[Politics Poll]Who will win?

[ThePatriot]

This is just a side note, but it needs some addressing:

Most of you should be mature enough to stop the name calling....as far as I am concerned the two (major) candidates for president. They are George W. Bush and John Kerry. There is no need to call the candidates names, like it or not, they both were elected to their respective offices, and are currently leaders in the USA.

Granted, I have my own political views, but no one will ever catch me making fun of someone else's name. It just seems so immature. We all should be able to debate the issues with civility and respect to both candidates.

Excellent point.

 

[Lee]

They actually had a news headling that Al Gore had won also, then a few hours later Bush, then on the UK news no-one knew who had one, then the whole debate on voters not having their votes counted, including soldiers and service men and women over seas. We had that in the UK when they tried postal voting, it got rigged, but this is about USA election I hope this time it gets done correctly and the president sworn in got there via more votes than the loser.

 

[melon]

You unfortunalty failed to answer my question. Instead you just say that Bush failed, and avoided the question with a blanket statement. Let me guess, you don't now how long it should take, but Kerry will do it better than Bush....right! So what then, we elect Kerry for the war on terror, but if he don't get them all in 2 years (a year shorter than Bush to date) then we impeach him, cause he failed?

Bush's failures in this respect have generally been logistical. While it has been difficult to capture Osama bin Laden, we also let Mullah Omar of Afghanistan slip out of a city we supposedly surrounded with him in it (he was observed in the city, so it is known that he was there at the time we surrounded it). Needless to say, we haven't found him since.

I also don't like the diversion from the "war on terror" that he made in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, contrary to the rhetoric, was certainly no more "dangerous" than, say, the leaders of Syria, Libya, Iran, or a countless number of dictatorships in the Middle East and Africa. Then, in absence of WMDs, we get "the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam." True, perhaps, but, before the UN embargo, Iraq was a very prosperous nation and their people had a fairly high standard of living. Certainly not a "free" society, but even our "ally," Saudi Arabia, is no more "free" than Saddam's Iraq and is certainly not without its cruelty. Basically, if you avoided challenging Saddam's authority (just like if one avoid challenging Saudi Arabia or China's authority, for instance), an Iraqi could live a decent life. I want to reiterate that this is not a defense of Saddam Hussein. The only question I pose is how Saddam Hussein is any different from other autocratic regimes in the region or different from any other global autocratic regimes, as a whole. Thus, why aren't we working to overthrow these autocrats, if it is about "human rights"? Or, if it is about WMDs, then why didn't he go after Iran?

Instead, Paul Wolfowitz once had a slip of the tongue in the media, and outlined why they actually went to war. Most of the "war hawks" in the Bush Administration (including Wolfowitz here) are part of the right wing think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ), which has outlined its ideas on how to maintain American global dominance in the 21st century. One of its main ideas, dating back to the Clinton Administration (e.g., prior to 9/11) was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and shift the American military bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, where they are also acutely conscious that their presence in the Arabian Peninsula angers Al Qaeda. Thus, this is really why Iraq was so "pressing." They wanted to use the guise of anti-terrorism to enact their pre-determined agenda. In Wolfowitz's own words, WMDs were merely an excuse to overthrow Saddam that could be "mutually agreed upon."

In other words, I don't think Bush is doing a good job on the "war on terrorism," merely because I believe he has been using it as an excuse to push through extremist policies that would otherwise never make it to the light of day. Plus, there is evidence out there to show that Richard Clarke was actually the architect of the "war on terrorism" and proposed this in the dying days of the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration, however, wanted nothing to do with it; they were concerned more about building a "missile shield." And that is probably the case; in May 2001, the Bush Administration gave $43 million to the Taliban (evidence is here) as a "reward" for the "War on Drugs," knowing full well that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorist cells were in their nation. The Bush Administration was basically sleeping at the wheel, and now they want a second term? No thanks.

Melon

 

[Electronic Punk]

UK politics doesn't interest me at all and I have even less of an interest in American plitics, but it is all over the news, taking precendence over both the impending hurricaine over there as well as that situtation in the Russian hospitals. Crazy.

 

[Lee]

Poor kids muredered in Russia, over 100 sky news reports, it's a sad thing, innocents seem to suffer 99% of the time.

