PDA

View Full Version : 2004 Presidential Election


Roguish Lawyer
03-04-2004, 10:58
OK, who is going to win and why.

NOTE: The topic is who is going to win, not who you want to win. So vote and discuss please. :)

DunbarFC
03-04-2004, 11:03
I believe Bush will be re-elected

In all honesty I believe the way Kerry carries himself especially his droning manner of speech will be off putting to a lot of folks

Add to that his seeming ability to be on all sides of an issue and I believe most folks will opt for keeping Bush

Particularly if economic indicators keep looking up

Surgicalcric
03-04-2004, 11:17
George W Bush

The only message the Democrats have is that of anger. They dont hve any better ideas of how to run the nation, they just dont like Bush's. I think come november people will have heard enough of Kerry's hate Bush speeches.

Sacamuelas
03-04-2004, 11:45
Bush.

Kerry has not been attacked for being the type politician that he really is yet. He is a wishy-washy panderer to the masses. His time is coming. Bush has been bashed for the last few months.

The republican PR machine will fire up and we will be victorious. :D

NousDefionsDoc
03-04-2004, 11:53
Bush,
He knows how to play the game and has the team. They are getting ready to destroy Kerry and Bush's skeletons are already public knowledge.

Roguish Lawyer
03-04-2004, 12:10
Looks like I picked another controversial one, eh? LOL

There is lots of time before the election, but I think Bush is a virtual shoo-in. I say this principally because the economy is coming back very rapidly. This may not be so apparent to the general public yet, but the capital markets are humming and that foreshadows lots of new jobs and happy voters.

Plus I think we're going to continue kicking ass abroad, which won't hurt. ;)

shadowflyer
03-04-2004, 13:22
Bush.

He has the right team at the right time. GWB is about to MASSACRE Kerry. I can not even stand to hear Kerry speak he makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

I am proud to be serving with Bush as CINC. I think President Bush is the right man for this country at this time in our history.


Best Regards,

JJ

BUSH 2004

myclearcreek
03-04-2004, 15:05
Kerry does not have a platform. If he does, he forgot where he put it. :D

President Bush will win.

Thank God there is no Ross Perot wannabe this time around.

NousDefionsDoc
03-04-2004, 15:18
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/kerry_south_040126-1.html

Ambush Master
03-04-2004, 15:19
It will be Bush. I'm more worried about the NEXT one than this one. I would bet that the Clintons are somehow going to undermine Kerry, so's Hillary will have a clean shot next go-round !!!

Who will there be to put up a very good opposition then ???

DunbarFC
03-04-2004, 15:36
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/kerry_south_040126-1.html

So he is going to run with the " I'm a liberal from Massachusetts ! " strategy

Great I get him back as a Senator for 4 more years............:rolleyes:

lrd
03-04-2004, 15:46
President Bush will win.

To frame the question differently: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush. James Lileks

NousDefionsDoc
03-04-2004, 15:49
Where did you get that quote?

DunbarFC
03-04-2004, 15:54
Well it's here according to Google...QUOTE (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks021204.html)


Getting paid to surf the web is such a bonus

Gypsy
03-04-2004, 15:58
I believe President Bush will win. Kerry's voting record alone speaks volumes..at least to me. Anybody that wants to allow the UN to dictate to us how to handle our Country's security does not deserve to hold office. The WOT isn't about making nice and appeasing the world at large, but that is all I hear out of his mouth. I shudder at the thought of Kerry wi...no can't say it, and I pray after the next 4 years in office Bush's replacement will be equally as strong.

lrd
03-04-2004, 16:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Where did you get that quote? Sorry, I forgot to cite my source.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks021204.html

Edit: I see DunbarFC beat me to it. :)
Edit 2: Can't spell either.

Intruder
03-05-2004, 02:29
Bush.

