CLOSER to Kerry's position on Iraq by asking for help from the U.N. Kind of a flip-flop, huh? :rolleyes Kerry and Bush will never seperate themselves much here because an immediate pull out is the polar opposite of Bush's position, and it would be a disaster. We can't leave right now. The major difference between the two is that Bush has 3 years of arrogant foreign policy to be judged upon. The last 3 years have completely contradicted the foreign policy promises Bush made in 2000. Remember "humility" and "no more nation building?" No one could have predicted 9/11 and it's consequences, but the fact remains that Bush ran the exact kind of foreign policy he said he wouldn't. Kerry is pledging international cooperation and strong international policing efforts to battle terroism. We can only hope he'll stick to his campaign promises more than Bush did.

Terroism
Basically, we're screwed either way. We're going to get hit again. It's only a matter of time. It took Al-Qaida TWO tries to take down WTC and they were spaced 6 years apart. That's how they work. Don't let the last few years of domestic safety fool you. Hell, Al-Qaida and other groups now have plenty of American targets in Iraq, they don't need to waste resources on domestic targets to kill Americans, they're doing it in Iraq.
I will never be convinced that Iraq didn't make matters worse. Overall, Al-Qaida's numbers have actually risen. For decades, Iraq will be a recruitment poster for extremists. They'd have hated us anyway, but Abu-Graid will make it that much easier. Plus, Afghanistan ISN'T over. We're undermanned there and relying too much on the warlords. They're growing opium and heroine like crazy and it's going to finance god knows what.

Lilaena De'Ville

May 28th, 2004, 06:33:03 PM

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_kerry_fonda.htm
ahaha that email was a hoax, I just checked.

<img src=/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=665083>

Charley

May 28th, 2004, 06:39:00 PM

Uhhh thats nice and all, but without any citations for any of those things, it seems like smearwork and hearsay, LD.

Lilaena De'Ville

May 28th, 2004, 07:00:45 PM

Maybe it is. Just quoting an email I received. Doubt the picture was faked however.

Loki Ahmrah

May 28th, 2004, 07:01:15 PM

His hair looks real enough. :lol

imported_Eve

May 28th, 2004, 07:46:22 PM

I think it's a better idea to campaign for a third party than to just give a vote for the principal of it. It isn't quite giving your third party the support you want it to have.

Please don't think that I am against democracy or free thought. It is party politics (just what I said it was).

Lilaena De'Ville

May 28th, 2004, 08:11:40 PM

lol check my post - I went looking to see if I could validate it, and voila the picture IS a hoax. Still, I wouldn't vote for Kerry anyway.

Figrin D'an

May 28th, 2004, 08:16:18 PM

Originally posted by Eve
I think it's a better idea to campaign for a third party than to just give a vote for the principal of it. It isn't quite giving your third party the support you want it to have.

Yes, other forms of support are necessary for other parties to prosper. But if people were to simply collapse under the pressure to vote for one of the big two, lest be told "you're wasting your vote," the support for those other parties will wane, in which case the other forms of support become moot. It still hinges upon the ability of people to cast a ballot for whom they wish.

imported_Eve

May 28th, 2004, 08:23:09 PM

And I never said people couldn't vote for whom they wish. In fact, I stated it was their right in my earlier post. While you're voting for the principle of it, I hope it just steals votes from Kerry. That's my bottom line.

Figrin D'an

May 28th, 2004, 08:41:39 PM

Originally posted by Eve
And I never said people couldn't vote for whom they wish. In fact, I stated it was their right in my earlier post. While you're voting for the principle of it, I hope it just steals votes from Kerry. That's my bottom line.

True, but your statements are also the line towed by far too many people simple on the premise of being pragmatic in the here and now. "Sure, you can vote outside the Democratic or Republican party, but you're wasting your vote." My point is that, regardless of your opinion that voting party lines is the most effecitve way to "get things done," it tends towards political tunnel-vision. Dissent and discussion, and different points of view aren't the primary cause for a lack of efficiency by the US government in making policy. The flaws causing such things run much deeper, and quite honestly, are only fostered by the continual belief that following two parties and "settling on a platform" is the only way for the government to function.

That's my bottom line.

Jedieb

May 28th, 2004, 10:02:30 PM

That Fonda and Kerry picture was exposed as a cheap lie the day after it hit the net. It's actually pretty old news. Kerry attended the same concert and someone spliced them together. It was an anti-war rally, big friggin' deal. Fonda should be ashamed for some of the things she did during that time. But vets who served honorably earned the right voice their grievences. Their government LIED to them(Both LBJ and Nixon.) They fought and suffered, came home scarred and maimed, both physically and mentally. If they wanted to protest the war or support it, they earned it.

As for voting... I just want people to VOTE. Voter turnout in the U.S. is embarrasing. Local elections for city councils and aldermans ususually get determined by less than 25% of registered voters. Voter apathy runs rampant here and I don't blame the 2 party system. Indie candidates are far more prevalent at the local level because of lower voter turnout. People just don't give a damn about voting in general. They'll vote by the millions for pumped up lounge singers on American Idol, but damn if they'll go to their local firehouse and vote for who's going to be their next sherrif or circuit court judge.

Jedi Master Carr

May 28th, 2004, 10:22:44 PM

yeah that scares me in the long run because the country is voted on by the minority and we might get a real loser in there is a what I am afraid of.

Charley

May 28th, 2004, 10:24:01 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
yeah that scares me in the long run because the country is voted on by the minority and we might get a real loser in there is a what I am afraid of.

As opposed to the real winners that are currently on the ballot right now?

Jedi Master Carr

May 28th, 2004, 10:45:08 PM

Come on it could be worse. We have had worse presidents in fact a drunk (Grant), a man who lets his buddies run the show (Harding) and a corrupt man (Nixon) still we could get even worse its possible we could gets foul like Pat Buchanan or something.

Lilaena De'Ville

May 28th, 2004, 11:26:48 PM

Wait wait, Clinton was pretty corrupt too, it wasn't just Nixon. Lying under oath and all that.

Having a womanizer in office isn't anything new, so I'm not going to slam him for that, but perjury is pretty low, if the whole country is supposed to be able to trust what the man is saying.

Dan the Man

May 28th, 2004, 11:34:33 PM

That, and his "Fire & Forget" foreign policy was a real winner, no matter what you think of our current President's job.

At least Bush worked toward a solution, no matter how ill-fated that solution might currently be.

CMJ

May 28th, 2004, 11:54:06 PM

First off let me say when people say I'm just "wasting my vote" if I don't vote for the GOP or the Democrats it just burns my insides. :p I have always been someone who votes for the person above politcs. People who blindly vote the party line no matter the candidate just irk me.

Will I actually vote for Nader? Eh, probably not - the guy is so far left it's ridiculous. Then again, not sure if I can support either of the major candidates. I'm very much in the center of the political spectrum - and as such there is no real candidate for me to vote for for the Chief Executive. Bush is really far right, and Kerry is pretty far to my left(going by his voting record in the Senate at least). I will vote though. It's a cliche, but our founding fathers(and countless soldiers since) died to give us that right. If we don't use it we aren't appreciating the sacrifices they made.

ANYWAYS - I've said it before and I'll say it again. I PREFER split government. When the GOP runs both the legislative and Executive branches(not to mention the courts, though that's pretty damn even) things get scary. By the same token when the Democrats run the works I get worried. Programs tend to pass too fast. I don't wanna turn into a socialist state - or a religious theocracy. ;)

Democracy is SUPPOSED to be hard. It's supposed to be about compromising and working together. People who are true partisans and can't put country before politics sicken me.

James Prent

May 29th, 2004, 12:36:57 AM

Originally posted by CMJPeople who are true partisans and can't put country before politics sicken me.

Wouldn't that be... all politicians?? ;)

Jedi Master Carr

May 29th, 2004, 04:38:49 AM

Nixon was more than corrupt than any president in the last 50 years at least. Watergate was horrible, and the anti-semetic slurs that have come up on his tapes make him look even worse now. Today I think he was a very bad man and one of our worsts presidents. Its between him, Harding and Grant really. Grant was president (Drunk most likely) over the most corrupt presidency ever, there were more scandals under his 8 years than a lot of presdients combined. Harding's administration had the worst scandal in history, the Teapot dome scandal, whre one of his buddies stole millions. To me Clinton did nothing that bad, I mean come on lying about sex isn't as bad as the Tea Pot Dome scandal or anything that happened in Grant's administration or Watergate for that matter.

Ryan Pode

May 29th, 2004, 04:52:49 AM

Even though I can't vote in a presidential election until 2008, I would vote for Kerry as he has the best chance to get Bush out.

CMJ

May 29th, 2004, 08:35:21 AM

Originally posted by James Prent
Wouldn't that be... all politicians?? ;)

You'd say that about McCain?

I was speaking more ov VOTERS than politicans, but there are officials that are on the "level". Plus at the extremes of the parties they vote their conscious all the time - since they're so far to the left or right thet think they ARE doing what's best for the country. ;) Those folks are just lost souls.

CMJ

May 29th, 2004, 08:39:35 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Nixon was more than corrupt than any president in the last 50 years at least. Watergate was horrible, and the anti-semetic slurs that have come up on his tapes make him look even worse now. Today I think he was a very bad man and one of our worsts presidents. Its between him, Harding and Grant really. Grant was president (Drunk most likely) over the most corrupt presidency ever, there were more scandals under his 8 years than a lot of presdients combined. Harding's administration had the worst scandal in history, the Teapot dome scandal, whre one of his buddies stole millions. To me Clinton did nothing that bad, I mean come on lying about sex isn't as bad as the Tea Pot Dome scandal or anything that happened in Grant's administration or Watergate for that matter.

The instantaneous "rankings" of recent Presidents is silly to me. I think you need at least 50 years away from office before you can fairly judge someone, because if done before that politics STILL come into account when they are ranked. Plus you need time to see how their policies really turned out.

By my logic the most recent President you can really judge in Truman. End of rant. ;)

Lilaena De'Ville

May 29th, 2004, 09:19:17 AM

The real question at the beginning of this thread was who's your canidate for President. I put forth to the mods that this thread should probably be split, as it's gone off course.

Also, I'd like to know out of those in America who "quick voted," who is registered to vote?

Jedi Master Carr

May 29th, 2004, 02:25:41 PM

Threads over here get off topic all the time :p Seriously though I said my peace about that historical debate and I don't see it really going anywhere. As for if I am registered yep though it won't matter in my heavy republican state, but I will still vote for Kerry.

ReaperFett

May 29th, 2004, 03:36:26 PM

Out of intrest, those of you who didn't say you were registered party people. Are you someone who could vote for "the other side"? Just curious :)

Ryan Pode

May 29th, 2004, 06:38:53 PM

Just because you are registered to a party does not force you to vote for that party.

ReaperFett

May 29th, 2004, 07:12:46 PM

Yes, but that to me is them saying they're Democrats or Republicans. Different from someone just saying "Kerry" or "Bush".

Sarr Koon

May 29th, 2004, 10:20:06 PM

Although I'm only 17 and can't vote yet, as soon as I turn 18 I'm registering as a Republican. My vote is for:

Bush

Why does Nader run? I don't get it.

Kieran Devaneaux

May 29th, 2004, 11:19:22 PM

Me, personally, I take to heart these words: If I vote for a leader and it turns out he sucks, I have no right to complain - I voted for him! Therefore, I will not cast a vote to anyone. Especially when it's Bush (scumeating egomaniac), Kerry ("President Kerry" just does not sound good at all), Nader (come on, Ralph; you're a third party candidate, you have no chance in Hell) or whoever the Libertarians are endorsing. Besides, I'm not old enough to vote (I'll be 17 in a week), so I can't anyway...but even if I could, I won't!

That's my stance, and I'm not changing it. Period. :D

CMJ

May 29th, 2004, 11:25:41 PM

Originally posted by Kieran Devaneaux
Me, personally, I take to heart these words: If I vote for a leader and it turns out he sucks, I have no right to complain - I voted for him!

That's insane. If you voted for someone and he turns out bad you CAN complain because he let YOU(as a supporter) down. I actually believe you would have more of a right to vent your frustrations than someone who didn't vote the victor. They might just be a bitter partisan, but no one could give you that tag.

Kieran Devaneaux

May 29th, 2004, 11:33:21 PM

I disagree. Essentially, I feel that it was the vote of the people that put a screw-up into office....and if you voted for that screw-up, you can't moan and groan about it, BECAUSE you put that screw-up in office. Yes, I realize this sounds nuts, but who said I was sane? :D

CMJ

May 29th, 2004, 11:42:20 PM

Have you ever been let down by someone close to you? If so can you complain...or can you not because they're your "friend". If you chosee them as your friend do you really have a right to complain if they mess something up?

Puleeeze...that's an incredibly weak argument. People mess up and viote someone into office. They can't complain if he turns out to be a loser? On what planet? To follow your logic thru to conclusion I guess they can't change their mind about the candidate so he''ll keep getting re-elected even though everyone moans about him.

jjwr

May 30th, 2004, 07:39:46 AM

My beef with the two Party system is as someone above said its gone so far from Left/Right Wing that the system is a joke. It seems things are done because of what party you are not because its right or wrong.

I would love McCain to join with Kerry, maybe a few more people would get that bi-partisan politics for the good of the Country can work!

As for Clinton, I would have taken him for another 4 years over Bush in a heartbeat. Yeah he cheated on his wife and lied about it. Bush made up a war and probably lied about it, which was worse?

Morgan Evanar

May 30th, 2004, 10:23:44 AM

I wish we had a true fiscal conservative in office. :( Our budget is so screwed.

Also, anyone who votes in Bush on the security issue is either a fool or is too lazy to read.

Jedi Master Carr

May 30th, 2004, 12:14:50 PM

its strange how republicans have changed in that regard so many of them are no longer fiscal conservatives, just social conservatives and that I really don't like.

Telan Desaria

May 31st, 2004, 03:26:08 PM

Antoine Liverov

I'm a Social-Imperialist

but then again,. I don't think I can vote here yet...

Jedieb

May 31st, 2004, 06:26:19 PM

I've been registered since I was 18 and have voted in every Presidential election since 88. I've tried to vote in most of my Senatorial and Gubanatorial races. Missed most of the local ones. Why elections aren't held on WEEKENDS is beyond me!

