[Merged] 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Kerry picks Edwards as running mate.

Indeed. Edwards may be able to bring some geography. He did, afterall, carry South Carolina.

However, this is a bit of good news to me. We can now paint the two of them. Kerry has been labeled the #1 most liberal person in the U.S. Senate, and guess who is #2? Edwards. That will not sit well with a lot of folks.

Any thoughts?

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Elected: 1998, 1st term up 2004
Born: June 10, 1953, Seneca, SC
Home: Raleigh
Education: NC St. U., B.S. 1974, U. of NC at Chapel Hill, J.D. 1977
Religion: Methodist
Marital Status: married (Elizabeth)
Professional Career: Practicing atty., 1977-98

- In college, he opposed the Vietnam War and Nixon.

- Edwards registered for the draft in 1971, received a high lottery number for induction, and was never called to serve.



ABORTION - Edwards supports a woman's right to choose.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - Edwards signed an amicus brief that that urged the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

GAY MARRIAGE - Edwards does not support gay marriage. He opposes Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

HEALTH CARE - Edwards proposes offering $25 billion in tax credits for parents to buy insurance from their employers or the Children's Health Insurance Program. He would offer tax credits for parents to buy insurance from their employers or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

NATIONAL SECURITY - Edwards believes we need to shift the authority for tracking down domestic terrorists from the FBI to a new agency. He would seek to establish a new Homeland Intelligence Agency focused entirely on intelligence gathering and analysis.

IRAQ - Edwards supported the war in Iraq.

TAXES - Edwards supports repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year.



hmmmm

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I think it will help him. He isn't that bad, and I think he has a less controversial record, which would help. I believe Kerry is very weak, and he'll struggle to beat Bush, even though things have gone extremely bad for Bush.

Personally, even though she'd wouldn't do as good a job as Edwards, I almost wish he said Hilary Clinton, as it just gives women more ammo to say "They'll never be a woman president", "Politics is a man's world", etc. first step to achieving it anyway.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Edwards also has virtually no experience, and Kerry used to be his enemy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/165012.shtml


Edwards said,


Who is the loser?

Lovely insults:



etc.


Haha.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Yeah well, I think for Kerry, the desire to be president overrides any competitive animosity in the past. I don't think Kerry ever hated Edwards, he had to put Edwards down to win the primaries.

It is worth pointing out to the Brits, despite how important the title sounds, of vice-president, the VP isn't considered the president's most trusted aide. That is normally give to the chief-of-staff post who Kerry will nominate if he wins.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Sounds like a political ploy to me to build some kind of "dream ticket" where the majority of voters feel that they got something out of it. Also useful for generating further support politically given that between the two candidates they have massive voter support.

Given the different stances by the two men on some issues it will be interesting to see what policies and ideas they come forward with.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I think that both candidates are very good there. Kerrys stand on those issues mentioned are V.GOOD :D

I hope Kerry and Edwards win the race they have a good chance

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I would hope that people would vote on the issues and campaign on the issues and not trying to 'paint' the two contenders with the liberal brush.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Bill O'reily made a curious statement about Edwards being chosen to attract the female vote.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Well I don't agree with all of it, but I don't have vehement objections either.

What I'd like somebody to explain to me is the enduring hold Vietnam has on American politics. Why does a successful President of the USA have to have had something to do with a botched military adventure in a part of the world America had no business in?

EDIT

Oh hang on, by that token Kerry might as well give up now, Bush already has the election in the bag :D

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Thats what I never understood either, why would fighting in the war increase your chances. Then again Bush never fought in the war either, he didnt even turn up for training when he was in the army

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Err, should we *really* be commenting on this?

After all, it might upset someone at Fox News and he'd have to rant about the British trying to interfere with US elections again...!! :rofl:

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Perhaps Jerrek is on the Fox payroll as a staff troll? ;)

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Knowing Fox news he is head of news there :p: I am just a-joking :)

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Oh this is classic O'reilly:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

very odd, he seemed fair and balanced until he kept talking about moore and called him a extremist. He also focused a lot on the bad sides the kerry and edwards

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

The key weakness in that speech was the wildly different assessments used to define 'Liberal'. In arriving at a 'Liberal rating' :erm: for Edwards and Kerry, an undisclosed scale by which their Senate voting records could be judged was used. This resulted in apparently high overall scores, in the 80s and 90s percentage wise. But, in assessing whether the American public considers itself Liberal, the simple question 'do you consder yourself to be a Liberal' was used. This is totally unscientific, because you have no 'control' questions to establish what the person asked understands by the word 'Liberal'. This makes any attempt to use this data to show the Democrat candidates as out of step with public opinon completely meaningless.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Is being a liberal and a socialist mutually exclusive? :confused:

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

thats a better way of putting it

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

depends on who fox news is supporting....