 

[Xie]

What if instead of invading a country against the UN, and for no good reason, we put all this effort into doing what "we" care about so much ... "the war on terror"? Funny how instead of doing what he vowed he attacked a country that couldn't be linked and just drew large amounts of attention away from everything else the administration was doing.

 

[Xie]

UK politics doesn't interest me at all and I have even less of an interest in American plitics, but it is all over the news, taking precendence over both the impending hurricaine over there as well as that situtation in the Russian hospitals. Crazy.

Not being in the US you should care .. hell if he's elected you might be found to be terrorists because your not enough like the US and we'll be bombing you. </sarcasm>

 

[albybum]

I also think it was highly inappropriate for the Supreme Court to have intervened on the election how it did. We do have constitutional mechanisms to deal with elections like this, and it should have been sent to the House of Representatives.

In the election of 1876 Hayes won 185 electoral votes while Tilden won 184

Tilden held 51% of the popular vote. Just like in 2000, Florida was one of the states where voting disputes cropped up.

A Congressional Electoral committee (composed of 5 HoR members, 5 Senate members, and 5 from the Supreme Court) awarded ALL the questionable votes to Hayes.

Of course, at that point of reconstruction after the Civil War, both sides were offered something. Hayes got the election, but the south was awarded a package deal. Remaining Federal forces would pull out of the occupied South among other things.


If anything, in 2000, a Congressional Committee could have interjected and reviewed everything in more detail, but I don't think it should have just been sent to the House. The Supreme Court has the final word in anything at this point since it is the highest choir in the Judicial System. If it were just sent to the House or Senate, the partisan majority would have just tipped the scale. At least you have a better chance with a Committee.

The only difference is, in 2000, no offerings were made to balance the equation. The winner took all.

 

[GMeagle86]

First, cut down the corn field and you find yer golf ball.

Second, Bush was NOT elected. After the whole Florida screwup and all the media attention on it, there was a full state recount. But he was already sworn in. The media never made a peep about it. No commentary, no sidenote, nothin. And guess what... Bush did not carry the state. Hmmmmmmm... look it up.

I did look it up....here is what I found:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a36841071.htm
http://www.namibian.com.na/2001/November/world/0126045844.html

I could continue.....

 

[ThePatriot]

First, cut down the corn field and you find yer golf ball.

And this happens to be the cornfield...

 

[gonaads]

I did look it up....here is what I found:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a36841071.htm
http://www.namibian.com.na/2001/November/world/0126045844.html

I could continue.....

The fact is that when the several independent post-election vote counts were concluded they found that when using different recount standards there were scenarios which would have resulted in either "BUSH" victories or "GORE" victories.


* If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t stopped the counting
Dec. 9 count by the Counties' own standards -- Bush by 493 votes

* If Gore's original recount request had finished
Recount of four specific counties: Broward, Dade, Volusia and Palm Beach -- Bush by 225 votes

* If all counties agreed to the most widely accepted standard
Statewide, using Prevailing standards -- Gore by 60 votes

* If the 63 counties ordered to recount had used their own standards
Statewide, using individual Custom standards -- Gore by 171 votes

* If the 63 counties ordered to recount had used a single standard
Dec. 9 count using a Uniformed standard -- Bush by 430 votes

* If all counties had used the toughest standard
Statewide, using the most restrictive standard -- Gore by 115 votes

* If all counties had used Gore's standard
Statewide, using the most inclusive standard -- Gore by 107 votes

* If all counties had used Bush standard I
Statewide, approved & accepted by Bush's lawyers -- Gore by 105 votes

* If all counties had used Bush standard II
Statewide, using the Palm Beach "dimple" rule -- Gore by 42 votes

...So in 6-out-of-9 (2/3) recount scenarios, "Gore wins Florida"
...In 3-out-of-9 (1/3) recount scenarios, "Bush wins Florida"

http://www.fair.org/extra/0104/declare-election.html

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/coverup/ConsortiumSpins.htm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/election2000/whowon.htm

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181



But this is all old news an sour milk. What is important is this November. Don't talk, don't post... just go out and vote.

 

[penguin]

I also don't like the diversion from the "war on terror" that he made in Iraq.

There was no diversion here. Weeks before we invaded Iraq President Putin notified Bush that Russian intelligence had uncovered that Sadaam was plannign terrorist attacks upon the US both home and abroad.