Out of intrest, those of you who didn't say you were registered party people. Are you someone who could vote for "the other side"? Just curious
Like Ryan said, you're not required to vote for your party. Although some states will only allow registered party members to vote in their primaries while some allow all voters to have a say. I would have been very tempted to have voted for McCain in 2000. Primarily because of his reputation as a moderate who was never afraid to take on his own party. Aside from him, there are few Republican candidates that have interested. Many have downright appalled me. There's nothing wrong with being registered or active in one of the two major parties. Blindly supporting them is something altogether different.

imported_Marcus

May 31st, 2004, 06:39:13 PM

Wait... you dont vote on weekends?

WTF?

Ryan Pode

May 31st, 2004, 06:52:50 PM

We vote on tuesdays. That's right. Thats the falter of our great Democracy. Can't have it saturday cos of the Jewish minorities and can't have it sundays cos of God & the NFL.

CMJ

May 31st, 2004, 07:18:36 PM

Originally posted by Marcus
Wait... you dont vote on weekends?

WTF?

Back when the Constitution was written the US was still a primarily agrarian society and politicians(many of them farmers themselves) were NOT going to interfere with a farmer’s crop. The harvest was over by November, winter (usually) hadn’t started blowing snow all over the buggy trails. So there ya go on why we vote in November.

Why Tuesday? Religion. People gripe that voting’s still too difficult even though all you’ve got to do is drive a few blocks to your local elementary school. Back in the day most Americans voting involved a significant journey to the county seat. Many had to begin traveling the day before, and Congress didn’t want to conflict with Sunday worship.

Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday? Money. Most merchants did their books on the first of the month, and Congress worried that the merchants’ votes might be unduly influenced by the prior month’s red or black. Also, Nov. 1 is All Saints Day, and Congress wisely decided not to interfere with the Roman Catholics or their saints.

Jedieb

May 31st, 2004, 08:57:51 PM

Voting during the work week is an anachronism. It should have been changed decades ago. Saturday elections would be a perfect solution. Across the country elections are held throughout the year for different offices. Most, if not all are still held on Tuesdays. This should change, it's a joke.

imported_Marcus

May 31st, 2004, 09:22:58 PM

Well, if voting is voluntary, Tuesdays could work..... if pollling stations stay open late.

In Aust, where voting is compulsary, it has to be Saturday.

Well. I learned something today. Never knew anyone had weekday elections.

Does anyone else have mandatory attendance like Aust does?

Morgan Evanar

May 31st, 2004, 10:27:34 PM

They don't stay open late enough. Voting for the average working person in the US is a pain.

I think that vote days should be a holiday.

Figrin D'an

May 31st, 2004, 10:35:40 PM

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
They don't stay open late enough. Voting for the average working person in the US is a pain.

I think that vote days should be a holiday.

Agree and agree. Just move most election days to Saturdays, except for the November elections (be it a Presidential election year or not). Just make that first Tuesday after the first Monday a national holiday, give everyone off from work, and allow people to go vote at their leisure, rather than having to get home from work, make dinner and eat, then get to the polling place before it closes. Opening the polling places at 7AM, and close them at 9PM. That gives people 12 full hours to go and vote.

CMJ

May 31st, 2004, 10:45:01 PM

I'm not sure that making the first Tuesday after the first Monday a National holiday would improve turnout drastically. Why?

First off - could ANY buisness be open? What if I need to go to the grocery store? As it is now - most National Holidays are not acknowledged by every buisness. Alot of people did work today afterall. There's always restaraunts or places like that that are open. Alot of folks would just do "Holiday" stuff like go to the movies.

Figrin D'an

Jun 1st, 2004, 12:07:51 AM

Yes, there are always places that have to be open, which means people that have to work. It's like that on Christmas, Thanksgiving, 4th of July and every other major holiday. It's inevitable. Generally, stores have ways of working around these things on such major holidays, limiting their staff on duty and often rotating so that a given person only has to work a few hours on those days. The point being, it gives more people a better opportunity to go cast a ballot. The current voting system isn't the most equitable system, because many people simply are not able to get to polling places on a weekday because of work. Others simply don't bother because their window of opportunity to go to polls is limited, and it's during the same few evening hours that most everyone else has to go, and they don't want to deal with waiting in a huge line. If it's made a holiday, at least the process is made more reasonably accessible to more people over a greater amount of time.

AmazonBabe

Jun 1st, 2004, 04:14:42 PM

I do know that on voting days, if you work, the place you work at is obligated to let you leave work 2 hours early, especially if your poling place is far from where you work.

Unfortunately, it's not a law many employers know about.

I brought it up to my boss the last election and he just looked at me funny. I need to find a document or something that states this 2 hour thing as fact so I can prove it to them.

Jedieb

Jun 1st, 2004, 07:15:42 PM

Originally posted by Marcus
Well, if voting is voluntary, Tuesdays could work..... if pollling stations stay open late.

In Aust, where voting is compulsary, it has to be Saturday.

Well. I learned something today. Never knew anyone had weekday elections.

Does anyone else have mandatory attendance like Aust does?

Exactly what happens if you don't vote? Do they force you to watch Paul Hogan movies? :evil
Honestly, what happens to non-voters? Is there some kind of fine?

rather than having to get home from work, make dinner and eat, then get to the polling place before it closes.
I can't stress enough how much of an inconvience voting can be during the workweek, especially if you have children. Picking up the kids from daycare or school, getting dinner ready, etc. If you're a single parent it can be a nightmare. Granted, it's important enough that you should jump through whatever hoops you have to vote, but it still shouldn't be this difficult. Weekend elections would definitely improve turnout.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 1st, 2004, 07:54:42 PM

Weekday elections is insane. I'm honestly a bit WTF'ed you really have them

Yeah, we get fined for not voting. $110 dollars I think - tho really there's not many excuses not to. voting's made as easy as possible. You have three election cycle you have to vote in - Federal, state and Local. Local is every 4 years, state is also four, Federal is 2 - 3 years.

JediBoricua

Jun 1st, 2004, 11:09:59 PM

Here we vote on Tuesdays, but it's a holiday. We also have a 24 hour ban on alcohol selling since it can get a bit violent. Latin American elections are the best, your elections are so boring! I think the holiday works though, the lowest participation we've ever have is 83%

Back on topic now. On my Economics of the Public Sector class we drifted into the two party system vs. the multiple party system debate. Like many of you here, I thought that it would be best for most countries to have as many political parties as possible, so we would have dialogue and negotiations between political forces. But, as the professor explained, it seems the existance of two parties, or many parties, depends on the constitutional statute, not on the desire of individuals to establish X number of political parties.

According to him, there are some basic economic theories on the way democracies are organized and the way people behave when voting that can be applied to small groups, or nationwide elections. He said that if the system is a geographical one, like in the States or here in Puerto Rico, where each district has a head to head race, and where the result of one district does not affect the result of the other, political forces will move closer to the middle and try to snare the majority of votes possible in a determined area. Hence the existance of only two parties whose main differences are ideological, and not practical (look at the proposals of both Kerry and Bush, you'll see they are not very different). The struggle for the middle drowns out forces in both sides of the spectrum.

On the other hand, if the system is proportional, where the number of votes you get determines the number of seats in Parliament the existance of many parties is encouraged. In places like the UK, Spain and Australia there always are people on both sides of the political spectrum with enough niche support to gain a couple of seats, and of course the major parties are forced to negotiate with the smaller ones to gain a majority in Parliament and choose a Prime Minister. If this was the system in the US, right now both houses would be in a tie since that was the 2000 Presidential numerical result.

This is the main reason why campaigns in the US focus on the candidate and his ideas, and campaigns in most of Europe focus on the party and it's ideals.

Oh and btw, I would vote for Kerry and I am a registered Young Democrat.

Jedieb

Jun 2nd, 2004, 03:22:40 PM

Kerry loves to flip-flop. Bush always stays the course. He's a man of conviction! Right?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

1. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

2. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for [Iraq for] the balance of this year." [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten, 7/29/03]

…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

3. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...“Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

…BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]

4. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

5. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

6. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

7. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

8. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

9. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

10. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

11. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

12. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

13. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

14. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

15. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

16. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

17. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

18. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

20. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Of course you can find several positions on which Kerry has taken a stance and then modified his position. But to say that Bush always means what he says is a joke.

Phantom

Jun 2nd, 2004, 06:28:54 PM

So much for just a quick vote. lol.

I vote for Aragorn ... :D

Seriously though, I will vote for Bush again, as I strongly believe he is and will be much better then the alternative. I voted for him back in '00 as well, as theres no way in hell I'd ever vote for Gore or any of the Clintons for that matter. Kerry scares me as does anyone thats to far on either side.

I think the two party system is failing us as you are forced to vote for the better of two evils, which is not the way you should be voting, but thats just me.

As for Bush, I think hes done a fairly decent job as President, not the best, but know where near the worst. Sure theres things I disagree with him on, but its going to be like that with every President, they can't please everyone, its impossible.

Jedieb

Jun 2nd, 2004, 09:32:27 PM

Kerry scares me as does anyone thats to far on either side.
Damn, you must be TERRIFIED of Bush then. He and the neo-cons are so far to the right they make Kerry look like more of a centrist than Clinton. ;)

Back to Nader and the effect he's having or could have on the election. This is the second time I've read something on DontVoteRalph.net 's recent study of Presidential polls.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18828

Honestly, Nader has to stop the "I'm going to hurt Bush more than Kerry" mantra. At best it's naive, at worst he's outright lying. For a man who's honesty has rarely been questioned, he's really putting his legacy at risk. A whole generation is going to know him more for helping elect Bush than any of the things he accomplished before 00.

Figrin D'an

Jun 2nd, 2004, 11:57:50 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
Honestly, Nader has to stop the "I'm going to hurt Bush more than Kerry" mantra. At best it's naive, at worst he's outright lying. For a man who's honesty has rarely been questioned, he's really putting his legacy at risk. A whole generation is going to know him more for helping elect Bush than any of the things he accomplished before 00.

It does make one wonder as to what his motivations really are. His message has been so inconsistent this time, he isn't going to get nearly the vote he did in '00.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 3rd, 2004, 12:09:05 AM

I think he is making a fool of himself personally. Especially since he has the Fascist reform party backing him (ever since they back Buchanan I will call them that :p). Also about making of a fool of himself, Don King is backing Bush. Hmm maybe this is a good thing maybe he will rob Bush of his funds like he robbed Ali :p

Figrin D'an

Jun 3rd, 2004, 12:33:36 AM

I think Presidential debates would be a lot more entertaining if Don King was in charge of them. [/wacky side note]

Jedieb

Jun 4th, 2004, 06:53:02 PM

Don King backing Bush. Is there any more proof of how evil Bush is? ;)

Here's an article I read about Nader. I don't want to believe all of it. It makes it look as if Nader wants to stick it so bad to the Democrats that he doesn't care about another 4 years of Bush.
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html

Doc Milo

Jun 5th, 2004, 11:51:22 PM

To me Clinton did nothing that bad, I mean come on lying about sex isn't as bad as the Tea Pot Dome scandal or anything that happened in Grant's administration or Watergate for that matter.

I know this is old, but I'm just getting to this now...

And I haven't read yet past this post, so if this was said, I beg forgiveness...

But, what does it matter what tha lie was about? Why is lying about sex better than lying about, say, money, or his voting record or anything else?

What the lie is about has nothing to do with the real criminality of his offense. Perjury is a crime that undermines the entire criminal justice system. Anyone who commits perjury is attempting to undermine that system for his/her own gain. When a president does it, it is far worse than if an average citizen does it. Why? because it is a case of one branch of government (the Executive branch) using its power (the credibility of the presidency) to undermine a co-equal branch of government (the Judiciary) It doesn't matter what the lie is about. It doesn't matter the circumstances that led to the line of questioning under oath. We (citizens or presidents) can't pick and choose what is and what is not a legitimate line of questioning in a civil or criminal case. That decision is made by the Judge, and we may agree or disagree with that decision but we also must abide by it when we are a party involved in the case.

Doc Milo

Jun 6th, 2004, 12:22:07 AM

Heads/Tails -- Left Wing/Right Wing -- Democrat/Republican -- Liberal/Conservative -- Kerry/Bush

Two sides.

Same coin.

I used to be very politically active. Recent years has made me very cynical of all sides of the political spectrum. I see the entire political system in America as corrupt, and have come to honestly believe that the best way to handle it would be to destroy the system and start all over. The system has strayed so far from the Original Intent of the founders that it is ridiculous. We've come from a belief in a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to a government that "rules the people."

And this is no more apparent that what is being taught about the Constitution and government in our schools. My stepson, in fourth grade, just recently had a big history test, and the teacher handed out study cards. One of the cards read "The Bill of Rights gives _______________ to the people of the United States." And the correct answer, when turned over was "Freedoms." And that answer, is, of course, very wrong. It illustrates just how much people don't understand about the country they live in, the government they put in power, and the Constitution.

The Constitution is a document that grants the government power. It does not grant the people freedoms. The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments that outlines certain major freedoms that the people did not give up in the Consitution. In fact, many believed that they were unnecessary; since the Constituion was silent on them, then those rights were reserved to the people. In the end, they were added to the Constitution as a failsafe -- the prevailing thought was that if they were there, there could be no misunderstanding that these powers/freedoms were never given to the goverment and that they were reserved to the people. I have to wonder if anyone foresaw that their existence would cause just the type of misunderstanding that they sought to avoid! Amendment 10: Any power not given to the government by this constitution is reserved to the states and the people respectively.

The prologue: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union ..."

We the people .... we the people give the goverment powers from the freedoms we enjoy that were endowed to us by our Creator (Declaration of Independence)

(wow this post has taken a turn... back to the issue...)

I don't see much difference in any candidate. But Kerry scares me. Nader is a fool. And Bush ...

Better the evil you know than the evil you don't...

I'd vote for Bush right now, kicking and screaming, dragged past the NOTA vote....

And I'm a registered Independent Conservative.

Doc Milo

Jun 6th, 2004, 12:26:48 AM

Oh, by the way ... just to make this announcement:

My wife and I learned on Mother's day that she is pregnant with my soon-to-be young padawan....