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

O'Reilly seems to think so, he makes that distinction when talking about Michael Moore. I would have assumed not; Labour would still call itself 'socialist' yet there's no doubt that the Lib Dems are currently left of Labour on the political spectrum.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

This is getting better and better. I, for one, didn't know too much about Edwards, but lookie here how he made his money:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39327

(emphasis added)

Hmm, yes, interesting. Very interesting. I find it quite ... unsettling that he can claim that, and then turn around and support murdering unborn babies.

(emphasis added)

This guy is a *******. Nothing more.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

You're article fails to state one very important point, when was the theory about caesarian sections discredited? You are correct, it has been discredited, but the article you linked to talks about a rise in the rate of sections in 1970, logic dictates that the court case(s) occurred before this date.

I`ll admit, I've not read these references, they were cited in an article that covers amongst other things the point you were making, but you might notice something interesting about them.

Blair E and Stanley FJ. Intrapartum asphyxia: a rare cause of cerebral palsy. J Pediatr 1988;112(4):515-519.

MacDonald D. Cerebral palsy and intrapartum fetal monitoring. N Engl J Med 1996;334(10):659-60.

Phelan JP and Ock Ahn M. Perinatal observations in forty-eight neurologically impaired term infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(2):424-31.

Richmond S et al. The obstetric management of fetal distress and its association with cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83(5 Pt 1):643-6.

Did you manage to spot the important point? Don`t worry, if you didn`t I`ll highlight it for you, the research is modern. Now, you may argue that there was earlier research I've failed to cite, you may be correct, but here is in article published in 2001

http://chealth.canoe.ca/columns.asp?...articleid=1573

that specifically mentions "recent" research, which would strongly suggest we are not talking about circa 1970. BTW, I made sure that I included a link to a medical site so that we can get the facts without any political rhetoric.

Medical science dynamic, theories rise and fall with new discoveries. I've seen treatments for cancer using radiation therapy that would make your eyes pop out, almost literally. Try them today and you'd be deafened by the collective lawyers shouting malpractice. At the time the were believed to be the best treatment on offer.

A case can only be argued on what is accepted as medically correct at the time the case was heard. Edwards would have been arguing on the basis of accepted medical knowledge at the time. This, we now know was incorrect, but if you think that court cases can be argued on the basis of research that isn`t conducted for another 20 years then all your credibility goes flying out the nearest window, probably without pause to even open it first.

One of the biggest criticisms directed at people like Michael Moore is that they pick and choose facts and slap them together to form their argument without any consideration of context. If that is true, then you must be a great admirer of his tactics.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Nearest topic i could find that is related

Anyway, With Kerry accpeting the nomination tommorow and having the big speech what do you think his chances are really like? It is neck and neck and usually swing voters who have not made up their minds by election day vote for the other party. I think its something like 10% undicided so it really is down to the wire

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Bush is going to win. In the last election, Al Gore was 15 points ahead this time of year. The Republicans haven't started campaigning yet. They haven't held their convention yet. And, Bush may actually pick Guilliani as his running mate. Plus, Ralph Nader is running.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Of course he'll win- he'll get less votes than Kerry, that should do the trick.

An if it looks a bit dodgy his brother will bail him out with a win in Florida

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

NRA will probably endorse Bush too. PROVIDED, the ban on assault weapons is not renewed.

It expires September 16th. YAY YAY YAY.

Here is one possible outcome:


Compiled 2004 Prediction Map
Dem: 264 - Rep: 274

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2004/07/1.gif

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I was reserching the last election and Gore was always behind in the polls? Up to the last day when it went to the wire. Also the republicans have aired a lot more negitive ads against kerry, only a few dont have a mention about kerry one of them playing on 9/11, (see bushs website) than kerry against bush (see kerrys website) so both sides are going for it.

Gulliani would be a good choice for Bush due to the 9/11 links but it will look like he is taking advantage of 9/11 (lets face it, Apart from 0 tolarance Gulliani was not the biggest figure in politics before 9/11)

I think it will again depend on the swing states especially ohio, i also think folorda will go to kerry but the other big states will be 50/50.

As for Bush i think that if things continue the same way he will be out of office, he needs a event to help him out and also the iraq mess to be sorted out he also has to answer a lot of questions such as the fact that for the first time since the war the employment has gone down under him, the econamy is worse than it was with clinton and also the screw up over iraq

Kerry i think will just wing it if things stay the same but he needs a big speech tommorow to give him some 'presenance' he is a very dull candidate so far so he needs to improve his speechs and look a lot more like a leader

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

sound about right but i think flordia will go to the red. Ohio will be really close. I dont think bush will get both ohio and florida and that will cost him the election will the college votes being so close after the results of the other states

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

No. Immediately after the DNC his numbers jumped.