Kerrys been on the warpath for months and Georgy hasn't even begun to fight. They can release all the poll numbers about W slipping that they want (We saw how accurate they were 2 months ago for Dean.) When Kerrys voting record and true left-wing position (more liberal than Teddy!) gets out there to the masses, they'll quickly see whats truth.
And this hoopla about the country being 50/50: BS. As usual, the loud minority "own" the media and appear bigger than they are by shear headlines. Has anybody else noticed the voter turn-outs for the primaries? I thought there was a Democratic juggernaut out there to "take back the stolen 2000 election!"...? :rolleyes:

.45ACP
03-05-2004, 03:28
Intruder posted:
And this hoopla about the country being 50/50: BS. As usual, the loud minority "own" the media and appear bigger than they are by shear headlines.

I completely agree with this. The minority always seems to be far more vocal and thus get more attention. I think the majority of the U.S. will see Kerry for what he really is. A wishy washy, hypocrite...I won't get into it.

Like others have said, Bush and his team are just barely getting started and he has said as much in recent days. Time magazine recently had a pretty good article on this. I particularly like this qoute from Bush, "The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one Senator from Massachusetts." LOL, (Time, March 04 pg. 41) I think we will all be seeing a lot more of that over the next few months.

Gypsy
03-05-2004, 09:13
I like this one...a sound bite off of a comment President Bush made (from FNC). Paraphrasing here but the basic statement was to the effect that Kerry has been a senator for a long time and because of that has been able to vote on both sides of the issues. :D

NousDefionsDoc
03-05-2004, 10:10
Originally posted by Intruder
Bush.

Kerrys been on the warpath for months and Georgy hasn't even begun to fight. They can release all the poll numbers about W slipping that they want (We saw how accurate they were 2 months ago for Dean.) When Kerrys voting record and true left-wing position (more liberal than Teddy!) gets out there to the masses, they'll quickly see whats truth.
And this hoopla about the country being 50/50: BS. As usual, the loud minority "own" the media and appear bigger than they are by shear headlines. Has anybody else noticed the voter turn-outs for the primaries? I thought there was a Democratic juggernaut out there to "take back the stolen 2000 election!"...? :rolleyes:

Do you know the POTUS? I mean personally.

DunbarFC
03-05-2004, 10:27
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Do you know the POTUS? I mean personally.

;)

As a George myself.....we hate being called "Georgie" some time after we turn 5.........

AustinMillbarge
03-05-2004, 12:36
Originally posted by lrd
Sorry, I forgot to cite my source.


http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks021204.html

Edit: I see DunbarFC beat me to it. :)

"North Koreans for Kerry", a non-editorial account (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381535832&p=1012571727088)...

(hope this hasn't been posted already)

North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid
By Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington
Published: March 4 2004 20:24

North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader.

But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.

In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.

The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme.

But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards for North Korea if it disarms.

The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war.

If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry. "It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he says.

Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry as soft on national security.

A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as "Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he returned from serving in Vietnam.

Mr Kerry was first introduced to North Korea's information-starved people in early February, when Radio Pyongyang reported that opinion polls indicated he was likely to defeat Mr Bush.

A few days later, the station broadcast comments by Mr Kerry criticising Mr Bush for deceiving the world about Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction. Later in February, KCNA welcomed Mr Kerry's pledge to adopt a more "sincere attitude" towards North Korea if elected.

"Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticised President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea," said the news agency.

Pyongyang's friendly attitude towards Mr Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.

pulque
03-05-2004, 15:52
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Bush's skeletons are already public knowledge.

Maybe.

Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was
blown (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usleak0305,0,2896503.story?co)

D9
03-05-2004, 16:29
Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote. The dems, it's true, don't have a message and are really just campaigning on anti-Bush rhetoric, but I'm not sure there aren't a lot of Americans who are influenced by this garbage.

I think it will be Bush, but it's not a lock. Another attack, or serious problems in Iraq, could really hurt Bush as well. If the economy falters it could be pivotal as well. I hope it's Bush, but I'm not as positive as some others.

NousDefionsDoc
03-05-2004, 16:39
Originally posted by D9
Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote. The dems, it's true, don't have a message and are really just campaigning on anti-Bush rhetoric, but I'm not sure there aren't a lot of Americans who are influenced by this garbage.

I think it will be Bush, but it's not a lock. Another attack, or serious problems in Iraq, could really hurt Bush as well. If the economy falters it could be pivotal as well. I hope it's Bush, but I'm not as positive as some others.