I will teach him or her the ways of the Force, and he or she will be a Jedi...

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 6th, 2004, 06:33:45 AM

But, what does it matter what tha lie was about? Why is lying about sex better than lying about, say, money, or his voting record or anything else?

Oh, it matters allright. The republicans were trying a filthy bit of politics and I call hypocracy on the whole damn lot of them. They go after Clinton on what was frankly his own damn business - hell in other countires, he would be a national hero for scoring with the younger women - when I bet a good percentage of the republicans have secret affairs and liasions.

Hypocracy, I tell you. The attempted Impeachment was a complete joke and a farce by small minded jerks against a guy who liked to get his end wet. Just liek them.

Lets not forget that, ever. I bet Clinton looked at his accusers and KNEW at least some of them were doing exactly the same thing. And lying about it too, I bet.

Now, you want lies, big lies? Impeachable lies?

W

M

D

The biggest doozy of them all, YOUR COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN DYING FOR A LIE. Doesnt that anger you? You were lied to about a war that never needed to happen, billions of dollars thrown away for no real gain, just dead young men and women that YOUR administration wont let you see? How about the PATRIOT act, the single most bit of draconian legislation active? How about Cheney and his connections to Hilburtion? How about the good faith the USA got after 11/9, so utterly squandered and international relations damaged, it's hard to see them ever repaired under this Admin?

You line up Clinton Admin lies verses the Bush Admin lies and frankly, who's the morally bankrupt ones now?

If you said Clinton, wrong answer, please try again.

It horrifies me that anyone could vote for Bush on moral grounds. So he's made a stand on religion, Gays and Abortion. Moral you think?

WRONG.

It's called Wedge Politics.

http://www.metajournalism.org/archives/000076.html

Here's a good article on the mechanics of the Wedge the Bush admin is seekign to use. Wedge Politics is using an issue to scare the bejesus out of the voters and scatter your opponents int he stampede of FUD raised.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001604.html

As this link states, the Moral Wedge is to scare the bejesus out of the Southern states and ram their support into the Bush camp. It wontmatter that the economy is crap, fuel prices are sky high, your borthers and sisters die for a lie while your rights are trampled... NO POOFTERS WILL GET MARRIED AND NO BABIES WILL DIE!!! HUZZAH!!! FLAWLESS VICTORY!!! WE ARE ONE WITH GOD!!!!!

Hmph. Yeah, last line looks absurd. But tell me.... how many people will seriously believe it? Too many, IMO.

Saddens me to see that the Moral Wedge is suckering so many fearful people in. Oh, it's being tried here too by the lead suckhole in the conga line.

It's contemptable that the Moral Wedge is being used for political gain. But, no better than a hate fueled party out to get what turned out to be a pretty good President using the same wedge in a total beat up.

It really sucks to see morals used in this way. especially when it's so obvious too.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 10th, 2004, 04:51:29 AM

Heh. I killed the thread

Anyway, still want to vote for Bush on moral grounds? Then please read a book called "The Ethics of George Bush", written by a Aust Bioengineer. Interesting, yes. Worth a read? Yeah.

Ugly and disqueting? Definatly. Even I, someone for whom this book is preaching to the converted, was dizzied and WTF'ed.

It's a comparo of what he says and what he does. I guess those who want to not doubt Bush will think of it as a class one hatchet job. In a way it is. It's a disturbing hatchet job tho, becuase it's still puts to paper a lot of truths.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

Keep your eye on this. It could be big.

Figrin D'an

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:31:01 AM

Believe it or not, former President Reagan's death is likely to boost Bush's poll numbers. Not only has it pushed it's way past Iraq and everything else as the #1 event on most American's minds right now, but Bush is likely to, in the coming weeks, prop himself up as a son of Reagan politics and compare himself to Reagan in as many ways as possible.

Kerry will likely attempt to sell himself as a "Reagan Democrat."

To be honest, I think this is going to have far bigger impact on the election than will the Valerie Plame case, for better or worse.

JediBoricua

Jun 10th, 2004, 01:35:07 PM

For a couple of weeks, this will give Bush a time to regroup and plan. It will give him a two weeks period of peace.

The Dems and the press will be back on the attack soon, and when June 31 gets here, I'm sure national conscience will be focused once again on Iraq.

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:08:18 PM

Originally posted by JediBoricua
The Dems and the press will be back on the attack soon, and when June 31 gets here, I'm sure national conscience will be focused once again on Iraq.

Are you implying that national concience will never again be focused on Iraq? :mneh

Lady Vader

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:13:43 PM

Kerry will likely attempt to sell himself as a "Reagan Democrat."

>_< I hope not. That's be an insult to the Reagan name. :x

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:15:28 PM

Originally posted by Lady Vader
>_< I hope not. That's be an insult to the Reagan name. :x

Lets not play partisan roulette. Bush using Reagan credentials is every bit as insulting.

Lady Vader

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:18:06 PM

Well, I was stating something from my perspective. I didn't mean to make a generalization.

Bush using Reagan credentials is every bit as insulting.

To you, perhaps.

Figrin D'an

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:31:38 PM

Neither one of them deserves to use Reagan's name as a political tool, IMO.

Whether one agreed with Reagan's views or not, he had two qualities that set him apart from so many other leaders. He had immense pride, faith and trust in the people of his nation, and he always gave the impression of being genuine and honest. That's why he was truely a leader of the people... because he was "of the people." These are qualities that neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor many other Presidents in US history, have had.

Reagan's presidency had it's ups and downs, like any other. It was how he handled all things, and himself, that set him apart. That's why I feel he's one of the greatest leaders in US history, and why the current pack of jokers aren't worthy of licking his shoes.

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 02:44:05 PM

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
Neither one of them deserves to use Reagan's name as a political tool, IMO.

Whether one agreed with Reagan's views or not, he had two qualities that set him apart from so many other leaders. He had immense pride, faith and trust in the people of his nation, and he always gave the impression of being genuine and honest. That's why he was truely a leader of the people... because he was "of the people." These are qualities that neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor many other Presidents in US history, have had.

Reagan's presidency had it's ups and downs, like any other. It was how he handled all things, and himself, that set him apart. That's why I feel he's one of the greatest leaders in US history, and why the current pack of jokers aren't worthy of licking his shoes.

Somebody once said that Reagan was more Cicero than Caesar, but a great combination of both nevertheless. I think that's fitting to say of the man. He had a cult of personality that I don't think we'll ever see again from another President.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 10th, 2004, 04:37:12 PM

Originally posted by Dan the Man
Lets not play partisan roulette. Bush using Reagan credentials is every bit as insulting.

Agreed.

Reagan's presidency had it's ups and downs, like any other. It was how he handled all things, and himself, that set him apart. That's why I feel he's one of the greatest leaders in US history, and why the current pack of jokers aren't worthy of licking his shoes.

Agreed again, although the Russia been declared illegal joke did scare the hell out ta the rest of the world......

Jedieb

Jun 10th, 2004, 06:05:44 PM

I've been holding back on Reagan bashing out of respect. I'll accord him more respect than Nixon who I had no problem bashing when he passed away. Reagan had some serious flaws and his Presidency wasn't all roses. Before he was shot his approval rating was below 50%. He had the barracks bombing in Lebanon on his watch and the subsequent withdrawal of our forces from the area was at his behest. Throw in Iran Contra and you've got some significant failures and scandals. He was a skilled communicator and his IMAGE was fantastic. He LOOKED like a President should. You looked at Reagan and it was as if your Grandfather was standing tall and proud and daring the world to mess you.

Because I love satire so much here are 9 darts to throw at Reagan:
http://cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=7430

I'm glad the man is finally at peace and no one deserved to go out the way he did. I don't mean to slam him, he's just never been one of my favorite Presidents.

CMJ

Jun 10th, 2004, 07:25:00 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
Before he was shot his approval rating was below 50%.

Dude, he was shot in March of '81. He'd been in office just over 2 months - approval ratings don't mean jack that early on.

Jedieb

Jun 10th, 2004, 07:35:43 PM

Actually his approval ratings were in the 60's that first year. They jumped up to almost 70 after he was shot. 2 years later they were down in the mid 30's. Again, my point that he was unpopular at times in his Presidency stands. ;)

Figrin D'an

Jun 10th, 2004, 07:40:47 PM

Originally posted by CMJ
Dude, he was shot in March of '81. He'd been in office just over 2 months - approval ratings don't mean jack that early on.

Precisely. Let's remember too that the nation was still very jaded with the Presidency in general at that time because of Vietnam, Nixon & Watergate, Ford's aloofness and Carter's innability to see the big picture. It wasn't so much that people didn't like Reagan as much as they didn't like the entire executive branch. His polls numbers would go up and down over the 8 years he was in office, but when he left office in January of 89, he had nearly a 70% approval rating... that's practically unheard of for a President leaving office.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 10th, 2004, 08:38:24 PM

I never been a Reagan fan I am with Jedieb I don't hate him but he isn't one of my favorite Presidents. (I always will consider Abe Lincoln the best but that is another argument)

Sanis Prent

Jun 10th, 2004, 08:42:15 PM

Then I'll utterly discount anything you have to say to Reagan's discredit, as Lincoln was one of the most authoritarian tyrants in America's history.

General Tohmahawk

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:07:23 PM

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749877980.html

Words have failed me. This IS an accurate summarisation of Bush and co interfering with Australian politics.

We are not the 51st state! We do NOT want Bush in charge of this country, thank you very much.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:12:22 PM

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Then I'll utterly discount anything you have to say to Reagan's discredit, as Lincoln was one of the most authoritarian tyrants in America's history.

You are crazy the man saved our country if he had left the south go we would be speaking German right now, IMO. I am tired of that Lincoln tyrant nonsense, historically that is false.

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:16:49 PM

HAHAHAHA

Historically that is true.

What you want to comfort you in the dead of night is that ultimately, it turned out all right, even if the President ran utterly roughshod over every bit of political due process our country represents. Lets forget about that one, right? I mean he defeated SLAVERY! That's the important thing right?

:lol

Get off my internet.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:22:11 PM

Whatever I don't want to argue with you about, All I know is historians call him the best president, and that to me matters the most. And I know more about Lincoln than you I have read like every book on him and I idolized him when I was younger.

CMJ

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:25:17 PM

Lincoln is the greatest President ever IMHO. Was he almost a dictator? Well..yeah, but the USA was at war with itself. He never accepted that the CSA existed. There was a famous line he said to Meade after Gettysburg(Meade had said that the invaders were repelled and sent packing to their country) to the effect that "Why can't anybody understand that this is ALL our country?"

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Throwing folks in jail for the entire conflict is a bit extreme(and he did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the entire nation), but I feel it was justified by the cause. He also sponsored the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and would probably have made Reconstruction alot easier than it was.

Most scholars rank Lincoln at or near the top. With good reason I might add.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:29:00 PM

Yeah I think he would have handled reconstructure better.

Jedieb

Jun 10th, 2004, 09:57:14 PM

Lincoln and Washington are my two favorite Presidents. Lilcoln preserved the Union and abolished slavery. His death was tragic in that it made reconstruction that much more harsh on the South. Only he would have had the credibility to bring the South back into the Union without being overtly harsh. His death angered the Union and the Republicans and it made Reconstruction that much more devastating. Washington gave the country legitimacy and his prestigue and reputation helped the fledging nation take root those first 8 years. His stepping away from the office set an important precedent.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:04:41 PM

My favorite two are Lincoln and FDR, FDR because he was a strong man during WW 2, especially considering he was fighting polio makes the man even more remarkable. Washington is a close third though.

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:08:52 PM

Authoritarians and Socialists eh?

Nice company together.

But its pleasing to know that we're all believers in Macchiavellian principles. The ends justify the means, yes?

Figrin D'an

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:40:54 PM

Lincoln was the most authoritarian president in US history. How he ran the executive branch and how he essentially took over control of the entire government during the Civil War is evidence enough to support that.

In the end, yes, it all worked out. But, to say that he wasn't the closest thing the US has had to dictator because of an emotional attachment to the man is ridiculous. I'm not knocking him... he did what he felt had to be done, and like I said, forunately, it all worked out.

That doesn't change the fact that his presidency was an anomaly in the history of the executive branch, and not just because half of the stars on the flag decided to form their own nation.

CMJ

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:41:01 PM

I'd say...

1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Polk
5. Monroe

Then you have FDR, Jefferson, Wilson, and a few others that I'd also consider great.

Dan the Man

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:47:26 PM

Teddy Roosevelt is my man :cool

After him, Jefferson, then it gets mixed up.

I'm sure Reagan would be up there though.

CMJ

Jun 10th, 2004, 10:52:02 PM

I think I'm such a Polk fan because he was a truly great President that has been all but forgotten by the layman. The US ended up with practically the entire west(from Texas to Oregon) during his Presidency.

Truly a great dude. More folks should read up on him.

Doc Milo

Jun 10th, 2004, 11:46:01 PM

I've been of the opinion for a very long time that had it not been for Reagan, this country would no longer exist. We would be a republic of the world-dominating USSR.

Before he took office, the top marginal tax rates were upwards of 70 percent -- "for the rich." If "rich" was then what it is considered now, then we're talking less than 100,000 a year! (Today, you're considered one of the "rich" at approximately 98,000 a year. That's nothing for a family of four!) I can't imagine only keeping 30 cents of every dollar I earn! Interest rates were at 22 percent, unemployment was up in the double digits. And general malaise was at an all time high. The prominent way of dealing with the Soviets was appeasement. Didn't want to make them angry because our own military was so weak, we could barely defend ourselves! A few more years of where Carter was leading us, and we'd be handing over 100 percent of our income to the politiboro for redistribution.

Reagan, in my humble opinon saved this nation every bit as much as Lincoln did.

And, BTW, Reagan's tax policy, before anyone says "resulted in deficits" actually (and this is an undeniable fact that can be looked up) close to doubled tax revenue) It was runaway spending by Congress -- attaching amendments to military expenditures, etc -- that resulted in those deficits.

Dan the Man

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:05:31 AM

That and "deficit spending" is such a much maligned word by laymen that I just roll my eyes. Nobody seems to understand that its perfectly natural for the government to operate with a budget deficit. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows you to expand your purchasing power beyond your horizons.