Gore Pulls 10 Points Ahead in Newsweek Poll
September 2, 2000
In a new national presidential poll conducted by Newsweek Magazine,
Vice President Al Gore seems to have pulled substantially ahead of
George W. Bush, just as Bush launches a blitz television ad campaign
making attacks on Gore's credibility.

Newsweek Poll results, nation-wide (Aug. 30-31):
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%
Ralph Nader 3%
Pat Buchanan 1%

Iowa Poll sponsored by the Des Moines Register (Aug. 23-30):
Al Gore: 45%
George W. Bush 37%

Vermont Poll by Mason-Dixon:
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 36%


What are you saying? Your English is hard to follow.

Maybe liberals will see it like that, because it is hard to say something bad about Guilliani without getting a public retaliation. The majority of the people won't see it as a negative mark and it may swing more people to vote for Bush.

Ohio will vote Republican. And I'm reasonably confident Florida will too.

No. He can continue just like he is doing right now. He is a terrific guy and a good president. And, the Republican National Convention is coming up. That can be one event that will get the message out a bit.

After that, the campaign will kick into high gear.

There is no "mess" in Iraq. Maybe for liberals, who expected a utopia of love and flowers after 2 days there. Most of us are more realistic. Iraq has its own government now, and the Iraq police and army are slowly taking over patrolling and guard duty.

You can bet that there will be Iraqis featured in upcoming Republican campaign ads and probably at the Republican Convention... something Democrats wouldn't dare do.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200407/07272004.html#convention

Had a Boston taxi driver yesterday from Iraq. He's going back home to visit his parents in a few weeks. He was none-too-pleased with the Democrats. He believes that Democrats hate his country and want Saddam to be back in power. He was adamant that things are much better in Iraq than the media is saying ... and he's at a loss as to why all of these media types won't tell the truth

No its not... It is better. We had a quarter with 8% growth. And a few more all over 4% growth. That is more than anytime since Reagan. Unemployment is also down, to 5.6%.

In the late 90s, when unemployment dropped so low under Clinton, media hailed it as "an all-time low of 5.6%" and what a great shape the economy is in. We'll apply the same standards.

People don't trust him. And, people don't know where he stands. I for one will not vote for someone who I don't know where he stands.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

This can't be good news for Kerry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul26.html


Neither can this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/in...st/27conf.html

Haha, so the UN wants elections after U.S. elections...


How about this? I mean, our economy is in the toilet:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...ptlNM&refer=us


Bummer. But it just doesn't stop!

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/28160.htm



Now, if I could ask 10 questions to Kerry here is what they will be:

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Could you not think of your own instead of plagiarising them from

http://www.armageddonproject.com/wogdiary/

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I dunno, The BBC and Sky news have both mentioned that gore was behind for most of the race maybe hes lead in the polls dropped. Also that was after the Conventation, kerry hasnt had his keynote yet

that both partys have started the campaining

Yeah, Proberly. But there will still be some people questioning the move...

There are both swing states, ohio was won by a 4% margin by bush but has since lost jobs and is hotely contested. Florida is always going to be tricky

The Polls are equal, like i said it will be close


Support has continued to drop for the war in the us what with all the american deaths and if that continues it wont be good for bush

thats not proof of anything though, It is just one person point of view. Also the Democrats where not fully against the war and never ever 'wanted saddam to be back in power'. Americans are not stupid they know the Democrats are not pro saddam or hate america and many will support the idea of getting the UN back to help

More graphs and stuff to follow later

Agreed, that is kerrys biggest drawback with is why i think it will be close and that kerry needs a good speech tommorow

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

It is from rightwingnews.com actually. And, I put it in quotes. Surely you didn't mistake John's writing style for mine?

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Because I know John personally .... and I've analysed both of your writing styles (as clearly I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time), perhaps if you'd said "what fascistnews.com wanted to ask Kerry" instead of "I"

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I'm surprised that the quotes didn't tip you off that I'm like, err, QUOTING it from another place.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

I understand now, lack of imagination, you should have just said sooner.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

by the way the unemployment figures have gone down. If you read that quote you posted Jerrek, it says 1.3 millions have been made THIS YEAR buut the count went down sharply before that. But that is highlighting how close the election is in the fact that Bush has lost jobs but had a good year so again its 50/50

also as for the budget deficit

Surely spending more on wars and armys is not as important as Education :(


The best weapon against terrorism IS education!

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Perhaps this will help people decide :D

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Just a random thought.....does it all actually matter to us??

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

In a way yes, unfortunately we normally get dragged into whatever conquest the Bush's dream up.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Clinton helped us with ireland as well i belive? Or at least he tried, he had genunie concern for peace

Although I agree with the irai war (just) i think bush is far too violent with his army. That statastic that more money has been spent on the armys than education, transport and housing put together to appaling.