I agree. a lot of people thought Bush I was a lock too.

CRad
03-05-2004, 18:01
Originally posted by D9
Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote.

By 500,000 votes. That's not a lot in the overall scheme of things. A great deal was made of under-votes in Florida (hanging chads) but there were over-votes as well. Had those been counted the results might have been different than Bush winning the state by a mere 500+ votes. some people were so adamant about voting for him that they blocked in their vote then wrote it in as well. Florida was not the only close state. Iowa was unbelievably close. People point to the closeness of Florida and New Hampshire I think was and how Nader caused a loss for Gore. There may be some truth to that but it's equally fair to point out that had a nationwide recount been done the popular vote could easily have gone to Bush.

One thing is for certain, people should be aware of how important it is to mark their ballots carefully, so regardless of the type used if there is a mistake it's on the person. Voting is not something to be taken lightly. Everyone should check and double check that they've done it right regardless of age or education level.

pulque
03-05-2004, 18:03
Originally posted by Intruder
Has anybody else noticed the voter turn-outs for the primaries? I thought there was a Democratic juggernaut out there to "take back the stolen 2000 election!"...? :rolleyes:

Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Republican primary participation has always been higher in numbers in places like S. Carolina. If you compare democratic primaries to democratic primaries you will find that the numbers of participating voters have increased.

Intruder
03-05-2004, 20:41
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Do you know the POTUS? I mean personally.
Originally posted by DunbarFC
;)

As a George myself.....we hate being called "Georgie" some time after we turn 5.........
I have such a like for and trust in the guy I feel like I know him.
So no, I don't know him.

Originally posted by pulque
Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Republican primary participation has always been higher in numbers in places like S. Carolina. If you compare democratic primaries to democratic primaries you will find that the numbers of participating voters have increased.

I can't find the "hard numbers" right now, but this article (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/politics/ny-nyelec043694808mar04,0,6030613.story?coll=ny-nycpolitics-headlines) says basically what I was saying (I also heard similar things about California). My point was being that 2 of the largest "liberal democrat" states had low turnouts. "Surprising" since the media makes a huge deal about how many people dislike Bush.

NousDefionsDoc
03-05-2004, 20:48
Do yourself a favor and don't refer to the CinC that way.

Roger?

brownapple
03-05-2004, 21:21
Originally posted by D9
I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote.

1. We don't elect Presidents on popular vote. We elect members of Congress on popular vote.

2. Did Gore win the popular vote? It isn't as cut and dried as some would have you believe. As far as I know, a comprehensive count of every ballot has never been done except in Florida (where Bush won).

brownapple
03-05-2004, 21:43
Originally posted by pulque
Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.



Record lows (http://wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/vote-o02.shtml) (A site for NDD)

Numbers (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/)

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia... all low...

Primary Turnouts Down (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004_Primaries.htm)

Media Accuracy (http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/weyrich/2004/feb13.html)

Vermont (http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/1667547/detail.html)

More (http://www.news-star.com/stories/110102/opE_36.shtml)

There's more if you want it...

NousDefionsDoc
03-05-2004, 21:47
Originally posted by Greenhat
Record lows (http://wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/vote-o02.shtml) (A site for NDD)



LOL - NOW you've done it!

Airbornelawyer
03-05-2004, 21:55
Originally posted by pulque
Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Republican primary participation has always been higher in numbers in places like S. Carolina. If you compare democratic primaries to democratic primaries you will find that the numbers of participating voters have increased.

Actually, state-by-state, turnout varied. Some states had significantly higher turnouts, some not much higher, and some less.

It is also to some extent misleading to compare changes in turnout. For many of these states, there was no contest in previous years, so turnout was low because there was no point (as the Newsday article implies for NY). It is a logical leap, not necessarily supported by evidence, to ascribe any higher turnout to anger at Bush.