On that note, add "the deficit is the highest its been in history". :rolleyes

Yes, because:
-- Most polls don't speak of real (inflation adjusted) money
-- The economy grows. All things considered, so will the deficit.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:06:45 AM

You see I disagree the Soviet Union was falling apart back in the 70s we know this now, Reagan didn't change anything honestly, the Soviet Union would have still fallen apart, it was going to because it was a failed government from the get go. Gorbachev was the first smart Premier to see the problems and he decided to let Eastern Europe go which led to the revolts and revolutions that changed that part of the world.

Dan the Man

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:09:51 AM

Yes, yes we can all play "what if" :rolleyes

I'm sure that north & south would've eventually reconciled their differences over slavery and I'm also sure that the great depression would've just fixed itself.

Figrin D'an

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:13:49 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
You see I disagree the Soviet Union was falling apart back in the 70s we know this now, Reagan didn't change anything honestly, the Soviet Union would have still fallen apart, it was going to because it was a failed government from the get go. Gorbachev was the first smart Premier to see the problems and he decided to let Eastern Europe go which led to the revolts and revolutions that changed that part of the world.

LOL... could you honestly see Carter or Mondale dealing with the situation with the same tactful force that Reagan did? The USSR has major issues heading into the 1980's, true, but to say that Reagan did nothing is equally as ignorant as saying that it was him alone who brought down the Eastern Block.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

Ryla Relvinian

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:21:41 AM

Buuut... Back on the topic...

I know I'm not voting for Kerry, because I really don't think that he is a strong enough candidate for the office. You know what's going to happen? Does anyone besides me see the power play that is going on in the Democratic party? Who was the biggest name in the whole group, but refused to side with Kerry? That's right, the former President, Mrs. Clinton. Why do you think that is? So that when Kerry and whomever he picks for a runningmate (doesn't matter) fails, and we have 4 more years of Bush (either a good or bad thing) she can come in, cool and collected, and be the Democratic candidate for President next election. She's a shoe-in to win, first Female president. Y'all mark my words.

Still, just because I'm not voting for Kerry doesn't mean I am voting for Bush, at least, not along party lines. I'm not registered as any party, I prefer to look into issues for myself, but I consider myself a fiscal conservative and somewhat of a social one as well. Do I like that people go in and die in some godforsaken blip in the middle east? Yes, of course I do. Do I think that we'll ever find WMD? No freaking way. Sadaam had bunkers built, thousands of them, and we will never find what is not meant to be found. Not the point, IMO.

At this point, I'm just sick of politics, left or right. I think that America is looked down upon by the entire rest of the world, and not primarily because of Bush.

Just my two credits. :)

Figrin D'an

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:47:24 AM

Originally posted by Ryla Relvinian
Buuut... Back on the topic...

I know I'm not voting for Kerry, because I really don't think that he is a strong enough candidate for the office. You know what's going to happen? Does anyone besides me see the power play that is going on in the Democratic party? Who was the biggest name in the whole group, but refused to side with Kerry? That's right, the former President, Mrs. Clinton. Why do you think that is? So that when Kerry and whomever he picks for a runningmate (doesn't matter) fails, and we have 4 more years of Bush (either a good or bad thing) she can come in, cool and collected, and be the Democratic candidate for President next election. She's a shoe-in to win, first Female president. Y'all mark my words.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon who runs on the Republican ticket. The big rumor I've heard is that, knowing that Sen. Clinton's big push is going to come in 2008 (and she'll probably win the Democratic ticket), the Republicans are going to pit against her the one person she doesn't want to face in a popularity contest...

Rudy Giuliani.

Ryla Relvinian

Jun 11th, 2004, 12:52:29 AM

.... in a MUD DEATHMATCH!!!!!!!!! :D

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 11th, 2004, 07:58:05 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/10/1086749842549.html

And it is with a great deal of disgust, I present another reason to throw out Bush and co in November. Interference with Australian politics of the worst knid.

My hostility to the Bush suckhole conga line has increased dramatically. I hate how a vote for Howard has now become a defacto vote for Bush, who has his hand up Howard's bum.

You people who support this... this ... bunch of corrupt inbred retards must think again. How dare your Administration do this.

jjwr

Jun 11th, 2004, 09:52:44 AM

I wonder the same thing myself, with all the BS Bush has done how could people still vote for him, course it still amazes me he was voted in in the first place. Who knows if Kerry will be any better, but its unlikely he can be any worse.

I saw this tidbit discussing State Funeral history, thought it was interesting how it was 50years to the day that two Revolutionary War Patriots died....

Ex-president John Adams did not even lay in the White House, even though he died while his son, John Quincy Adams, was president. The older Adams, the country’s second president, and Thomas Jefferson, the third, died on the same day — July 4, 1826 — which perhaps complicated Adams’ chances for a White House viewing.

CMJ

Jun 11th, 2004, 10:31:18 AM

Still friendly rivals to the end - I remember reading they were trying to outlive the other. :lol

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 11th, 2004, 10:46:26 AM

LOL yeah I remember reading that too. I want to say one last thing about the Soviet Union collapse it is not that I give Reagan no credit really it is I think he gets too much credit. Personally I think Gorbachev deserves the recongnition more than anyone. He saw that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse and new what had to be done. Personally I think he did the right thing. Honestly though this is more of a historical debate, I think historians are still arguing over the exact causes of the Soviet collapse, although I think it was more because the Communism is just a failed form of government which would never work.

March Kalas

Jun 11th, 2004, 01:30:05 PM

I'd easily vote for Bush. He stands up for what he believes in and for what's right. Because of this, liberals and democrats hate him.

About the deficit stuff. I just recently studied this. If you lower "rich" taxes, the economy will in turn increase which will eventually result in more money for the government in taxes. Yes lowering taxes might hurt the deficit momentarily, but will in the long run help it tremendously. Also, spending for poor people and stuff is hurting the economy and actually hurting the poor people more than it is helping them. A more healthy economy will provide more jobs for poor people and eventually there won't even be that many poor people anymore. Democrats don't want this because they want the votes of the poor people, which means that they want poor people to remain poor. That is why they are paying poor people to be poor. It is actually quite evil in my opinion.

You also have to realize that the debt and deficit is not that serious of a problem in and of itself. I'm not going to go into huge detail just yet, but the main problem with the deficit is that it is causing "crowding out" of private borrowers and inflation. Sometimes people make a huge deal that about 20% of the debt is owed to foreign entities, but that is not much of a problem because no foreign entity in existance has the power to demand repayment of debt. As we talk about it more, I'll go into more detail.

JediBoricua

Jun 11th, 2004, 03:32:43 PM

Kalas, what you speak is the truth...sort of.

Yes is you lower taxes, in theory, you will add cash into the system and jump start the economy. The problem with Bush's cuts, were that they where aimed at the richest of the rich. The people who will take the cut and put it in some investment fund, or maybe buy a super huge yacth or something. For the economy to move you need the normal folks spending more on food, on vacations, on electronics, on cars, etc. You need to impact all sectors. Which is why the vast majority of economists opposed Bushs cost, and economists are not the most liberal of groups.

Now on your theory that Democrats pay poor people to be poor, that's just ludicrous. You mean to tell me that a single mom in the inner city who works two shifts does not need help from the government? That her struggle is a mass chadare by the DEms? C'mon, the GOP has Congress and the White House...and guess who has been the biggest spenders in the last 20 years...yes Bush's administration.

Why wont they stop this Democratic charade? Why wont they cut social programs, privatize social security? Hell even Bush made a new Medicare reform that will cost a couple hundred billions in the next ten years.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 11th, 2004, 06:38:01 PM

He stands up for what he believes in and for what's right Because of this, liberals and democrats hate him.

.............

OIC. And the liberals and Democrats dont stand up for what they believe? MAYBE they dont like Bush because he stands up for the WRONG things? Maybe, as a fundamentalist Christian and being driven towards the left of politics by the disgust what the concerative right does, I utterly loathe the Administration... because of what they believe in and more importantly, do?

No one would ever accuse me of standing up for what I think is right.

Sheesh.

Doc Milo

Jun 11th, 2004, 11:43:45 PM

[quote]You see I disagree the Soviet Union was falling apart back in the 70s we know this now, Reagan didn't change anything honestly, the Soviet Union would have still fallen apart, it was going to because it was a failed government from the get go. Gorbachev was the first smart Premier to see the problems and he decided to let Eastern Europe go which led to the revolts and revolutions that changed that part of the world.[quote]

I believe this to be revisionist history so as not to admit that Reagan actually exploited the weakness of the Soviet system and destroyed their economy. The Command Economy has a fatal weakness -- a weakness shared by all redistributionist-based economies. It doesn't create wealth. It is a zero sum game. Wealth is merely taken from one and given to another and around again in circles. It wasn't destroying itself. It was stagnant. And it could have operated that way indefinitely with tyranical management, had it not been exploited as the weakness it is by Reagan, who, plain and simple, outspent the Soviets. Phase one was to rebuild the military and show our might. Phase two was to show no fear and no compromise. Phase three, make them fear us. Phase four, build up the military even more -- this combined with phase three causes them to build up their military. Phase five, outspend them. Our economy was creating wealth at this time with the domestic tax reform, their economy, by definition, would never create wealth. Money is merely redistributed; when the redistributed it to the military in the arms race, it was taken away from other areas of the economy. Thus, collapsing the economy and creating a fails system. Since the government and the economy in the Command structure are so intertwined, this brought about the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union as a system, and eventually the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

This would not have happened on its own. The way we were headed under Carter, we would have collapsed first, bringing them the resources of the United States, reviving their system, and only making it stronger.

Doc Milo

Jun 12th, 2004, 12:01:48 AM

Lowering of taxes, as an economic stimulus, has to be done across the board to work. It can't be done just for "the rich" and it can't be done just for the middle class. It has to be done for the producer and the consumer.

If you lower taxes just on the consumer, then you add "disposable income" to the economy. The consumer will do one of three things (or all three): save it, invest it, or spend it. If a consumer saves it, it is usually a precursor to a larger investment or purchase, and it is also an investment in itself, as the bank he or she saves it in will use it to invest. Investments will give producers operating capital, and spending increases the demand on products. Now, most in the middle class of consumers will spend their disposable income, thus increase the demand for products. When demand increases, one of two things will happen: Producers will increase supply to meet the demand and prices will remain stable, or producers will increase price due to a shortage of supply.

If it is not economic for them to increase supply, ie, the cost of doing business is already too high due to excessive tax burden, then it will increase price due to a shortage of supply. This is known as inflation.

If the tax cut, therefore, is across the board, and the cost of doing business means it will be more profitable to keep prices stable and meet the demand by increasing supply, then the economy grows and wealth is created. Jobs are created to meet the need of and increased productivity, wage-earners are hired, and those people pay taxes, resulting in higher tax revenues from an across the board tax cut.

This is precisely what happened under JFK's tax cut, and under Reagan's.

The deficits were not created due to tax cuts, and the left would have everyone believe. Tax revenue close to doubled in those years as inflation became non-existant and unemployment reached levels of close to what is statistically knowns as full employment.

The deficits were the result of spending more money than was taken in -- on military as well as social programs.

And since, there has been no such thing as a cut in any of these programs (again, as the left would have us believe) there have been merely reductions in the rate of growth.

March Kalas

Jun 12th, 2004, 03:02:21 PM

(I don't care much for the Bush administration, I just like the man himself, and I'd rather have him leading my country than a man who does all the same stuff, but is a liar and a hypocrite)

No, Bush does not stand up for the WRONG things. He stands up for moral things, and these are the RIGHT things.

I've heard earlier that we have not yet found chemical weapons of mass destruction and probably never will. The media would have you think that, but they never told us that in Sadam's weapons bunkers were found chemicals made from the same thing pesticides were made of, but since it was not what we were looking for, the Democrats screamed, "We didn't find any chemical weapons of mass destruction!"

Through study, I have come to the conclusion that most Democrat leaders try to prevent economic growth (through heavy taxes on "rich" and "middle class" and on huge entitlements. Yes Bush does a lot of this, and it kind of annoys me). They realize that without economic growth and even with economic decline, the poor class increases providing them with more votes.

No I don't think that a single mom working two jobs in the inner city is the government's responsibility. She doesn't need help from the government. Well in a since, she is the government's responsibility, because why is she a single mom in the first place? Do you think the strongly liberal/democrat influenced media encourages moral values? I think by watching TV and advertisements, people are influenced that to do things that are very immoral (such as, "premarital sex is OK. just keep on doing it because there are no such things as moral values anymore. So now you don't have to feel bad about what you did, so vote for us. Vote for the liberal/democrats because even though you shouldn't be doing those things, we made it OK for you to do it." Yeah they don't say that up front, but that's the hidden message).

So now we go back to the question: why is she a single mom? firstly, either because she had premarital sex or because she didn't choose her husband very carefully (e.i. she choose her husband because he was cute and he "loved" her). Secondly and more indirectly, because her parents were probably slobs and didn't give a crud about her or they spoiled her severely and denied any fact that she had been doing anything like that. Why was she poor in the first place, because her family was too lazy to get off their buts and get out of the "poor" situation. Tons of LEGAL immigrants (expecially Chinese and Indian) come over here with nothing (less than the "poor" people have) and become rich just because they work hard. Yes. I know people who did this before alot of immigrants had more privelages from the government than "poor" people. Believe me, if you work hard, you can get out of a "poor" situation. Right now, my family is surviving off of our savings, my Dad hasn't had a job in 5 years now, but have we given up? NO! We didn't just give up and go to the government projects and live off of government funds. If you ask alot of poor people, they'd say (maybe they wouldn't say this out loud) that they don't want to become wealthy. I've lived in a middle class house all my life, and do you know how hard my dad had to work to keep the income coming? Most "poor" people wouldn't be willing to put forth the effort to be even the least bit wealthy because they've learned that they can just sit back and let the government provide for them. So do you see where I'm coming from?