Also Russ D I think it matters to us, there are the most powerful country in the world politically, finance and pure power. They are are closest allies and i think we have a intrest in who is in the white house

Why didnt H.Clinton run anyway? If kerry wins she has no chance till 2012 and then she may be too old while edwards will be just old enough and have the advantage of already being in the white house?

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Clinton != Bush, which is kinda my whole point.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Err, yes...?!?!

Why are we worried about terrorist attacks? Perhaps one reason is because we helped Bush in the invasion of Iraq?

Also our economy and stock market is heavily linked to that of the USA, so I'd prefer someone to lead that country who was going to act responsibly instead of Presiding over a massive deficit etc etc.

Yes, it certainly *does* matter to us.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Lets get a few things straight: the president doesn't create jobs. The best he can do is create an environment to encourage growth. Bush didn't create those jobs anymore than he caused unemployment.

However, my point stands. The economy is quite healthy. Unemployment is low. Interest rates are low. Inflation is in check. Confidence is rising. We had tremendous growth.

While I would prefer not to have a budget deficit, there are a few things to consider:
- the average American will not be basing his vote of off the budget deficit. It is unimportant.
- the United States can afford a budget deficit of this magnitude due to the high demand for the greenback in other countries.

Perhaps. Army = government's job. Education = YOUR job, YOUR responsibility. You really can't compare it.

Right, because if we had spent more on education, 9/11 would never have happened. /rolleyes

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

No, terror is whhat terrorists aim to cause, education can help reduce terror

Also it is the goverment job to fund education

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

No it isn't. The Constitution quite clearly does NOT allocate education to the federal government.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Who responsibility is it to fund education if not the goverment? Education is too expensive for a indivdual to pay for there own unless they are really rich.

If someone is poor what do they do? Everyone should have a right to an education

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Hmm. I could change the thread subject to something like "2004 Presidential Election", so it covered all of this, rather than just Kerry picking Edwards.

Here's another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...270672,00.html

No mess in Iraq? :erm:

Yes, 2 days would be unrealistic, but it's now been over a year since "major combat operations" were over.

It's good that the Iraqi police etc are taking over in some areas.

But things like this, which seem to be happening on a regular basis, are not good.

I know where Bush stands. Which is why I would not vote for him if I were a US citizen.


Ah, the NY Post....Mr Murdoch's print equivalent of Fox News....

I found this quite funny regarding a recent NYP "exclusive".

As for Afghanistan....

The survey was of only 804 people.

It's good that the Taliban are not in power (I was going to say "...are gone", but they haven't gone really), & Karzai is apparently a good president. But the rest of the country outside Kabul is apparently still a nightmare, what with the warlords (no better than the Taliban), & the Taliban. And aid agencies such as MSF pulling out, due to the situation, doesn't help.



Apparently it wouldn't have looked good if she had stood for the 2004 nomination, as she is still only in her 1st 6 year term in the US Senate.

Although if she had run, she would have been very popular.

Interesting article on her (from last November) & whether she would or would not run: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...087351,00.html

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Poor woman, she may never get a chance to run unless kerry loses and she has the back kerry all the way (and has even gone beyond that :O) she is helping sink her own chances...

Back to Education, Jerrek :) Do you really think the goverment shouldnt pay for education using taxs? Doesnt that screw the poor hugely?

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Yeah, cool :D thanks

Something shorter though like "Whitehouse 2004" "Bush vs Kerry" or "USA 2004" "election 04"

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Perhaps, but the responsibility lies with the state governments, not the federal government. Thats why I don't care about federal education funding. It is NOT THEIR JURISDICTION. My state government should budget accordingly.

Mine is a prediction, not a statement of current polls.

Indeed. When we consider that World War I and World war II and the Vietnam War and the War for Independence and the War of 1812 all took longer than one year, I really don't see why people are crying over "not making enough progress."

I don't see how that is a "mess." And I certainly don't see how that relates to Bush. South Africa has a lot of crime too. It is a local problem.

Did you miss this part? The polling firm, Charney Research, is a partisan Democratic polling firm. And superstar Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who's read the study †� and who has worked on similar polling in developing countries †� calls it "very reliable."

However, the majority of people are happy, and pleased that the Taliban is no longer in power. Are you not?

Popular, with who? Foreigners, Europeans, and liberals? Do you really think people will vote for the "bitch?"

We're discussing the federal election and how it relates to education. So, No. No, the federal government should NOT be spending money on education. It is not in Congress's job description in the Constitution, and all the powers NOT listed is reserved to the 50 Sovereign States.