New York: Total turnout for the 2004 NY Democratic Party primary was 673,620. New York's 2000 primary was on March 7, 2000, and turnout was 974,463, so Newsday's blaming low turnout on the time of year is ridiculous. In 1996, Pres. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot so the Democratic primary wasn't held. Newsday's putting it on Kerry already being the presumptive candidate doesn't explain it, as by the 2000 NY primary, Gore had already left Bill Bradley behind too (Gore 66%, Bradley 33%). The main factor is the cost of the NY media market, so no candidate wanted to waste money here. In 2000, it was slightly different in that the Republican field was still open, so there was more attention paid in the NY media to the election in general.

California is also an expensive media market. California, though, had propositions on the ballot as well as a party primary, so there were other reasons to vote besides Kerry vs. Bush. California Democratic turnout was 2,740,023, compared to 2,654,114 in 2000 (Gore 81%) and 2,523,062 in 1996 (Clinton 93%).

For the most part, increased Democratic turnout in certain states seems to reflect the fact that there was a contest for the nomination. Many states held no primary in 1996, as Clinton faced no rival, and had weak turnout in 2000, as the Gore/Bradley contest was either not big in that state or already over.

Looking through a few states where I have data:
- Georgia more than doubled turnout compared to 2000 (which was triple the 1996 turnout).
- Connecticut turnout dropped by a third from 2000, and was slightly less than 1996
- Tennessee turnout was up 71% from 2000 (when Gore took his home state with 92%, only to lose it in the general election), while 2000 turnout was up 56% from 1996, when Clinton was the only candidate
- Oklahoma was up significantly from 2000, but less than 1996
- Delaware tripled from 2000, which had been only slightly higher than 1996
- Arizona 2004 turnout was almost half of 2000 turnout; in 1996 hardly any Democrats voted in the Arizona primary
- Missouri 2004 turnout was up a little over 50% from 2000; there was no 1996 primary
- New Mexico had a caucus; the New Mexico primary is in June. Caucus turnout was 96,704. You can't really compare caucus turnout to primary turnout, but the June 2000 primary had 132,280 and the June 1996 primary had 121,362 Democrats

To discount the Kerry's-already-wrapped-it-up-so-why-bother factor, go back to New Hampshire, when the nomination was still up for grabs: 2004 turnout was 219,246, up 42% from the 154,609 who turned out in 2000. But the 2000 number was up 41% from the 91,974 who turned out in 1996, so it is hard to read much into this. However, I would note that President Bush only got 115 write-in votes for the Democratic nomination, while he had gotten 827 back in 2000 :rolleyes: Still, that's an improvement over the 3 write-in votes for Bush (either him or his father) in 1996.

pulque
03-05-2004, 23:14
GH,

thanks for the links. the point I have in mind is the one made in "Primary Turnouts Down". I agree with the analysis of the problems in taking a ratio using VEP. I believe it could matter which parties are having contests. This is purely in response to the charge of inventing a surge for 2004.

"Record Lows" (1998): LOL.

shootandloot
03-06-2004, 12:05
I think President Bush will win because I don't believe Kerry does a good job of speaking on his issues. Whenever someone asks what he thinks about a issues, his reply is "well, here's what Bush thinks and here's why he's wrong". In the end, I think too many will be tired of the "Bush-bashing". Secondly, I think the President does a good job of not taking the bait when someone does bash. He has said almost nothing in response to what the candidates were saying about him in the past debates. He even called Kerry to congratulate him on his soon-to-be nomination. People remember stuff like that.

ghuinness
03-06-2004, 22:23
Originally posted by D9
Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote. The dems, it's true, don't have a message and are really just campaigning on anti-Bush rhetoric, but I'm not sure there aren't a lot of Americans who are influenced by this garbage.

I think it will be Bush, but it's not a lock. Another attack, or serious problems in Iraq, could really hurt Bush as well. If the economy falters it could be pivotal as well. I hope it's Bush, but I'm not as positive as some others.

I agree. I don't listen to the polls, I listen to people I work with, associate with etc.
A poll based on their comments gives me concern about Bush winning.
The typical comment is "anything but Bush".
I hope Kerry doesn't select Graham for VP. I think that would affect Florida.

D9
03-06-2004, 23:01
Originally posted by Greenhat
1. We don't elect Presidents on popular vote. We elect members of Congress on popular vote.