I know it will never happen, but the numerous government projects have to stop. How do they hurt the economy (and thus provide less opportunity for "poor" people to become wealthy)? A very strong effect of government deficit is "crowding out". In order to pay for all the projects, the government enters the bond market as a huge consumer. As the demand for a product, in this case money, increases, the price for the product increases. As the government enters the market as a massive consumer the demand goes up significantly (enough to significantly raise interest rates). Many private corperations cannot afford the high interest rates and therefore must file for bankruptsy which in turn promotes economic decline. Another effect is depreciating the value of all assets but I don't really have the time right now.

Dergan Venitor

Jun 12th, 2004, 03:50:39 PM

Originally posted by March Kalas
No, Bush does not stand up for the WRONG things. He stands up for moral things, and these are the RIGHT things.

Morality is relative. What he sees as being right, others see as being very, very wrong. Society isn't static and uniform in deciding what is "right" and "wrong." That much should be obvious.

Through study, I have come to the conclusion that most Democrat leaders try to prevent economic growth (through heavy taxes on "rich" and "middle class" and on huge entitlements. Yes Bush does a lot of this, and it kind of annoys me). They realize that without economic growth and even with economic decline, the poor class increases providing them with more votes.

lol... yes, of course. Democrats all are part of a vast conspiracy to keep people in poverty. :rolleyes. I'd really like to see your logic on this.

Tons of LEGAL immigrants (expecially Chinese and Indian) come over here with nothing (less than the "poor" people have) and become rich just because they work hard. Yes. I know people who did this before alot of immigrants had more privelages from the government than "poor" people. Believe me, if you work hard, you can get out of a "poor" situation.

Then you must know some pretty old people. Tax free business income for immgrants has been around for a long time. To go back before it existed, you would be examing a very different economic period in American history, and a whole different set of factors apply. Comparison to the current economy is questionable at best.

I know it will never happen, but the numerous government projects have to stop. How do they hurt the economy (and thus provide less opportunity for "poor" people to become wealthy)? A very strong effect of government deficit is "crowding out". In order to pay for all the projects, the government enters the bond market as a huge consumer. As the demand for a product, in this case money, increases, the price for the product increases. As the government enters the market as a massive consumer the demand goes up significantly (enough to significantly raise interest rates). Many private corperations cannot afford the high interest rates and therefore must file for bankruptsy which in turn promotes economic decline. Another effect is depreciating the value of all assets but I don't really have the time right now.

Nice oversimplification.

And what exactly do you mean by "numerous government projects?"

Porkbarrel government spending is a problem that does not know the boundries of political alliances and affiliations. Blaming one "side" or faction for such things is ridiculous.

March Kalas

Jun 12th, 2004, 04:55:23 PM

Morality is relative. What he sees as being right, others see as being very, very wrong. Society isn't static and uniform in deciding what is "right" and "wrong." That much should be obvious.

It seems it boils down to the question that must be asked in almost every American debate: is there such a thing as truth, is there such a thing as an absolute? By stating that Morality is relative, that it depends on the person, you are stating that there is no absolute, no truth, that morality depends on things. Let me ask you something, do you think that murdering someone because they stole your lunch is moral? You may think that this is a ridiculous question, however, is it moral? You may decide to say, "well, it depends on what the person who stole his lunch had done before." No it doesn't depend. If the reason that a person murdered someone else is because his lunch was stolen, that it is not moral.

Let me ask you this, is it moral to rape someone? Again you say, "It depends on what the victim had done to the rapist." No! The act of rape is not moral.

Let me ask you something else, is it moral to go to bed with someone else's girlfriend? Well, you might choose to say, "I depends on if the girlfriend's boyfriend had done something to you." No! It's not moral. Het it through your head.

I will ask you another thing, is what Sadam Hussein was doing to the people of Iraq moral? You may say again, "It depends on what the people had done to him." No it doesn't. What Sadam was doing to the people of Iraq is not moral.

Now I'll ask you one final thing, is it OK to stop an evil oppresser? You'll probably say, "No it isn't. He never did anything to us, why should we do anything to them. And besides, maybe the Iraqis did something to him." Do you remember what happened with Hitler and the Jews? We could have stopped him long before he had the chance to do such damage (whenever he started breaking treaties and wonderful Chamberlin started using the policy of appeasement). I've heard a quote that sounds something like, "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up. When they came for the Slavs, I didn't speak up. When they came for the Christians, I didn't speak up. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me." (those aren't the exact words, but it was similar to that). So think of what the Iraqi's had to go through under Sadam's rule and think of what they had yet to go through. Now tell me if it is moral to stop an evil warlord who is opressing the people. It is moral to do this.

Now tell me that there is no such thing as an absolute, that there is such a thing as a truth, that there is no definate value of morality. The statement, "there is no absolute" or "there is no truth" is an absolute or truth in itself. It's kind of like saying, "My brother is an only child."

lol... yes, of course. Democrats all are part of a vast conspiracy to keep people in poverty. . I'd really like to see your logic on this.

I didn't say that all democrats and liberals are part of a conspiracy to make people poor. Maybe you should have read my post more carefully and thoughtfully, because I provided my logic on the matter there. You should not be so rash to respond.

However, I will provide more on my logic. Most Democrat (and I think most Republicans are like this too. Basically all politicians) only care about themselves and only care for maintaining their status and power. Democrats know that since they pay poor people and are "for" the poor people, the poor people will vote for them and votes are what keep them in their positions. Well why not keep the poor people poor with the mask of "helping" them by making them feel better about being poor in order to accumulate more votes. That's what Democrats are doing to stay in their positions and political status. That is the logic. (this isn't the only thing they're doing)

Then you must know some pretty old people. Tax free business income for immgrants has been around for a long time. To go back before it existed, you would be examing a very different economic period in American history, and a whole different set of factors apply. Comparison to the current economy is questionable at best.

Actually I know someone who runs a jewelers company passed down to him from his father who came over here a long time ago and set it up himself. I quite a few other Chinese people who did things like this too.

Do you know how expensive and hard it is to start a business? My father is trying right now to start a tax franchise, and during tax season he often doesn't get home untill after midnight, apart from the fact that it is almost draining all of our money. Do you know how much effort must be put forth to even have a business that can even become a tax free business. Even if the business was tax free, it'll still drain tons out of you. You obviously don't have much experience in what it is to work or get a business going. And besides, the difficulty in starting a business (plus the taxes which supports my point above) easily discourages lazy poor people, which is most of them, from even attempting to get any kind of business going.

The "numerous government projects" are those numerous projects that the government carries out. Quite simple actually. I mean, I don't think that the government projects would be private projects do you? You know it's pretty hard to figure out what "numerous government projects" means since it says numerous GOVERNMENT projects.

Anyway, all of the projects that the government carries out that bring no profit should be abandoned. It's just throwing away money.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 06:14:47 PM

Originally posted by March Kalas
By stating that Morality is relative, that it depends on the person, you are stating that there is no absolute, no truth, that morality depends on things.

Yes, because morality does depend upon external factors. There is no universal morality constant that dictates the actions of every individual. And no, answering "God is the constant" doesn't work, because man has free will and choice. Law, ethics and morality are all things developed by society, being based upon the thoughts of persons in said society. Different societies have had different moral codes. History clearly indicates this. Hence, morality is relative.

Let me ask you something, do you think that murdering someone because they stole your lunch is moral? You may think that this is a ridiculous question, however, is it moral? You may decide to say, "well, it depends on what the person who stole his lunch had done before." No it doesn't depend. If the reason that a person murdered someone else is because his lunch was stolen, that it is not moral.

Do I personally believe that murdering someone over stolen lunch money is moral? No, I do not. Does our current social structure believe it to moral? Again, the answer is no. Does this mean that this is some sort of universal constant? Definitely not. Morality is defined by man, and man is dynamic in his mental capacities.

Let me ask you this, is it moral to rape someone? Again you say, "It depends on what the victim had done to the rapist." No! The act of rape is not moral.

See above.

Let me ask you something else, is it moral to go to bed with someone else's girlfriend? Well, you might choose to say, "I depends on if the girlfriend's boyfriend had done something to you." No! It's not moral. Het it through your head.

See above.

I will ask you another thing, is what Sadam Hussein was doing to the people of Iraq moral? You may say again, "It depends on what the people had done to him." No it doesn't. What Sadam was doing to the people of Iraq is not moral.

Same as before. You're asking me as an individual about my personal beliefs on morality and that morality in reference to society. This does not affect the main point that morality is relative.

Now tell me that there is no such thing as an absolute, that there is such a thing as a truth, that there is no definate value of morality. The statement, "there is no absolute" or "there is no truth" is an absolute or truth in itself. It's kind of like saying, "My brother is an only child."

You're arguing semantics. If you wish to do so, fine. Keep in mind, however, that "There are no absolutes" or "There is no truth" is your word choice, not mine. Ultimately, this specifically is a futile point, and it does nothing to bolster your point of view.

I didn't say that all democrats and liberals are part of a conspiracy to make people poor. Maybe you should have read my post more carefully and thoughtfully, because I provided my logic on the matter there. You should not be so rash to respond.

Your logic left significant flaws and holes, not the least of which is the motivation of the poor to continue to vote in a similar mold when their conditions do not improve, as the prospect of "free money," in the majority of instances, is limited to confines of the welfare program and, given the increase in population into this class causing further stain on the system, is actually causing a decline in said living conditions.

Sarcasm isn't being rash.

Do you know how expensive and hard it is to start a business? My father is trying right now to start a tax franchise, and during tax season he often doesn't get home untill after midnight, apart from the fact that it is almost draining all of our money. Do you know how much effort must be put forth to even have a business that can even become a tax free business. Even if the business was tax free, it'll still drain tons out of you. You obviously don't have much experience in what it is to work or get a business going. And besides, the difficulty in starting a business (plus the taxes which supports my point above) easily discourages lazy poor people, which is most of them, from even attempting to get any kind of business going.

Really? You seem to know so much about me, my knowledge base and how I think, based upon one exhange of posts. Who's being rash now?

To answer your question, yes, I do know what it takes to get a business of the ground, as I have aided in the formation of more than one. I fail to see how this has relevancy to tax free small business income for immigrants. It was a statement of fact, not a commentary on the difficulty of beginning a business in general. That said, tax free income does make the situation easier.

The "numerous government projects" are those numerous projects that the government carries out. Quite simple actually. I mean, I don't think that the government projects would be private projects do you? You know it's pretty hard to figure out what "numerous government projects" means since it says numerous GOVERNMENT projects.

This adds absolutely no clarity whatsoever. "The big, red ball is the ball that is big and red." Stop with the facetious semantic doublespeak and simply answer the question.

Anyway, all of the projects that the government carries out that bring no profit should be abandoned. It's just throwing away money.

This is a little more clear.

However, if the government abandoned everything that did not yield a profit, there would be non-functional government left, and a lot of things that people take for granted would no longer exist or be maintainable. A completely capitalistic society is just as much a pipedream as a true communist society.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 08:09:09 PM

Yeah, Reagan could do no wrong. :rolleyes

Ronnie & Saddam

The US has donned rose-tinted spectacles to mourn the passing of Ronald Reagan. But Investigations Editor Neil Mackay reveals a darker story of how, under Reagan, secret deals brokered by Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein secured the dictator an arsenal of WMD

It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of Americaâ€™s greatest enemies within two decades.

The trip by the current US defence secretary, to pledge US support for Saddam Hussein, marked one of the lowest points of the entire Reagan presidency, and symbolically represents the real legacy of the â€œGreat Communicatorâ€?. For Reagan was a president who allowed the US to secretly arm the Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supported Iraqâ€™s military expansion, turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran and thereby set in train the events that would lead to George W Bushâ€™s disastrous decision to invade the country in 2002.

While America was selling WMD to Iraq, Reagan was also telling Saddam to increase his brutal campaign against the Iranian fundamentalist regime, even while Iraqi poison gas was falling on Persian battlefields. The Reagan presidency made America complicit in Saddamâ€™s war crimes.

Just weeks before Rumsfeldâ€™s meeting with Saddam, Reagan had underlined the importance of securing US relations with Iraq, which was engaged in a bloody war with Iran at the time. The Iran-Iraq war began when an opportunistic Saddam decided to attack his neighbouring country, following the Islamic revolution which installed the Ayatollah Khomeini as leader.

Reaganâ€™s November 26, 1983, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114), entitled US Policy Toward The Iran-Iraq War, stated: â€œBecause of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.â€?

The secret State Department account of the Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting, written in a staccato telegram-style, reads: â€œSaddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with ... Rumsfeldâ€™s visit ... Rumsfeld told Saddam US and Iraq had shared interests in preventing Iranian and Syrian expansion. He said the US was urging other states to curtail arms sales to Iran and believed it had successfully closed off US-controlled exports by third countries to Iran.â€?

The State Department said: â€œOur initial assessment is that meeting marked a positive milestone in development of US-Iraqi relations and will prove to be of wider benefit to US posture in the region.â€?

Rumsfeld then told Saddam: â€œOur understanding of the importance of balance in the world and the region was similar to Iraqâ€™s.â€? The briefing goes on: â€œRegarding war with Iran, Rumsfeld said, US agreed it was not in interests of region or the West for conflict to create greater instability or for outcome to be one which weakened Iraqâ€™s role or enhanced interests and ambitions of Iran. We thought conflict should be settled in a peaceful manner which did not expand Iranâ€™s interests and preserved sovereignty of Iraq.â€?

After discussing the possibility of two oil pipelines, Rumsfeld and Saddam moved on to discussions about nations selling arms to Iran. Rumsfeld told Saddam: â€œCountries which acted in such a manner were short-sighted, looking at a single commercial transaction while their more fundamental interests were being harmed.â€?

The US had publicly declared itself â€œofficially neutralâ€? in the Iran-Iraq conflict when Saddam attacked the newly Islamic state, but investigative research undertaken at George Washington Universityâ€™s National Security Archive shows that this declaration was a complete lie.

In 1982, as the Iran-Iraq war began to hot up, the USA quietly took Iraq off the State Departmentâ€™s list of states that supported terrorism. This allowed money to start flowing from America into Saddamâ€™s coffers.