I do not want the federal government ****ing in my state.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

That is fine with me. It might suit the new direction of the thread better.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Oops, true. My mistake. Interesting poll, still ;)

I do agree that these things take time.

However, the current security situation is hardly great, & I believe that if the "peace" (or aftermath?) had been planned as well as the actual war was, things could have been better than they are now.

It shows how there are still huge security problems in Iraq, with the insurgency/resistance/terrorists/name-of-choice etc. I've lost count of the number of times there has been news of yet another car bombing or other attack.

The current security situation in Iraq relates to the Bush administration because it was the Bush administration which planned & implemented the war in Iraq, & the Bush administration which was in control of Iraq, via the CPA, until the recent handover of sovereignty.

I know that South Africa has a lot of crime. But it is not a rogue state which recently underwent regime change at the hands of the US-led Coalition, & has not had the US in control of it while its crime problems got worse.

And repeated car bombings of troops, Iraqi police, civilians, & other terrorist attacks in Iraq, etc., are hardly similar to a "local crime problem"

Nope, I saw that.

My point re: Murdoch ownership & NYP bias was made because although the poll itself may have been conducted by a legitimate (& actually Democrat rather than Republican) polling firm, the actual article itself was a pro-Bush opinion piece.

Plus it gave me a chance to do a bit of RM bashing by giving a link to an - admittedly unrelated - article about a NYP story which turned out to be rubbish. [yes, I am biased against Murdoch media]

As I said in my previous post: "It's good that the Taliban are not in power"

I am glad that the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. And, despite being a Guardian-reading liberal do-gooder (for want of a better phrase ;) ), I did actually support the US led war in Afghanistan.

But, be that as it may, Afghanistan is still a mess. Security & quality of life outside of Kabul are not much better than they were before the Taliban were overthrown. The warlords are in many ways just as bad as the Mullahs they have replaced.

Sorry, should probably have said something more like "Extremely popular with Democrats, liberals etc., & utterly despised by Republicans & conservatives".

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

True :(


Running for principals or ego? Hmm.



Go Ralphy! Split the anti-Bush vote again! :erm: :( :mad:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Hey, Perot did it in 1992, why can't Nader do it in 2004?

William Clinton, Albert Gore Jr. (Democratic) 44,909,806 [43.01%]

George Bush J., Danforth Quayle (Republican) 39,104,550 [37.45%]
H. Ross Perot, James Stockdale (Independent) 19,743,821 [18.91%]

Guess what? If even only 30% of Perot voters voted for Bush, Clinton wouldn't have made it.


PS I don't get your arguing over the Murdoch owned source of the article. Strip the opinion out of it and take the raw polling data.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

A little off topic... Here's is the history of the voting in the United States.

Blue = Republican
Red = Democrat


1976 - James Carter (D) vs Gerald Ford (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1976.gif


1980 - Ronald Reagan (R) vs James Carter (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1980.gif


1984 - Ronald Reagan (R) vs Walter Mondale (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1984.gif


1988 - George Bush (R) vs Michael Dukakis (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1988.gif


1992 - William Clinton (D) vs George Bush (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1992.gif


1996 - William Clinton (D) vs Robert Dole (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1996.gif


2000 - George W. Bush (R) vs Albert Gore Jr. (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe2000.gif

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Interesting. I didn't realise that the Perot vote was so decisive in '92.

Heh, I just like to moan about anything Murdoch owned :shrug: ;)

Very interesting.

I knew Mondale did badly - but not that badly!


Getting back to this election....

I found this interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...263301,00.html

(past the stuff about Hillary Clinton being invited to speak at the Democrat Convention)

Trying to increase their chances of swing-voters or more moderate voters choosing Bush, I assume. [no need to pander to the core supporters as much, as they'll obviously vote Bush anyway]

I guess the Democrats have done similar, though.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

They have, yes, but not in this election. It seems to be dominated by the extreme left, the likes of Noam Chomsky, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Moore, and the other nasties.

When it comes down to voting, they will either have to cater to the extreme left by alienating the swing voters, or try to grab the swing voters thus alienating the far left who will vote for Nader.

Joy.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Goes to show how far to the right the US has gone if it regards someone like Kerry Clinton or Edwards as being extreme left. Kinda makes me sick that it seems to be a crime to be 'liberal' now - suppose people should shut up about personal freedom, etc, take it in the ass from corporate America and enjoy it. If you're poor tough you can go and die quietly somewhere along with the various people getting the shaft from the US Govt in the name of big company interests (whoever can give the right people the right cash).

Here's a nice quote for you Jerrek:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

No, it shows how far we have drifted to the left to have such nutbars in our mist. Come on. You're absolutely not going to tell me we're more to the right from 1776.

The modern day liberal yes. We're not talking about the classical liberal though.