2. Did Gore win the popular vote? It isn't as cut and dried as some would have you believe. As far as I know, a comprehensive count of every ballot has never been done except in Florida (where Bush won).

I understand, I only meant that if someone as bland as Al Gore can manage to run it that close, then I think it's hard to say Bush is a lock this time.

myclearcreek
03-06-2004, 23:11
In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.


Edited for spelling.

shootandloot
03-07-2004, 09:38
Originally posted by myclearcreek
In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.


Edited for spelling.

It's the same way in Western Pennsylvania. Democrats get elected to the majority of offices (though I never understand how party affliation matters for a office like the Recorder of Deeds). So we have alot of very conservative Democrats who would fit in more with the Republican party in any other area.

Bill Harsey
03-07-2004, 21:17
uh, this isn't a liberal website? Boy and I'd thought all along...(time to hide, incoming) NDD, if a clinton (yes my Shift key works) gets elected the time after this, you got room for a shop near your location? Answer is BUSH! Reason, a majority of the population here understands that if we get another case of demo-disease that this country is dangerously exposed to whatever would be next by the groups that hate us. We've hit the hornets nest real hard and now isn't the time to back off. I hope this is what the majority of the country thinks...

NousDefionsDoc
03-07-2004, 21:34
Absolutely sir! Come on down! We won't make any money because I refuse to permit workers to make less than the bourgeoisie, but we can have a grand old time.

Greenhat will be here later to invite you to Thailand - don't listen to him, he oppresses The People and is on The List.:D

As soon as I deal with the agrarian reform movement in Iowa, I'm starting a cell in Bangcock. Never enough time in the day...

BTW, Greenhat is pretty tough, we might need some smatchets and a blow torch. Maybe a tank or two...GHOSTRIDER!!!!!

The Reaper
03-07-2004, 21:37
I don't think the majority of the people voting in this country do think.

I think that they vote for whoever the Union, preacher, organizer, barber, agitator, or the man who drives them to the polls in the bus tells them to.

It would appear that a lot of people dislike the President intently, and will stop at nothing to defeat him. He does have some high negatives, mostly among Democrats.

This race is for the future of this country, and any man who shirks his duty to see that the right man gets elected is responsible for the consequences that follow.

I do not believe the rumors, but it would not surprise me to see OBL captured or killed in the next few months.

I believe that this will be a close race, the media will work to keep it that way, and that a few key events with the economy, terrorism, etc. could make the difference in this election. The Electoral College and popular votes may disagree again.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

NousDefionsDoc
03-07-2004, 21:40
Women vote for which ever candidate is cutest.:lifter

Bill Harsey
03-07-2004, 21:45
NDD, Thanks! I've seen what a Smatchet looks like and I'm pretty handy with an oxy-acetylene torch in steel up to around three inch thick. (we could break anything on the logging side and got to repair accordingly) . I'm very impressed with your social work and will see what you can do around here, maybe another cell would be in order. I don't want to have anything to do with a tank if D9 is around.

NousDefionsDoc
03-07-2004, 21:48
I don't want to have anything to do with a tank if D9 is around.

As long as its not yellow and have a blade, we should be good.:D

But good point. No sense in taking unecessary risks. We'll have to recruit him first. He's already in training to be a Liberator of the Oppressed, shouldn't take much.

Bill Harsey
03-07-2004, 21:58
NDD, Ok, I'll help run machinery if he's on our side. I've never driven a tank before but it looks like a heavy tracked vehicle and has a throttle doesn't it? I hear you can't see out of tanks very well and I'm good there, never looked when I was running cat either. I used the guidance system called braille. Reaper, Nothing you said I disagree with. I wrote what I hoped.

Gypsy
03-07-2004, 22:17
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Women vote for which ever candidate is cutest.


Aww shame on you NDD for categorizing us all that way. For me it's all about the physique. :cool:

I do agree with The Reaper, and it disgusts me how many people place their votes based on "popular opinion" or based on the thoughts of others. Voting for POTUS is always a serious matter, but now so more than ever. We need someone who will not back down especially as it relates to the WOT, our security as a Nation and as a people. I haven't noticed any democratic candidate exhibit the qualities I want to see for a strong and fearless leader of this Country. We cannot back down. Ever.

