[Merged] 2004 US Presidential Election

[Jerrek]

I don't know who that is.


---
John Kerry

Voted against the Iraq war,
Before he was for the Iraq war,
Before he voted for the Iraq war,
Before he was against the Iraq war,
Before he voted for funding the Iraq war,
Before he voted against funding.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I don't know who that is.


---
John Kerry

Voted against the Iraq war,
Before he was for the Iraq war,
Before he voted for the Iraq war,
Before he was against the Iraq war,
Before he voted for funding the Iraq war,
Before he voted against funding.

I think it just shows that he tried to think about the complexities of the situation. I don't like oppertunism but I don't mind a politition who unsure about things and thinks things through.

what I find with this Bush v's kerry thing is this:-

Here in the UK we are hearing a hell of a lot about Kerry, last time we heard so much about the "other" person was when bush cheated to get into the whitehouse anyway.

Still, look at the UK's politics, we can have a ruling government that doesnt get even 40% of votes, thats corruption for you.

[Jerrek]

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - liberals: good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - liberals: bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - liberals: good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - liberals: bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - liberals: good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - liberals: bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - liberals: good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - liberals: bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - liberals: good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - liberals: bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - liberals: good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - liberals: bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - liberals: good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - liberals: bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - liberals: good...
No WMD found Iraq - liberals: bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - liberals: good...
Economy slows under Bush - liberals: bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - liberals: good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - liberals: bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - liberals: good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - liberals: bad...


Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - liberals: good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - liberals: bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - liberals: good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - liberals: bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - liberals: good...
Saddam turned over for trial - liberals: bad...

Originally Posted by Jerrek

<snip>

Anything vaguely in favour of Bush - Jerrek: Good.

Anything vaguely against Bush - Jerrek: Bad.

Supposition, hearsay, innuendo - Jerrek: Good.

Facts, cites, proof - Jerrek: Bad...

[Jerrek]

Most Democrat candidates received a bump after the Democrat National Convention. Historically,

Jimmy Carter in 1976: 16 points

Walter Mondale in 1984: 16 points

Michael Dukakis in 1988: 11 points

Bill Clinton in 1992: 30 points

Al Gore in 2000: 19 points


Well, what about Kerry? Read this.

In the survey, taken Frida.y and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.

However, earlier:

A Newsweek poll taken Thursday and Friday gave the Democratic ticket a 49%-42% lead. Over three weeks, that reflected a 4-point "bounce" for Kerry, the smallest ever in the Newsweek poll.

So kerry got the smallest ever bounce, and then fell.


This is the highpoint. From here on, the Democrats are going down. That is my prediction.



Democrat senator Zell Miller (D-GA) wrote this...

Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.

Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.

Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

(extracts, emphasis added)



How about the wives?

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28359.htm

Mrs. Bush is rated 66 percent favorable and 12 percent unfavorable †� a 5-to-1 positive ratio †� while Heinz Kerry is rated 27 percent favorable and 26 percent unfavorable.

Kerry is having problems.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

what I find with this Bush v's kerry thing is this:-

Here in the UK we are hearing a hell of a lot about Kerry, last time we heard so much about the "other" person was when bush cheated to get into the whitehouse anyway.

Wait, I thought BBC was supposed to be unbaised and neutral? Or perhaps they are simply not covering Bush? I thought they're supposed to cover news so extensively? And now you tell me you can't even get news on what is happening in America?

OMG

[Jerrek]

It seems Kerry, a supporter of the assault weapon ban law, is relucant to vocally voice his support.

http://www.thehill.com/news/072904_late/guns.aspx

Gun-control advocates say that Sen. John Kerryââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s presidential campaign is divided about how vocal the senator should be in calling for the assault-weapons ban to be renewed.

Kerryââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s reluctance to mention the controversial issue on the campaign trail has agitated proponents of the ban, which is scheduled to expire Sept. 13.

In his new book, My Life, Clinton wrote that the 1994 vote to ban assault weapons came at a high political price, costing many House Democrats their seats in Congress.

So now Kerry is sitting between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't put more effort into pleasing the anti-gun folks, they will get annoyed with him and perhaps withdraw their support. If he does, even more of the folks in the middle will see that the NRA is upset and move to the right. He can't please both.

According to Bill Clinton, what did the assault weapon ban cost the Democrats in the 1990s?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Wait, I thought BBC was supposed to be unbaised and neutral? Or perhaps they are simply not covering Bush? I thought they're supposed to cover news so extensively? And now you tell me you can't even get news on what is happening in America?

OMG

There's been a lot of news about Kerry because of the Democrat Party's Convention.


I'm sure when the Republican Convention takes place, there'll be plenty of news about that & Bush.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Wait, I thought BBC was supposed to be unbaised and neutral? Or perhaps they are simply not covering Bush? I thought they're supposed to cover news so extensively? And now you tell me you can't even get news on what is happening in America?

OMG

They are suppose to carry news the public are interested in or in public interest. It isn't our election so they aren't required to carry anything at all.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

<snip>

We don't let chav **** have assult rifles, when are you guys going to realise there's a very good reason for it

[Jerrek]

OK, how stupid and hypocrital can Kerry be?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127704,00.html


There we have Kerry bashing away Bush as "asleep" on intelligence. The fact is, as a Senate Intelligence Committee member, he missed 38 of 49 intelligence meetings in eight years.

Who is the problem?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Wait, I thought BBC was supposed to be unbaised and neutral? Or perhaps they are simply not covering Bush? I thought they're supposed to cover news so extensively? And now you tell me you can't even get news on what is happening in America?

OMG

The original statement merely pointed out the fact that we are getting a lot of coverage about Kerry, there is nothing in that statement from which you can draw a conclusion regarding the coverage about Bush.

With spin and distortion skills such as yours I`m forced to wonder whether you haven`t been taking lessons from Michael Moore.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

According to Bill Clinton, what did the assault weapon ban cost the Democrats in the 1990s?

So you lambast Kerry for flip-flopping on a stance, then take great pleasure in pointing out the cost to the Democrats of not flip-flopping on a stance. Somewhat contradictory stances, I feel. Besides, better to stand up for your beliefs than to be dictated to by a bunch of gun-nuts in the hills.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

How about the wives?

Who gives a damn? They aren`t running for President, and if this is such an important issue in the campaign process perhaps everyone over there should grow up a little and start to focus on serious issues.