Which is why liberals are such huge fans of the personal freedom to own firearms, and why they protect the Second Amendment with such zeal. Because we know that Democrats are always there to protect personal freedoms. That is why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I have no idea what state the US was in in 1776 - maybe I just see things more clearly. Fact you call these people nutbars says pretty clearly where you are.

Owning firearms isn't a personal freedom, it's a gross violation of other people's freedom to live in my opinion. The right to bear arms was conceived to allow the people to form a militia when they needed to defend themselves, not so that people could buy fully automatic weapons in lieu of having a penis. Your apparent excitement at possibility of being allowed to own fully automatic weapons is far more nutbar behaviour to be honest.

Frankly the attitude that everyone should have a gun has no place in modern society and is the reason why hundreds of people are killed by guns in the US each and every day,

I nearly moved to the US lol don't think I'd fit in right now though :)

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

So you only protect the personal freedoms you like?

That is the left! :tu:

And I really don't want you to move to the United States. :) We've got enough liberals and should start exporting them.

Right, so you have NO IDEA what the state of the U.S. was in 1776, but you see things more clearly.

Yes.

I can see that.

Honest.




.
.
.
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I still can't see why we seem to be so bothered over this - America will continue to be the world bully no matter who sits in charge :shrug:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

True, and jerrek will still be overcompensating for not being a real american.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Jerrek:

1) Why should you allow people to carry automatic arms? What on earth is this going to achive? You already have soaring gun crime and making more powerful weapons avaible is stupid?

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

3) Why are the left 'nastys' and what is wrong with clinton who did a lot under this two terms and so on? While George W Bush has made america unpopluar and taken you into a war for which there was no need? I support the removal of saddam and still support the war. But Blair had to force G.W Bush to even try to go though the United Nation, if it was up to bush he would have gone in right away.

The fact is though the Iraq war will cause more Terrorism, not less

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Ah on hindsight it probably wasn't too different from the UK in being massively right to say the least, as indeed most of the rest of the world was. An expert on US history I am not, although I have a general outline of it, although the relevance of politics 200 years ago confuses me.

Obviously you'd rather that we were all back there, and that these disgusting modern phenomenons of liberalism and socialism should be gotten rid of as they are inconvenient to the 'elite' who want the right to make money regardless of who gets hurt in the process, carry lethal weapons whose sole purpose is either as penis enlarger or to kill, abuse the rest of the world, get rid of these nasty taxes that rob them of their money to help those genuinely in strife.

A good part of the rest of the world has moved on in 200 years, shame your belief system and apparently that of the US hasn't.

They still forcing the teaching of creationism and refusing / making it an offense to teach evolutionism in parts of the greatest most forward thinking shining example of democracy and freedom in the world? In between making their citizens the most spied upon by their own Government in the Western world of course (with the possible exception of the UK!).

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Conversely, the right to bear arms, organised militia, blah blah stuff in the constitution was originally intended to prevent the government having a permanent army, for there to be a body of men who could be called upon to defend the country if necessary. Why is ok for there to be federal aspects to the Army, when in fact the constitution argues against the need for a federal army?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Ummmm....could you re-write that? I was talking about the comment Jerrek made about educations being decided by each indivdual state and pointing out that for a far right person to support this is odd as it was one of the main points when the Democratic party was set up

I meant Power in terms of goverment, not army/weapons

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Ah, I was kind of riding off the answer that Jerrek gave to you an which is more important, spending on education or spending on war, with Jerrek arguing that it isn`t for federal government to be spending on education as his response to you. I was merely highlighting the fact that the constitution was created with the intention that there wouldn't be big Federal spending on army. It was from back down the thread a bit and I didn`t get to reply earlier, I just replied to yours as it was a convenient springboard.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Oh right, Well hopefully he will be on soon to answer my questions which are:

1) Why should you allow people to carry automatic arms? What on earth is this going to achive? You already have soaring gun crime and making more powerful weapons avaible is stupid?

2) You said that it is up to state goverment for education. Isn't the idea of giving more power to indivdual states rather than central goverment historically a Democratic idea.?

3) Why are the left 'nastys' and what is wrong with clinton who did a lot under this two terms and so on? While George W Bush has made america unpopluar and taken you into a war for which there was no need? I support the removal of saddam and still support the war. But Blair had to force G.W Bush to even try to go though the United Nation, if it was up to bush he would have gone in right away.

New Question:

4) Since the fact that arms are protected by the constitution, then why spend so much money on a government controlled army which goes against the constitution

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

lucky for bush he has Fox news on side :(

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/real/0...981:300,00.ram

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Lets not drag this into a gun debate. Guns don't cause crime anymore than games cause crime. See this thread: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=15505 Individuals make a decision to commit a crime. A gun can assist, but so can a knife or a baseball bat.