Guy
03-08-2004, 08:58
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Women vote for which ever candidate is cutest.

Ummm...can you say CLINTON!:D

I'll wait until Kerry chooses a running mate. If Edwards is chosen. I think it's going to be a tight race.

DunbarFC
03-08-2004, 09:04
Originally posted by myclearcreek
In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.


Edited for spelling.

You should try Massachusetts sometime ! :D

Where being a Republican is akin to if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound

Sweetbriar
03-08-2004, 09:26
Does anyone think Cheney might not run for VP again?

Sigi
03-08-2004, 09:57
Originally posted by The Reaper
I don't think the majority of the people voting in this country do think.

I think that they vote for whoever the Union, preacher, organizer, barber, agitator, or the man who drives them to the polls in the bus tells them to.



I just had one of my best friends move in with me this past week. We never discussed politics before. He has mentioned that he wants Kerry to win the election.

Me: "Kerry? Why?"
Matt: "Because he is a decorated war veteran."
Me: "Ok, that is a start. What else."
Matt: "Bush never went to Vietnam and Kerry did."
Me: "But why is Kerry a better leader for the U.S?"
Matt: "Bush got us into a war. Where are the WMD?"


Now Matt is a great guy and at 34, is more interested in the sports we play than he is in politics, to be sure. When I was off at college he was in the Navy Reserves (Seabees) and works in a machine shop. I have had an opportunity to learn a little more about things than he has. I certainly don't think I am better than he is because I am a little more aware than Matt. The kid is not dumb, just has specific interests.

The last conversation we had was about an answer to his question: "What is a liberal?"

I guess my point is that many people are misinformed, or even worse, uninformed. They are lethargic and apathetic when it comes to choosing a candidate, much less educating themselves on the issues that affect our future.

To Matt, they have very little to do woth his paycheck, his rent, car payment, and this past weekends' football tournament. I think many people are like that.

I hope Bush does win. There was no democrat that I felt could do a better job. But I am not convinced that he will be a sure bet in November. My friend Matt is not a voter and is more apolitical than anything else. But people out there who do follow politics get there information from one or two sources. And those sources tend to be more anti-Bush/Kerry apologists.

I think it will be closer than I would want it to be. They will not underestimate Bush again.

Bush-Cheney/2004.

myclearcreek
03-08-2004, 15:54
Originally posted by shootandloot
It's the same way in Western Pennsylvania. Democrats get elected to the majority of offices (though I never understand how party affliation matters for a office like the Recorder of Deeds). So we have alot of very conservative Democrats who would fit in more with the Republican party in any other area.

It truly shouldn't matter which party you are for Recorder of Deeds, etc., but for Sheriff (usually the hottest thing in their a.o.), Mayor, etc., it matters. Most of those from my hometown who will actually discuss their politics in a rational manner are truly conservative and more in line with the Republican platform. I suppose even Recorder of Deeds nominees must declare party affiliation.

Dunbar FC: LOL

myclearcreek
03-08-2004, 16:04
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Women vote for which ever candidate is cutest.:lifter

Pfffft. THAT vote isn't for public office. LOL. Okay, I know there are some whose eyes overrule their brains, but certainly not all of us.

Roguish Lawyer
03-08-2004, 16:18
I am disgusted by the number of liberal Democrats on this site. 40-2. Sheesh! :lifter

lrd
03-08-2004, 21:14
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I am disgusted by the number of liberal Democrats on this site. 40-2. Sheesh! :lifter I've been reading a lot of letters/comments from long-time Democrats that say that for this election nothing matters to them more than who can win this war -- that if we lose the war nothing else will matter. They will be voting for President Bush.

brownapple
03-08-2004, 21:43
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Greenhat will be here later to invite you to Thailand - don't listen to him, he oppresses The People and is on The List.:D

As soon as I deal with the agrarian reform movement in Iowa, I'm starting a cell in Bangcock. Never enough time in the day...

Already got our cell in Bangkok, and with the mix of SF, Rangers and PJs, I'm not too worried about your agrarian reform movement (there are people here who have a lot more experience in that area than you...and the bulldozers can ruin your day). However, any and all are welcome to visit anytime.