Both the White House and the State Department bullied the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing. This made Saddamâ€™s balance sheet look so healthy that he was able to get loans from other international banks. Unsurprisingly, Saddam spent most of his new-found wealth on weapons â€“ which he bought from Britain and America. Joyce Battle, of the National Security Archive, says: â€œAlthough official US policy still barred the export of US military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a â€˜donâ€™t ask, donâ€™t tellâ€™ basis.â€?

When a Congressional aide asked in March 1983, whether heavy trucks sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official said: â€œWe presumed that this was Iraqâ€™s intention and had not asked.â€? America officially restored full formal relations with Saddamâ€™s Baâ€™athist Iraq in November 1984, despite months of Iranian complaints to the world that its troops were being attacked with chemical weapons by Iraqâ€™s army. Some 600,000 Iranians died in the war, compared with 300,000 Iraqis.

America was fully aware of Saddamâ€™s war crimes. A November 1983 US memorandum from the bureau of politico-military affairs to the then secretary of state George Shultz, headed Iraqi Use Of Chemical Weapons, confirms that America knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an â€œalmost daily basisâ€?. Another State Department memo, also written in November 1983 â€“ this time from the office of the assistant secretary for near Eastern and South Asian affairs â€“ says the US should tell Saddam that America knows about the use of poison gas, as that would â€œavoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issueâ€?. However, State Department documents also reveal that America decided to limit its â€œefforts against the Iraqi CW [chemical weapon] programme to close monitoring because of our strict neutralityâ€?.

Other State Department cables sent around this time show that America knew Iraq used chemical weapons in October 1982 and in July and August 1983, â€œand more recently against Kurdish insurgentsâ€?. Reagan also knew by the end of 1983 that â€œwith the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further useâ€?.

Iraqâ€™s use of chemical weapons was not discussed at all during Rumsfeldâ€™s meeting, an omission entirely consistent with US policy. On November 1, 1983, the State Department noted in a memo that Saddam had acquired â€œCW capabilityâ€?, possibly from the USA. But two sentences later, the same memo says: â€œPresently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition against Iran. After a recent meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for a National Security Council meeting, a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq.â€?

Rumsfeld was accompanied on his Baghdad trip by Howard Teicher, the then US National Security Advisor. In 1995, Teicher lodged a sworn declaration in the US district court in the Southern district of Florida, saying: â€œWhile a staff member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for political-military affairs. During my five yearsâ€™ tenure on the National Security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates â€¦ Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war ... In 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. Similar strategic advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state.â€?

After Rumsfeldâ€™s visit, a buoyant Saddam issued a public threat in February 1984, to use CW against the Iranians, saying: â€œThe invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it, whatever the number, and Iraq possesses the annihilation insecticide.â€?

After this, America was compelled to issue a condemnation of Iraqâ€™s CW programme. A month later the USA put out this rather weak reprimand: â€œWhile condemning Iraqâ€™s chemical weapons use â€¦ the United States finds the present Iranian government regimeâ€™s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighbouring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behaviour among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims.â€?

Joyce Battle said that after this gentle scolding, the State Department was asked if Iraqâ€™s CW programme would have â€œany effect on US recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad rangeâ€?. A State Department official said: â€œNo. Iâ€™m not aware of any change in our position. Weâ€™re interested in being involved in a closer relationship with Iraq.â€?

That was quite evident from a US State Department memo dated May 9, 1984, which said that the US was reviewing its policy â€œon the sale of certain dual-use items to Iraq nuclear entitiesâ€? and that â€œpreliminary results favour expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entitiesâ€?. A dual-use item can be a part for a heart machine, which is also used in the construction of nuclear bomb s.

By September 1984, the USAâ€™s Defence Intelligence Agency found Iraq was continuing to develop its â€œformidableâ€? CW arsenal and would â€œprobably pursue nuclear weaponsâ€?.

Iran lodged a draft resolution with the UN asking the world to condemn Saddam for his use of poison gas, banned internationally by the Geneva Protocols. US diplomats began asking friendly nations to go for a â€œno decisionâ€? ruling. The US also said it was ready to abstain.

Iraqi diplomat Nizar Hamdoon, who later became Iraqâ€™s ambassador to the UN, met the US deputy assistant secretary of state, James Placke, telling him that Saddam could live with a Security Council presidential statement which did not name any individual country for using chemical weapons.

That was exactly what happened .

Battle trawled the National Security archives for secret documents like these, which detail the hidden history of American support for Saddam. She says that during the years when Iraq really was using WMD â€œactual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve US interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent Iranian victoryâ€?.

She adds: â€œChemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The US was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.â€?

I wonder, does Reagan's support of Saddam make him and Rummy immoral? Or maybe it was all just "relative."

Doc, honestly, I cant see how you can think the U.S. would cease to exist right now if not for Reagan. Throw in Saddam, Lebanon, and Iran Contra and you have startling failures of foreign policy. Reagan's legacy in South and Central America is downright tragic. We supported one brutal regime after another. The Soviet Union was doomed, some of what Reagan did helped speed it up, but the writing was on the wall.

Reagan rose colored glasses are on right now. In a few years they'll come off and his legacy will come back down to Earth.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 08:28:04 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
Reagan rose colored glasses are on right now. In a few years they'll come off and his legacy will come back down to Earth.

The "rose-colored glasses" may be on at the moment because of his death, but his popularity has been consistently high since he left office. I don't really see that changing much. His legacy is still going to be remembered in a positive light (for better or worse, whatever one's perspective might be) even after the emotion of his funeral fades.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 08:40:44 PM

I'm not saying he'll go down as a failure or even an ineffective President. But he's not going to join the ranks of Lincoln and Washington. Iran-Contra, South America, Lebanon, Iraq, the exploding National Debt, etc, these will all become part of his legacy. Right not they're not being talked about much because of his death. Hell, even Nixon got some sympathy when he passed. In a way, Alheizmer's shielded Reagan from some criticism these last few years.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:00:12 PM

Quick, who's the owner of this famous Presidential lie?
"We did not - repeat - did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."

So many of Clinton's critics love to roast him for lying under oath about a BJ. I wonder how they feel about one of their icons breaking Congressional law and then lying about? Ah, he later apologized and said it "was wrong." All is forgiven.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:01:55 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
I'm not saying he'll go down as a failure or even an ineffective President. But he's not going to join the ranks of Lincoln and Washington.

Agreed. He won't be remembered in the same light as those two, or FDR for that matter. He still be among the more popular, though, at least partially because of the way he was able to use mass media to his advantage.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:07:59 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
Quick, who's the owner of this famous Presidential lie?
"We did not - repeat - did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."

So many of Clinton's critics love to roast him for lying under oath about a BJ. I wonder how they feel about one of their icons breaking Congressional law and then lying about? Ah, he later apologized and said it "was wrong." All is forgiven.

It's amazing how far an apology will go. That's part of the reason why so many (conservative) people view Clinton as such a scumbag. Everyone knows about his escapades in the Oval Office, and all the evidence pointing to it, yet he never once showed any regret for what occured, or the scandal that it caused.

Granted, I'm sure many conservatives would have found a way to hate him anyway, but he probably could have at least made it a little more difficult on them.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:10:41 PM

I was finishing up at work today and I walked in on a couple of co-workers as they were talking about politics. I could tell they were trashing a President. I asked them who they were talking about. My friend said; "You're boy Reagan." They were both African-American. I guess they assumed I was a Reagan supporter because I'm white. I told her I wasn't and that I had my share of problems with Reagan as well. For many African-Americans, the Reagan Presidency was nothing to wax nostalgic about. I'm sure he had his supporters, but they weren't many. We're talking about a demographic that voted in favor of Gore by almost 90% in 2000. Most African-Americans aren't getting all that teary eyed about Reagan this week. Many that are will get over his death far quicker than the rest of us.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:21:44 PM

It's amazing how far an apology will go. That's part of the reason why so many (conservative) people view Clinton as such a scumbag. Everyone knows about his escapades in the Oval Office, and all the evidence pointing to it, yet he never once showed any regret for what occured, or the scandal that it caused.

Granted, I'm sure many conservatives would have found a way to hate him anyway, but he probably could have at least made it a little more difficult on them.
Clinton had his own nationally televised mea-culpa. Once he found out they had the dress and he couldn't "He said, she said" his way out of it he gave his televised apology. He poured out plenty of Slick Willy regret that night, it just wasn't enough. Plus, it was after all, about SEX! Something many of those conservatives just couldn't forgive or deal with. Imagine if instead of commiting perjury about a sex act he had illegally diverted funds against the express will of that Republican controlled congress? Not only would they have impreached him but they probably would have got their conviction.

Agreed. He won't be remembered in the same light as those two, or FDR for that matter. He still be among the more popular, though, at least partially because of the way he was able to use mass media to his advantage.
Objectively, I don't think you can rank too many modern day Presidents ahead of Reagan in regards to how they used the mass media. Speeches, press conferences, photo ops, campaign ads, debates, you name it, Reagan did it as well as any President. Certainly better than both Bushes and former candidates such as Gore, Dole, Dukakis, and Mondale. Only Clinton came close to being able to charm an audience the way Reagan did. On the flip side, he also found a way to enrage and digust a segment of the populace while he was simultaneously stroking the other. Bottom line, you put Ronnie in a pair of jeans and have him cutting some brush on his Cali ranch and you had TV magic. People ate it up.

Jedieb

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:30:08 PM

But back to the campaign, one of the big items today was the leak that Kerry indeed had some recent conversations with McCain about the VP spot.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/11/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html

He didn't outright ask McCain, but he brought it up and they discussed the idea. I like McCain, but I just don't see how it could ever work. Both men would have to give up too much. I would much rather see McCain still in Congress as a maverick Rep. that a President Kerry could reach out to during his inevitable early honeymoon period. The VP talk should start to pick up steam soon. My personal favorite would be Bill Richardson from New Mexico. My second choice choice would still not be one of the front runners (Gephardt, Edwards, etc.) I would want Kerry to choose a woman or an African-American. I think he has a chance to make his ticket a historic one.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 09:40:53 PM

Originally posted by Jedieb
Plus, it was after all, about SEX! Something many of those conservatives just couldn't forgive or deal with.

Very true. I always felt the whole Whitewater thing, and the strange death of Vince Foster, were far more concerning than than any of his sexual adventures. But, of course, in good 'ole America, sex is still regarded as far greater a taboo.

I would want Kerry to choose a woman or an African-American. I think he has a chance to make his ticket a historic one.

If he did, he might win just on the strength of that fact. I think the country is more than ready, and eager, for such a thing.

And even if he didn't win, it would definitely be a big selling point for the Democratic party.

CMJ

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:19:17 PM

If you're playing the Electoral College game - I still think the best strategic choice would be Gephardt. A minority selection on the ticket would be wonderful though.

On a side note I expect a African American - and even a Hispanic President before a woman gets elected.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:30:33 PM

I like Edwards better but only because he is young and it helps the ticket but that is my opinion. Now if you want a minority on the ticket, I go with Bill Richardson he is very popular in New Mexico and he can win that state for Kerry probably.

CMJ

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:34:45 PM

I know Gephardt will make Kerry competitive in the Midwest. I don't think Edwards would help Kerry in the South - therefore even though he's a better candidate(for the future of the party too) he won't help you WIN anywhere.

This is about winning states...nothing more or less.

Figrin D'an

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:35:57 PM

Personally, I'd like to see Edwards in there, but I doubt that will happen. I tend to agree that Richardson or Gephardt are the likely choices as this point. McCain, had he agreed, would have been huge.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:44:29 PM

Yeah polls suggest Kerry would be ahead of Bush by 15 points if McCain was the VP. Actually Richardson might be the best choice if you believe that Hispanics will be the key to the election as some insiders do.

CMJ

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:54:40 PM

Zogby has a state by state breakdown. As of right now the Electoral College score is...

Kerry - 296
Bush - 242

Still pretty close. Kerry has leads in 11 of the 16 battleground states and a few are within the margin or error. I don't even pay attention to the national polls....all politics is local. ;)

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:58:37 PM

You are right the National polls are meaningless. The Race is still close I am glad Kerry has got the lead for now, but I figure its going to be another close election.

Doc Milo

Jun 12th, 2004, 11:59:55 PM

My personal favorite candidate for president never gets past the primaries.

Alan Keyes.

CMJ

Jun 13th, 2004, 12:25:41 AM

Keyes is a great speaker and at times I found myself agreeing with him. But above all else he is a moralist...in the worst sense of the word. No way could I vote for someone that socially conservative - we'd turn into a theocracy. ;)

March Kalas

Jun 14th, 2004, 01:09:54 PM

OIC. And the liberals and Democrats dont stand up for what they believe? MAYBE they dont like Bush because he stands up for the WRONG things?

Sorry, I wanted to address this earlier, but I didn't have enough time. Actually, most politicians, including many republicans, do not stand up for what they believe in. They stand up for whatever way the wind blows, they stand up for what will retain their status and what will bring in the votes next time around. As I have said before, most politicians only care about themselves. There are a few, and probably a few in the Democratic party, that will stand for what they believe in, but not many will. That is why I like Bush. He does have some bad spending policies, but I'm sure Kerry has his own, and on top of that, Bush actually stands up for what he believes in, not what will give him more votes. I wouldn't mind if Bill Archer was running for president.

This adds absolutely no clarity whatsoever. "The big, red ball is the ball that is big and red." Stop with the facetious semantic doublespeak and simply answer the question.

Actually, I was just making fun or you because it just sounded funny to me that you had asked me, "what do you mean by 'numerous government projects'?" I would have thought that in a debate such as this, a question like that would have been more well thought out than that. Maybe if you would have asked, "which numerous government projects do you mean," it would have been more clear. But anyway, sorry, it just sounded humerous to me that you had just accused me of being simplistic and you asked, "what do you mean by numerous government projects?"

Another point I would like to make, is that because Democrats are supposed to be for poor people, they put on another mask of being against the "rich" and "middle" classes by taxing them to give the poor people more money. Well, with the mask of taxing the middle and rich classes heavily because they're "for" the poor and "against" the middle and rich classes, they are actually discouraging poor people from advancing from their poor state to the middle or rich classes. We must realize now that most politicians are not "for" anyone but themselves and they're not "against" anyone but other politicians.