The source of this info is CNN. I would post a direct link to the article but I don't have it at this moment. I can ge the link when Spammers-Pardise is back online.

 

[Sazar]

Hummm, if we are still capturing Al-quada terrorists, and that is still on going, taking into custody and eliminating them every day then how can it be a failure? If I gave you a long math problem, and a short time into it I simply said stop, you failed, yet you were still working the problem, how can I say you failed?

if you read what I posted its very obvious...

your analogy is flawed but it proves my point exactly... if you have a math problem and are working on it and then give it up and work on another math problem how do you plan on solving the first one?

its not possible to do so competently...

You unfortunalty failed to answer my question. Instead you just say that Bush failed, and avoided the question with a blanket statement. Let me guess, you don't now how long it should take, but Kerry will do it better than Bush....right! So what then, we elect Kerry for the war on terror, but if he don't get them all in 2 years (a year shorter than Bush to date) then we impeach him, cause he failed?

I don't know how long it will take... do you?

its a loaded question as well..

bush HAS failed because he has failed to secure afghanistan.. he has failed to deal with al-qaeda adequately.. they are STILL a threat... explain to me how smoothly the electoral process in afghanistan has been going?

had he actually continued on his path post 9/11 in pursuing and limiting al-qaeda I would not have issues with them still popping up here and there...
bush has already shown what he will do given a particular situation... kerry has not... so i cannot conclude anything about kerry right now... I just know that bush has already shown what he is made of and its not pretty...

I feel your logic in this piticular area is flawed.

you are entitled to your opinion but putting forth loaded analogies to disprove something that IMO is effectively fact doesn't mean that my logic is flawed

Again, Exactly how long should it take to find, hunt down, and bring justice to 1 million+ terrorists spread out over the enitre middle east. How long should that take to determine success or failure?

I don't know how long it will take... I don't think anyone does... i think you know this very well

bush changed his priorities from terrorists to soverign nations... obviously bush felt that 1 year was sufficient in afghanistan and that a skeleton force should be able to prevail...

Reguarding Osama, it is 1 man in a country that will do anything to protect him and hide him. If I hit a golf ball into a corn field, how long will it take you to find it? Would you ever find it? Or maybe we should invade Afganistan, then Syria, and Turkey till we find him?

bush said osama was priority number 1 and that he would not rest till he had hunted him down and smoked him out of his caves...

a year later he is saying that osama is no longer a priority...

/me shrugs...

wrt afghanistan they will not do anything to protect him there only al-qaeda and the taliban will.... not the people in north iraq and not most of the rest of the population...

we have already invaded afghanistan and I am sure syria is one of the nations bush is willing to pull his itchy trigger finger on...

Really, I did't know he stole the White House. Last I check he was elected.

right then...

 

[Perris Calderon]

There was no diversion here. Weeks before we invaded Iraq President Putin notified Bush that Russian intelligence had uncovered that Sadaam was plannign terrorist attacks upon the US both home and abroad.

The source of this info is CNN. I would post a direct link to the article but I don't have it at this moment. I can ge the link when Spammers-Pardise is back online.

bush ignored his most trusted aids when they told him in a formal brief that America would be attacked
1) by bin laden

2) with highjacked planes being used as missiles

3) that the targets would be financial institutians and political structures

4) that the attack would be soon

5) that the threat was so serious. "everybody's hair was on fire

he ignored his aids, did absolutely nothing with the information, and stayed on vacation

when the report was made public, he had the NERVE to tell the American people that the report was "historical"

however, the very aids that wrote the breif testify that they specifically made it crystal clear that these threats WERE OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN

he did nothing

bush was informed by his own aids that taking the fight to iraq would harm the fight against terrrorism, NOT facilitate it

he was also informed by his own aids that that action WOULD put this nation in MORE danger not less

these are the facts

 

[Maveric169]

First, cut down the corn field and you find yer golf ball.

Second, Bush was NOT elected. After the whole Florida screwup and all the media attention on it, there was a full state recount. But he was already sworn in. The media never made a peep about it. No commentary, no sidenote, nothin. And guess what... Bush did not carry the state. Hmmmmmmm... look it up.

I got $50 that says I put a golf ball in a cut cornfield you still wouldn't find it!

But do you mean by cutting down the corn field that we should level an entire country to find 1 person?

And you call Bush an extreamist!