Likewise I can also ask: why should you allow people to [do this] or [do that] or [own this]?

I will tell you why. Our fundamental belief is freedom and liberty. That is why.

No it isn't. Democrats tend to favor a centralized government.

Back to the original argument, yes: no federal funds should be spent on education. It is the jurisdiction and responsibility of the States.

That is a very, very loaded question, quote beyond the scope of the threat. If you do look for an answer, I could summarize what I believe and what reasoning is used.

Let us just say that the fundamental difference, to me, between the classic left and classic right is altruism. The left tend to be altruistic. I'm not.

The popularity concept is quite unimportant to me. I do not care what people think of me. Neither do I really care what people think of my country. Someone once said: a leader is a person who doesn't care what people think of him.

I don't want to live in 90% of the world because the conditions and environment is appalling. Why should it bother me if they dislike me? Obviously we're doing something right and they are doing something wrong, and if they dislike me for that, who cares?

This is not a popularity contest.

Yes. The United Nations are quite irrelevant and unimportant. Honestly, did it make a difference?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

That last line unintentionally says more about America than you realise!

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Is there a problem with what aired on television? Something that the people shouldn't know?

*shrug* Lucky for Kerry he has CNN, New York Times, and the vast majority of the media on his side. :(

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Agreed, but if I were to rob somewhere I'd rather have a gun, or I could throw a game at them. I'm sure Saddam thought that too.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Not necessarily, during the last election a lot more negative things were said about gore than Bush. Gore was old and boring, Bush was interesting to read about. The main bias in the press is to make money. IMO Kerry is more boring than Gore.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I think you missed the point. Those folks are blaming a GAME for *causing* the murder. The majority of people are loudly proclaiming that is bull****. I agree.

Similarly, a gun cannot influence your mind and suddenly "force" you to commit a crime.

eh? :confused:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

No, but it does make it a whole lot easier, with more destructive results too than a knife or bat. It is an appliance specifically designed for use as a weapon and particularly effective in that re-guard.

I think I remember that one of the many varying reasons for the legalisation of the war was that Saddam had broken countless UN resolutions in the past. I'm not certain if that one was used in the US but I would put money on it. He had no respect for the UN hence he broke their rules, which indirectly (Bush) or directly (Blair) resulted in his removal. So in that respect the UN does matter.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

But how many murders are spur of the moment things simply because a gun was easily available, where if the murderer had to make an effort other than simply go to the bedroom drawer they may have had the chance to calm down? Guns may not "force" people to commit a crime, but they do a damn job of facilitating the act.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Fox news however desends into racism against the french at some points. Also those comment are openly pro-bush and anti kerry. That is not fair and balanced

But you do not make it easyer for them. A knife is harder and kills one person at a time. A automatic rifle is easy and can kills loads of people at a time

Murder is one by the person but you do not make is easy. Would you give WMD to terrorists? They can still kill you anyway so whats the harm?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Is this why the prisons in the US are filling up with people at record rates?

By your argument the government should legalise all recreational drugs, but I can`t see that happening any time soon.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Yes they should. And I don't see that happening anytime soon either. It is very frustrating because they are wasting bloody billions of dollars on this "war on drugs."

Morality doesn't come from the government; it comes from the people.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

so you think that drugs should be legal? Why? What possible good will come out of that? More people will become addicted, it will be harder to give up, more strain will be put on health.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Why? Because it is YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to do whatever you want to do if it doesn't infringe on anyone's right. If you want to smoke some weed in your home with some friends, what right do I have to tell you you can't do that?

I don't. Your rights stop where mine starts.

Really? Then why is addiction rates in Netherlands lower than in the United States? Making something legal won't cause everyone to suddenly try it and become addicted.

I have no opinion on a the legality of drugs in a society where society funds health care. I don't want to live in such a society. It really does complicate things. Because, now I can say, we should outlaw [this] and [that] because I'm paying for YOUR health care. It gives others justification to make decisions over other people's individual rights.

No thanks.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

You CANNOT claim that rights protect breaking laws. Drugs are a awful thing and you cannot make some of the worse drugs legal just because you have some stuffy idea that your rights allow it.

Your rights should not effect the rights of other people, and alllowing drugs and weapons will be a recipe for disater. For a start drugs takes away your self control. Would you make it legal to drink and drive because 'its your right'?

How can you claim to be fighting terrorism when your allowing people to legal carry powerful weapons? What need do people have for powerful weapons? Protection? Well you have handguns for that

Automatic weapons are designed for ONE reason and thats to kill a lot of people quickly and you do not have the right to allow people to have a weapon that can do this

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

So we should make alcohol, which is many times worse than marijuana, and cigarettes, which is many times more addictive than marijuana, illegal. Right?

I see absolutely no connection to me owning a powerful weapon and terrorism.