However, if the government abandoned everything that did not yield a profit, there would be non-functional government left, and a lot of things that people take for granted would no longer exist or be maintainable. A completely capitalistic society is just as much a pipedream as a true communist society.

that's why I said it would never happen, but many of the welfare projects give the poor society a lazy psychology and they do nothing but hurt the economy. And besides, economic growth is what is going to help the poor class the most.

About morality. Yes you are correct. With man, there is not absolute standard of morality, but in reality, there is such a thing. Have you ever done something and felt bad about it, that something was bothering you inside? It's called your conscience, and do you know what your conscience is for? God tells you when your doing something wrong. Of course, like you said, you cannot say that God is the standard for morality because not enough people believe in God for it to be true that God is the standard of morality with all mankind. If you have problems with what I said, I'll work on a post that gives strong evidense that God exists for you.

Figrin D'an

Jun 14th, 2004, 03:15:53 PM

Originally posted by March Kalas
Actually, I was just making fun or you because it just sounded funny to me that you had asked me, "what do you mean by 'numerous government projects'?" I would have thought that in a debate such as this, a question like that would have been more well thought out than that. Maybe if you would have asked, "which numerous government projects do you mean," it would have been more clear. But anyway, sorry, it just sounded humerous to me that you had just accused me of being simplistic and you asked, "what do you mean by numerous government projects?"

Mocking the question, again, does little to support your point of view. The question was perfectly valid. My comment about oversimplification was in response to the assertions made in your arguement, which I felt were, indeed, overly simplistic in nature. Your viewing of my word choice as simplistic is a matter of semantics, and is hardly comparable in basis to said comment.

About morality. Yes you are correct. With man, there is not absolute standard of morality, but in reality, there is such a thing.

Provide evidence to support this.

Have you ever done something and felt bad about it, that something was bothering you inside? It's called your conscience, and do you know what your conscience is for? God tells you when your doing something wrong.

One's conscience is a combination of learned behavior and inherent instinct. It's an aspect of sentience, and of being self-aware. The reaction to doing something perceived as wrong is a response based upon aquired social knowledge and/or inborn reaction. The concept of a conscience isn't the universal constant either, because a good portion of it is based upon aquired knowledge and environment. If it was "God telling you when you're doing something wrong," it would be anticipated that such a thing would be consistent throughout the history of the human race, as it would have great influence on the standards society would set for itself. Yet, history indicates that it is not the case, given that the moral standards of cultures and societies have varied greatly and have been altered as society has evolved.

If you have problems with what I said, I'll work on a post that gives strong evidense that God exists for you.

I would strongly advise against doing so, as discussion in that area has lead to the closure of more than one thread on this board in the past, as well as plenty of misguided angst. If you wish, I can reference for you a previous thread which covers various aspects of that topic. In summary, however, equally significant evidence and argument can be presented that is contrary to the existence of a supreme being, and as I once before pointed out in a previous topic, belief in a supreme being ultimately can be boiled down to the simple concept known as faith. And faith, being something that must be accepted on an individual basis and sans logic or observation, cannot be argued in the realm of fact.

Doc Milo

Jun 14th, 2004, 07:43:50 PM

Here's the thing about morality and truth.

Morality, as we know it, may in fact be "decided" by man, and be relative. But ... there has to be a universal morality and a universal truth for there to be any coherece to the universe. The question then becomes "What is the universal truth or the universal morality?" And, past that, "can man actually know what it is?"

To have morality or truth be relative in a universal sense, means that there can be no real fact, and that everything, even science, is relative; that it all depends on the observer. In this sense, how can anything be real? Maybe everything -- the world itself -- is a figment of everyone's collective imagination. That we really don't exist except in the perceptions of others. If no one is around to see me, am I really here? Do I really have a body or is my body a figment of how I percieve myself? If truth is relative, how can anything be real? There has to be a universal truth. And from that truth, there would have to be a universal morality -- that truth would have to define what is right and what is wrong.

But does any man have the answer? Is it observable to us?

Further ... if there is a universal truth, and some people act in immoral ways as defined by that universal truth, and other people act in moral ways as defined by that universal truth, then those who act morally are in the right, and those who act immorally are in the wrong. Again, though, it becomes a question of "do we know what that universal truth is?"

Christians say that Christ is the universal truth, and that what He says is the definition of the universal morality. Not everyone believes in Christ. If the Christians are right, however, then everyone else, by definition must be wrong. But ... only in faith do we know if Christians are right.

Science likes to claim to deal in observable facts. But if there is no absolute truth, how can we claim that the "facts" observed by science is true? In fact, they can't be true because there is no absolute truth... In the end, science is just as much faith-based as any religion. Yes, it is observing phenomena and figuring out laws that explain what is observed. But those "facts" are limited by man, and what man can observe, and what man can learn.

Where am I going with this? I believe there is a universal truth, and with that truth comes a universal morality. And I have faith that I know that truth -- that it was told to me in my religious beliefs -- and thus, that the morality that I was taught is the proper morality.

But other religions also have the same faith in their religion. And some even have the same faith in their belief in no God, no religion, or no supreme being.

I believe that someone is right and someone is wrong.

I believe we will eventually know who that was (and, because I have a religious belief, I believe that my beliefs will be what was right... (otherwise, why would I believe it?))

Now ... as a matter of government policy, however, I believe we have to, as a society, come together and decide for our society what is right and what is wrong, and through our constitutional process, enact that code into law. These laws will be a mish-mash of all the moralities from all the faiths (or non-faiths) in the country. And it will basically include all common elements, and non-common elements will be constantly under debate, included and excluded.

That doesn't make the government policies right as defined by the universal truth. It just makes the policies, or laws, agreed upon by the majority...

imported_Marcus

Jun 14th, 2004, 07:52:52 PM

Apart from saying that refer to my post about using "moral" issues as a disgusting attempt at Wedge Politics and that anyone voting for Bush for the reason he stands for what he believes in - you really need to get your head read, it's an obvious wedge and a lie..... could we have the morality discussion split out into another thread?

Figrin D'an

Jun 14th, 2004, 09:24:29 PM

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Science likes to claim to deal in observable facts. But if there is no absolute truth, how can we claim that the "facts" observed by science is true? In fact, they can't be true because there is no absolute truth... In the end, science is just as much faith-based as any religion. Yes, it is observing phenomena and figuring out laws that explain what is observed. But those "facts" are limited by man, and what man can observe, and what man can learn.

There is a difference between truth and fact. We have a tendency to use them interchangably and believe that are either one in the same, or that they are so intertwined with one another as to make them inseperable. The result is that, in discussions like this, they are interpretted incorrectly. Fact is completely based upon observables. Truth, on the other hand, does not necessarily have this dependency. Truth may or may not be established based upon observables. It may be based upon thing such as, for example, faith. There may be fact within truth, supporting what truth states. But there is not truth in fact. Fact is completely independent of truth.

Science does indeed operate on the premise of observables. It uses observation of phenomena to formulate theory, which is continually tested by futher observation. The theory may or not be revised or expanded based continual observation. Science establishes facts based upon it's theories that have been observed, tested, verified and reverified through continual observation. A law (for example, Newton's First Law of Motion) is, in essence, a theory that has been observed as being accurate in it's explanation a phenomena in every measurable instance since it's formulation, that it is regarded as being accurate for all that we observe. If you wish to examine science, and for that matter, the universe, from a completely philosophical point of view, nothing can ever be really be "proven." As you pointed out, we can only establish what is factual within our realm of observation. However, science doesn't concern itself with what is outside the realm of fact. Science has the luxary of doing this because humanity's observation skills have improved as it's knowledge base has grown.

As I pointed out, however, truth and fact are indeed different. This is where science seperates itself from faith. Science... true science... uses observables to establish fact, and only fact... not truth. Truth adds in things outside of fact as part of it's formula. This is why morality is relative. Morality is subject to the realm of truth. It may have fact laced within it's precepts, as truth does often contain aspects of fact. However, as truth also contains faith, and faith is relative based upon the individual, morality is, by it's very nature, not "an absolute".

Science has it's basis in fact.

There is a very distinct difference between truth and fact.

That's the essence of my point.

Now ... as a matter of government policy, however, I believe we have to, as a society, come together and decide for our society what is right and what is wrong, and through our constitutional process, enact that code into law. These laws will be a mish-mash of all the moralities from all the faiths (or non-faiths) in the country. And it will basically include all common elements, and non-common elements will be constantly under debate, included and excluded.

That doesn't make the government policies right as defined by the universal truth. It just makes the policies, or laws, agreed upon by the majority...

This is essentially my contention against moral absolutes. Morality comes from the lowest common denominator, in other words, the individual. The individual contributes perceptions to society based upon personal experiences and interaction with others. The end result is an amalgamation of personal beliefs (which can contain fact, truth, faith, or anything else) which come together to form the code of behavior for a society, decided upon by majority opinion. It's always changing, and different parts of it are under debate at different times (some great modern examples of this are things like the death penalty and abortion).

At this point, as we've managed to hijack this thread far enough, I'll step back and refrain from further comment and let things get back to the presidential race.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 15th, 2004, 12:09:02 AM

Please no more proving God posts that has been done as Fig pointed out. The last thread we had ran in circles I rather not go there again.

JMK

Jun 15th, 2004, 06:35:03 AM

Yeah, enough of this maze of circular logic...at least for this thread. :)

JediBoricua

Jun 15th, 2004, 09:40:22 AM

Just one final shot...if you want to cut all government projects that do not make profits, start with the Pentagon...:D

Anyway, back to the race and the VP ticket. Personally I don't like Richardson, but it's purely because he supports statehood for Puerto Rico, but since that is not an issue for those doing the real voting, I can see the logic behind it.

He was a successful secretary under Clinton, he is a succesful and popular governor, he is hispanic with an american last name (I don't know that many mexican Richardson). My only qualm is that he looks sloppy on camera, like he is desperate to go to a bar and grab a couple of beers, but with a good publicist you can turn that into a virtue and lower Kerry's aristocratic look.

Edwards is my second choice.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 15th, 2004, 10:37:49 AM

Richardson would be a good choice, IMO and it would surprise those in the media who are expecting Edwards or Gehphart although I think Richardson has more upside, maybe helping Kerry take New Mexico and get enough hispanic vote to swing Arizona and Florida his way.

CMJ

Jun 15th, 2004, 10:51:02 AM

Despite what some media outlets are saying...AZ is not in play. Unless Kerry wins a landslide he will not take it. It's a very conservative state.

Jedieb

Jun 16th, 2004, 08:48:01 PM

Most AZ polls have had Bush ahead. Only 1 major poll had Kerry ahead in that state and that was back in Feb. (46-44) Put Richardson on the ticket and you've got a shot in Arizona and I think Richardson could help Kerry in Forida. He might be able to chip away at some of the Cuban votes and he could certainly get many other Hispanics to the polls in Florida.

I track 2 different Eletoral web sites and it's surprising to see how they both show a close race, but each one has a different candidate in the lead.
http://www.davidwissing.com/bushkerrystate2004.html
The Hedgehog Report has Bush in the lead but Kerry has closed the gap significantly in the last few weeks.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm
D.C. Political Report has had Kerry ahead for the last couple of months but it's still very close.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 17th, 2004, 08:10:43 PM

For those who still want to vote for Bush on moral grounds...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245046825.html

Add another lie. COME ON, how can any moral ground be justified if the Administration lied and decived on such an issue as war?

Roj'yor'nuruodo

Jun 17th, 2004, 08:32:20 PM

I would vote for Bush.

In their haste to point fingers about the lack of WMDs people forget that Saddam Hussein was responsible for things that people could only imagine in their worst nightmare and more. He deserved to go down.

The atrocities committed by Allied soldiers against prisoners, while being terrible, are not Bush's fault. He despatched those soldiers to Iraq on the promise that they were fully trained and responsible. It is not his fault that their moral boundaries have been blurred by the war. If anyone should point fingers, they should be pointed at the armed forces, not at President Bush.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 18th, 2004, 02:41:03 AM

In their haste to point fingers about the lack of WMDs people forget that Saddam Hussein was responsible for things that people could only imagine in their worst nightmare and more. He deserved to go down.

So when are the USA going to bomb Norht Korea flat, or China, or Zimbabwe... or Saudi Arabia? How about Israel? They are every bit as noxious, sometimes more. What about Western Sudan?

The USA and allies had absolutly no right or justification for invasion. Given what the USA has done to other countires liek Chile and Niguagua, they have no moral right at all.

The atrocities committed by Allied soldiers against prisoners, while being terrible, are not Bush's fault. He despatched those soldiers to Iraq on the promise that they were fully trained and responsible. It is not his fault that their moral boundaries have been blurred by the war. If anyone should point fingers, they should be pointed at the armed forces, not at President Bush.

Incorrect. The Administraion knew about the abuses for over a year before they became public - and ignored them. They have Guatanamo Bay, a prision in no mans land devoid of rights. It could be argued sucessfuly the administration has directly encouraged such abuses from as early as 2002 in Afghanistan. They have thence become complicent and responsible.

To say the moral compass of a soldier goes awry in war is a ridiculous argument. This is a direct excuse for actions that were known to be occuring and even encouraged by ranking officers and Administration officials. The attitude of allowance of abuse stems from the top, not from the bottom.

Jedieb

Jun 18th, 2004, 03:25:41 PM

If anyone should point fingers, they should be pointed at the armed forces, not at President Bush.
Bullcrap! Frankly, Bush should have burst into flames when he strutted on that aircraft carrier wearing a jumpsuit. He had his chance to risk his life the way many members of today's armed forces are doing. He avoided it by relying on family connections and influence. Throw in the fact that he missed many of his drills, had his flight status revoked because he refused to take an army physical and it just gets more embarrasing. Right now, men and women in their 20's are risking their lives. Bush was drunk in Alabama at the same age. I point the finger squarely at him. I sure as hell won't point it solely at the men and women who have the guts to do what he never did.

But forget about Bush's lame service record, just look at everything that's recently come about the administration and how they been trying to find loopholes in the Geneva conventions. From the the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales; the "new paradigm" of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Yeah, Bush, Cheney, and Rummy bear no responsibility for what's happened on their watch. Wait a minute, Rummy actually did say that he was ultimately responsible for what happened at Abu Graid. Now, what's he doing about it? Oh, right, nothing. Why should he, after all, he's "the best Secretary of Defense" the U.S. has ever had! :rolleyes

imported_Marcus

Jun 18th, 2004, 04:26:04 PM

Absolutly. I also love how the Bush boosters will put their assertions of why Bush is it, yet are totally silent after we post direct arguments and evidence to counter the assertions.