 

[Maveric169]

There was no diversion here. Weeks before we invaded Iraq President Putin notified Bush that Russian intelligence had uncovered that Sadaam was plannign terrorist attacks upon the US both home and abroad.

The source of this info is CNN. I would post a direct link to the article but I don't have it at this moment. I can ge the link when Spammers-Pardise is back online.

Yes there was a VERY big Diversion by the Bush admin. Make no mistake about that. If you ask 100 people on the street why we are in Iraq over 80% will say because of 9/11. Iraq was a seperate agenda that has been on the "books" since Clinton was in office. The Bush Admin. just put the spin on 9/11 to engage the Iraq agenda. Don't BS yourself about that.

 

[Perris Calderon]

here's the worst thing that nobody is even talking about;

this president was advised by his aids that the attack on september 11 was the taliban

he was told that our forces were poised, and prepared for a response against the attack that we were well expecting

BUSH IGNORED THIS ADVISE, TRYED TO ATTACK IRAQ INSTEAD!!!

when this wouldn't fly, he WAITED OVER A MONTH TO MOUNT THE DEFENSE OF THIS NATION, AND ALLOWED THOSE THAT ARE BANDED AGAINST THIS COUNTRY TO DISPERSE AROUND THE GLOBE.

the very notion that ANYONE wants this man to be in charge of this nation flies in the face of any reason what so ever

it's no longer issues in America, it's party loyalty...that's all that matters, and when we vote for 4 more years of this leadership, what we get from him we will well deserve

 

[GMeagle86]

The fact is that when the several independent post-election vote counts were concluded they found that when using different recount standards there were scenarios which would have resulted in either "BUSH" victories or "GORE" victories.

~~~
~~~
~~~

http://www.fair.org/extra/0104/declare-election.html

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/coverup/ConsortiumSpins.htm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/election2000/whowon.htm

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181



But this is all old news an sour milk. What is important is this November. Don't talk, don't post... just go out and vote.

I don't mean to keep bring this subject up, but when you say Independent vote count sources...

I personally don't think either of the parties is a great news gathering source due to the obvious bias. You list websites like fair.org, democrats.com, bushwatch.com, makethemaccountable.com and the others, I do not consider those unbiased sources. While the main public news sources are not without bias, they are definitely less biased than some of those websites you mentioned.

Like you said....time to move on and focus on the upcoming election. My last post on this subject in this thread.

 

[penguin]

BUSH IGNORED THIS ADVISE, TRYED TO ATTACK IRAQ INSTEAD!!!

You believe everything you read in Clarkes book?

AND ALLOWED THOSE THAT ARE BANDED AGAINST THIS COUNTRY TO DISPERSE AROUND THE GLOBE.

They were already disbursed around the globe. Al Queda had and still have active cells all over the world.

 

[Perris Calderon]

You believe everything you read in Clarke's book?

these are the facts as reported by TENNET, Clarke, rhumsfeld, rice, in point of fact, the points are admitted by all of the bush administration

when asked if he wanted to attack iraq straigt up instead of afghanistan, rhumseld even goes so far as to say;

"of course we knew it was alqaeda...but there were no good targets in afghanistan...there were good targets in Iraq"

CAN YOU BELIEVE HE ADMITS TO SAYING THIS?

well he does

and he has the NERVE to say this EVEN THOUGH we were poised, prepared, and expecting to attack Afghanistan in defense of this nation

there is NOTHING TO DISBELIEVE, these are the absolute facts, and NOBODY denies them

They were already disbursed around the globe. Al Qaeda had and still have active cells all over the world.

hardly.... because of this president doing NOTHING to defend this nation, these cells SURELY more in number then if the president reacted AS HE WAS ADVISED.

there is no excuse for the behavior of this head of state, and Americans will be paying a price not yet told for a time of generations not yey known

and then he has the NERVE to tell us that he is somehow "fighting terrorism", when in fact he is facilitating their efforts, caused this nation to be in more danger, not less, caused the world to band against us in a vile hate never before seen on our history

that despite the fact that before his decisions, we as Americans enjoyed the most respect and regard we had ever enjoyed in our young history.

I didn't think it was possible to do that kind of harm to our image in such a short period of time, yet this man managed the feat.

if we re elect him, we will deserve from that point forward what he does to us as a nation and a people