That question is not for you to ask. Just because you can't see what a dam is for doesn't mean there isn't a river on the otherside.

If you ask that question, you can justify taking away ANY right based on "I don't see why you should have that right."

And how many crimes do you see committed in the United States with high powered assault weapons?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I am against drugs because they spark biological changes and cause priority changes beyond rational thinking, thus damaging society as well as the individual.

It would also take free enterprise to a dangerous level and likely increase crime.

Sure I wish people were responsible to make the right choice on their own, but judging by the raising levels of obesity I am finding this less and less likely.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I never said we should allow tabacco, stop putting words in my month to try and make my agurment unmined. I never said that. As for alcohol thats tricky as there is no harm in moderation and i support touger laws on abuse of it. But herion and such are worse

Effectivly, you are making it easyer for a terrorist to carry weapons by making them legal

Awful point, A dam IS useful a weapon is not. What do you need a weapon for? The fact that you cannot jusfity a reason shows you dont know one either. SO you support allowing powerful weapons for no reason other than rights?

What will the weapons be used FOR? answer me that! What is the one thing these weapons can do? KILL


Not many, because they are banned but what will happen when avagre joe can walk around with a automatic rifle

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

The keyword here being "moderation." Heroin can be taken in moderation too, in the safety of your own home.

You are hypocritical that you want to outlaw one drug, but not the other. Why? Your argument is that it alters your state of mind and can be dangerous to others. Well, alcohol does the same thing. If you want to take that position, clearly state to me that you support banning alcohol so I can know where you stand.

So? What is your point?

What do *I* need one for? Sporting.

Really? Since when? The manufacturers made tiny changes to the guns that were banned, so they became "unbanned." Additionally, guns in circulation are legal.

http://www.calssportingarmory.com/AssaultRifles.htm

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Herion is not something that is harmless in small doses, alcohol is. Also herion is already outlawed making it legal is not the way to go.

Tabacco would be ilegal if it had just been invented now, but the fact is too many people are using it making it harder for govements to ban it.

Simple fact is that you cannot say that i am hypocritical for allowing one drug and not the other. Herion is worse than achohol, drugs are diffrant and you cannnot place them under one banner. Hard drugs should be banned


Either way carrying atuomatic weapons is not a good idea, You can hunt with shotguns and rifles and protect yourself with tasers/handguns

the fact remains that automatic weapons make it a lot easyer to kill lots of people and have no advantage

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

And because it is so easy, we see mass killings every day!

RUN!!!!!!!!!11111111

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Nearly ANY food substance does. Chocolate and sugar especially. Again look at obecity to see where moderation fails. I am not saying ban sugar or chocolate and the liberal in me says that people should be allowed to be fat if they want to and I'm prepared to except that. However I don't think society could responsibily use Herion in moderation yet and to allow it to get carried away would destroy the country.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Actually heroin, in small doses, is pretty harmless.


Anyways, agree to disagree. I don't see why YOU should have anything to say over how I spend my time in my home. That involves drugs and having sex with a guy and sporting with assault weapons.

Respect my right to smoke weed, have sex with a guy, and enjoy assault rifles and I will respect your right NOT to smoke weed, NOT to have sex with a guy, and NOT to own an assault rifle.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Less Guns = Less People Killed

While guns dont kill people they make it a hell of a lot easyer. dont acoid the main issue with stupid comments ;)

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Fair do's, if you can respect my right to have relatively low crime rate in my country, my right not to get shot and my right to live in a society that doesn't loose rationality in favour of chemical stimulation.

PS: I don't see how sex with a guy could cause that so I guess your safe with that one

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

heroin is harmful even in small doeses, look it up also it is harder to control the habit than drinking

Weapons can harm the rights of other people

sigh. I am leaving this topic (although not the thread) you wont answer the questions you will just shout buzz words such as rights

If you dont understand the issues then dont try to argue them

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Actually i am inclined to agree with Jerreck on the drug issue. In moderation, most drugs will not harm you. This is the same with Alcohol, Tabbaco etc. The problem starts when people take them too much, causing addiction which COULD lead to crime. The problem today, is that the drugs are seen in such a bad light, because no one really talks about what happens when drugs are consumed. All we get drummed in to us is drugs = bad = crime. I know people who have been addicted to heroin who have held down jobs, and lead a perfectly legal life (apart from buying it of course) the same goes with coke/pills whatever.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

:notopic:

While I do actually find this debate interesting, can people please try & get back on topic - rather than having a debate about the pros/cons of firearms, drugs, & so on [unless it's relevant to the actual election e.g. Bush/Kerry positions on those issues]

It's easy to start another thread if someone wants to continue a discussion which is off-topic in another ;) :)



:)

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

And you want me to vote for HIM?