I mean, it's not like Bush is directly still repeating the lie Iraq and A-Quadia are bosom buddies and Iraq was about terrorism . The 11/9 commission has stomped on that argument rather hard, yet Bush STILL even today is saying the same things that have been proven false. The 11/9 commission published evidence and arguments, cited sources, yet when Bush makes his claims, he does nothing of the sort.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110240.html?oneclick=true

Really, how much more evidence you need to show Bush and his cohorts beeing lying about this war? Doesnt that actually concern you people you support Bush?

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 18th, 2004, 11:46:24 PM

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245046825.html

More excellent journalism by the SMH. It's amazing that of all the things I link, the SMH comes up time and time again. And yes, they have reporters who initially supported the war and a few against. At least the scum of Murdoch arent always free to bleat the Allied line again and again

Jedieb

Jun 21st, 2004, 02:59:57 PM

Nader is going to announce his candidate for VP today. I believe he's going to do it after meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. It could be a coincidence that he's meeting with the CBC and then announcing his VP or a sign that's he's going to pick an African American to be his VP. This is sure to be a blow to Bush because we all know how Bush garnered over 90% of the black vote in 2000. Way to stick it to Bush, Ralph! That'll teach Bush a les..... wait a minute........ :mad

Jedieb

Jun 21st, 2004, 03:09:51 PM

Every once in awhile I hear rumblings that Al-Qaida is trying to get some kind of attack in place before the Nov. elections. How will the American public respond? Traditionally, we rally around the President. Would the American public and voters respond differently this time? Will they bounce back quicker to today's below %50 Presidential approval ratings because the memories of 9/11 are relatively fresh? Will they support, or blame the administration? The Spanish train bombing had a marked effect on their election. I honestly don't what would happen and for all of our sakes, I hope nothing does.

JediBoricua

Jun 21st, 2004, 04:30:50 PM

I think an attack=Bush for four more years.

In Spain the War was always unpopular.

Dan the Man

Jun 21st, 2004, 04:41:36 PM

I think a terrorist attack would hit the Bush administration below the water line this time.

It would essentially be the redux of the Tet Offensive.

CMJ

Jun 21st, 2004, 05:22:52 PM

I could see it going either way. Who knows how it would play out with the population at large?

If you had told me on 9/12/01 by 6/21/04 we still wouldn't have had a second attack I would said "Good job". I don't know about anyone else, but I was convinced we would be attacked repeatedly. I'm grateful that we haven't been.

At the same time, since it has been so long since we were hit - AND for awhile we seemed to have AQ on the run, another attack would be almost worse than the first one.

Marcus Telcontar

Jun 21st, 2004, 08:46:12 PM

This war was sold on the reduction of the threat to America. A new attack would rather blow that argument out of the water.

Jedi Master Carr

Jun 21st, 2004, 08:49:31 PM

Well right now I think what I am worried about is the Olympics I don't trust the Greeks handling of the thing there have been too many reports that have got me worried, that would be horrible kill thousands there probably American athletes that would be sad. It might never happen but it worries me the most.

CMJ

Jun 22nd, 2004, 09:54:19 AM

I think Zogby has shown to be the most accurate of all pollsters. Anyways - here is the analysis of his latest numbers which were released last evening...

*******************************

President Bush is seeing his support solidify in some key battleground states, according to the latest Zogby Interactive poll. But how does that translate into the Electoral College tally?

Here's one way of looking at it, keeping in mind that many of the results are within the margin of error.

First, let's assume that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the Battleground analysis go for the same political party they did in 2000. Given that, Mr. Bush starts with 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry with 172. (A candidate needs 270 to win.)

Now, add in the 16 states from the latest Battleground poll, regardless of margin of error. In that scenario, the president's Electoral College total climbs to 285 and Mr. Kerry's to 253.

But keep in mind that results from 12 of the 16 states, representing 114 electoral votes, are within the polls' margin of error. Of those electoral votes, 65 are in the Bush column while 49 are in the Kerry column.

Between the June 7 poll and the most recent one, six states swung from one candidate to the other. Four of those states -- worth a combined 54 electoral votes -- went to Mr. Bush.

Florida, where Mr. Kerry held a narrow lead in the first two polls, turned over to the president. Nevada, which Mr. Bush won in 2000 but trailed in the first two Battleground polls, also moved into Mr. Bush's camp, as did Michigan and West Virginia. Mr. Bush tightened his grip on Ohio, where his lead moved outside the poll's margin of error.

But New Mexico took a big swing in Mr. Kerry's favor and Arkansas, which Mr. Bush led solidly in the first two polls, also turned blue.

In all, Mr. Bush's projected national lead is just as fragile as Mr. Kerry's was in recent weeks. The president is ahead by less than a percentage point in two big states: Michigan and Missouri. If both of those were to tip to Mr. Kerry, the senator would carry the Electoral College, 281-257.

Ralph Nader had his best showing to date, picking up 4.4% of the vote in Nevada. In the prior two surveys, the independent candidate hadn't polled better than 3.4% in any state. Although 4.4% appears scant, it made the difference. Mr. Kerry came out ahead in the first two Battleground polls of likely Nevada voters, but this time -- in a three-way matchup -- Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry by 2.5 percentage points. In a two-way race that excluded Mr. Nader from the ballot, Mr. Kerry leads by 0.5%.

Need more evidence of just how close the race is? In six states, one candidate leads the other by less than four percentage points. Mr. Bush is ahead in three states and Mr. Kerry in three. If everything else stayed the same but these six states turned over -- Mr. Bush won the states where Mr. Kerry now leads and Mr. Kerry won the states where Mr. Bush leads -- the Electoral College would be tied, 269-269.

Then the question would become: What will the House of Representatives do?

JediBoricua

Jun 22nd, 2004, 05:58:49 PM

You know something, for some reason I get the feeling that whoever wins this will do it by a large margin.

It has something to do with incumbents, in recent history no incumbent who has won or lost has done so by close margins. After the conventions,when all national attention will be focused on the race we could see either Bush or Kerry pulling ahead by a bigger margin.

Just my rambling of the day.

CMJ

Jun 22nd, 2004, 06:08:02 PM

Carter barely beat Ford in '76. Not sure the exact margin, but it was something like only one or two states(which Jimmy barely snuck out) had to fall to Ford for him to win the election.

JediBoricua

Jun 22nd, 2004, 06:12:02 PM

I know, but for me recent history in political terms is 20 years. It takes about 20 years for a new generation to start voting, thus electoral circumstances change, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But you do have a point.

Jedieb

Jun 22nd, 2004, 06:12:50 PM

Boriqua brings up a good point. These are bad numbers for an incumbant at this point in the race. Today The Washington Post released a poll that shows one of Bush's greatest strengths over Kerry has disappeated. His leadership on the war on terror.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58293-2004Jun21?language=printer
On a topic in which Bush use to lead Kerry by 21 pts. he's now trailing by a couple of points. He's following the patter of the last 3 incumbants to lose. None of the last 3 winners were doing this poorly at this point.

It's going to be close again, but we're not going to see a repeat of 2000. It's not going to come down to 537 votes in Florida or a 271 Electoral college victory. One of these candidates is probably going to win with close to 300 Electoral votes. It'll be close, but we're not going to see another razor thin election.

Jedi Master Carr

Jul 6th, 2004, 11:16:58 AM

Well Kerry picked Edwards for VP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040706/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president

I still like the choice because Edwards is so charasmatic that he could help Kerry. Will he make a difference well I don't think he will make a huge difference but no VP ever has since LBJ in 60. Ironically that is the last time we had two senators running on the same ticket.

JediBoricua

Jul 6th, 2004, 12:21:31 PM

I personally can't wait for the VP debate.

Lieberman vs. Cheney was a dullfest, but this one should we good, considering that Cheney has no problem cursing at senators. ;)

Jedi Master Carr

Jul 6th, 2004, 12:32:57 PM

LOL it should be entertaining have to say that.

Figrin D'an

Jul 6th, 2004, 01:18:31 PM

The choice of Edwards surprised me, but in a good way. Like many others, I was expecting it to be Gephardt or Richardson.

Edwards definately had the best "public face" out of the major VP choices. He's going to be invaluable in debates and in communicating stances on issues to the people, as well as bringing some enthusiasm and charisma to the campaign. The question is whether or not he has enough pull in the South to win some important states for the ticket.

Dan the Man

Jul 6th, 2004, 01:44:55 PM

Edwards will definitely take away some of Kerry's unpalatable flavor in the South, but I'm doubtful if it will make a significant difference in terms of carrying a southern state.

CMJ

Jul 6th, 2004, 05:42:20 PM

Bingo - he shoulda picked Gephardt. Boring? Yes. But he woulda insured a few Midwestern states where things are neck and neck. Edwards won't help Kerry win in the South.

Jedieb

Jul 6th, 2004, 06:48:41 PM

Richardson was my personal favorite. Once he let it be know he was out I figured Kerry would go with Gephardt or Edwards. The Edwards and Cheney debate should be interesting. Cheney called today to offer his congratulations. Other members of the RNC already started going after Edwards. I can't ever remember either sides starting so negative on the very day a VP announcement was made. Nice job boys.

I don't think Edwards will help Kerry much in the South. What I do think he'll do is bring an upbeat and populous message to the ticket. He'll certainly provide a stark contrast to Cheney. Gephardt will be stumping across the Midwest so I don't expect his absence to hurt Kerry there.

Did anyone see Murdoch and co embarrass themselves with today's NY Post headline? Nice job knuckleheads. Last year you sent Boston to the World Series and today you pulled a Dewey Defeats Truman! :lol

CMJ

Jul 6th, 2004, 07:03:32 PM

On PTI today Wilbon said that it lets his old paper off the hook for the Dewey wins headline. ;)

Jedi Master Carr

Jul 6th, 2004, 10:48:38 PM

LOL yeah what a goof by the Post, of course they are nothing but a rag anyway. About Edwards vs Gephardt, you see I don't think Gephardt would have helped him win any states, he is only popular in one part of Missouri and I don't think he would have won Missouri with him necessarly. If you wanted to go with somebody who could win a state then I say he should picked Graham who could have gave him Florida. Of course I don't like that strategy it has only worked once in the last 50 years and that was LBJ.

CMJ

Jul 7th, 2004, 08:51:50 AM

Gephardt is popular throughout the Midwest...and I do think he woulda brought along Missouri.

BTW, it's impossible to say if a VP selection helped win a certain state or not. I mean Gore mighta helped carry TN in 1992(back when he was still a popular Senator in his own state). The same with Reagan/Bush in '80 with Texas. Believe it or not, TX used to be a huge battleground state. It almost always went to the winner of the general election up until 1992.

Jedi Master Carr

Jul 7th, 2004, 10:47:47 AM

Well I was going by CNN, Bill Schenider on there said he wasn't that popular in Missouri and probably wouldn't matter that much in that state. Also others have said Gephardt has hurt presidential campaigns they called him cursed for some reason.

CMJ

Jul 13th, 2004, 06:55:31 PM

As I stated before, I think Zogby has the best polls. So when their new one came out yesterday - I put alot of stock into it. Anyways, here's the battleground analysis.

**********************
In the wake of John Edwards’s selection as vice-presidential candidate, John Kerry appears to have taken back some of the ground he ceded to President Bush.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll, taken over five days immediately after the Edwards announcement, gives Mr. Kerry his best showing since Zogby began conducting twice-a-month polls of 16 closely contested battleground states. President Bush had strengthened in two polls conducted in June.

To recap, here's how our analysis works: We start by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the Battleground analysis go for the same political party they did in 2000. Thus, President Bush starts with 189 of the 270 electoral votes that are needed to win the White House, and Mr. Kerry begins with 172.

Then, we add in the electoral votes from the latest Battleground poll, regardless of the margin of error or the spread between the candidates. In the latest poll, Mr. Kerry leads in 12 Battleground states (worth 150 electoral votes) and Mr. Bush in three (worth 16 votes). One state, Tennessee (with 11 electoral votes), is a tie.

The bottom line: Mr. Kerry would beat Mr. Bush 322 electoral votes to 205. This marks a big turnaround for the Massachusetts senator. In the prior Zogby poll, Mr. Bush came out ahead in our Battleground analysis, 285-253.

Of course, Mr. Edwards's selection is just one of several items that may have swung voters' views. The economic news took a turn for the worse last week, with release of a weaker-than-expected report on employment conditions. And turmoil continues in Iraq.

The latest results are the best of the four for Mr. Kerry since our first Zogby Interactive poll, published on May 24. In that one, our analysis showed the senator ahead of the president 320-218.

Of course, it's important to keep in mind some caveats. Chief among them: The results from only six of the 16 states in the poll are outside of the margins of error. All of those six, though, go to Mr. Kerry, and those six comprise 80 of the 177 electoral votes up for grabs in the 16 battlegrounds.

Four states whose results had been within the margin of error moved outside the margin -- including Florida. True to its 2000 form, it had remained a close race in the first three Zogby polls: Mr. Kerry led by fewer than two percentage points in the first two polls, while President Bush took the third by 4.2 points. This time, Mr. Kerry was ahead by 6.6 percentage points.

Elsewhere in the south, the Tennessee tie was a big turnaround. Mr. Bush had been running away with Tennessee in earlier Zogby polls, stretching his lead from just 2.5 points on May 24 to 18.8 points on June 21. The Democrats have been hoping that the selection of Mr. Edwards, a North Carolina senator, would help their chances in southern states.

Missouri, Ohio and Michigan -- three crucial heartland states -- turned blue. The three played a big role in Mr. Bush's stronger showing in the prior poll.

Still, President Bush could take some solace from a rebound in Arkansas, which had turned blue in the last poll. West Virginia, another southern border state in which Mr. Kerry might have benefited from Mr. Edwards's selection, moved more firmly into Mr. Bush's camp. He took an 8.2 point lead, just shy of the margin of error.