NousDefionsDoc
03-08-2004, 21:54
Can't post much right now, I'm updating the Red Book in Thai.

Don't worry Mr. Harsey, we have infiltrated a singleton into GH's AO. I'm a little worried though, no comms for a while - he may have been compromised by the reactionaries. Needless to say, we have alternate, contingencies, and emergencies on stand by.

Aries 2, Aries 2, over.

I may have to go start a foco myself. Recruit some assets no one would ever suspect. Must use a ruse to throw Osama Bin Mama off the track. Thinking...Planning...So little time...

brownapple
03-09-2004, 03:03
Your singleton is doing great, NDD. He is a fine consumer, spends money like it's going out of style. Not much of an agrarian reformer though. LMAO

ghuinness
03-09-2004, 11:25
Anyone else see this article (http://www.pegasus.cnchost.com/wsj.jpg) yesterday in the Wall Street Journal?
Seemed appropriate for this thread,

Since WSJ is subscription only I scanned the image (didn't see
any publication limitations so admins delete if inappropriate).

eyes
03-09-2004, 13:28
...........

eyes
03-09-2004, 13:36
..........

FullGallop
03-12-2004, 00:44
I believe Bush will win in the end but watching the news channels and reading the press does have me concerned. The Dems seem to me to be getting out in front on some issues by merely portraying the Republican campaign as an evil entity.

Has anyone noticed how even though the economy is on the upswing in all respects (even with the job numbers lower than hoped for) the democrats have pushed the job numbers. Thats politics of course, and to be expected. But the fact that the issue of "outsourceing(sp)" is all over the news and is being linked directly to Bush. Nevermind that outsourceing has been taking place for a long time and that Clinton pushed NAFTA, etc. etc. Suddenly it's a phenomena.

Kerry has been running a very negative campaign from the get go incuding his "off mike" comments about the Administration being "crooks and liars". Yet he and his minions will not apologize and continue to deflect their campaign by blaming the Republican "slime machine" of negativity. Ad for ad, speach for speach, word for word, the Kerry campaign has far outdone anything the Bush camp has done concerning attacks.

My worry is nobody is paying attention to this and it is sticking with voters. I agree with The Reaper! Most voters simply hear headlines and soundbites and all they are being told is Bush = crook, liar, regime, slime machine, rich, AWOL, WMD, etc. etc.

I really wish people would think about the future of the country and not only themselves all the time.........:mad:

sorry for the ramble!

lrd
03-12-2004, 05:54
Yesterday morning, Bill O'Reilly said that he thought the moderates of both parties would be basing their decision on the debates.

Do you agree?

eyes
03-15-2004, 08:09
...........

eyes
03-15-2004, 08:18
............

CommoGeek
03-15-2004, 09:03
Originally posted by eyes
I do agree...

Very few people in this country actually care enough to research and truly know about the candidates that they will choose between during an election. They generally base their decision off of a purely "cosmetic" reason…

I agree. I don't know if the word I'm looking for is "shallow" or "uninformed" or what, but the majority of people that I work with (and many of them are college educated, some with advanced degrees) are clueless when it comes to the world around them. Republican, Democrat, white, black, whatever they know very little about things outside of the immediate lives. What is worse is that they don't care. They have opinions but they are based on "well I heard" or "someone told me so" and that's it; no facts, no thoughts, nothing!

Every election you hear that everyone is concerned how the "swing votes" will go. These folks are labeled as "moderates" and that's fine if you are a moderate. I tend to believe that many of these people aren't "moderate", they are uninformed, clueless, and apathetic. However, it is more PC to call them "moderate" than to say that they have their heads stuck in the sand.

myclearcreek
03-15-2004, 10:43
Originally posted by CommoGeek
I agree. I don't know if the word I'm looking for is "shallow" or "uninformed" or what, but the majority of people that I work with (and many of them are college educated, some with advanced degrees) are clueless when it comes to the world around them. Republican, Democrat, white, black, whatever they know very little about things outside of the immediate lives. What is worse is that they don't care. They have opinions but they are based on "well I heard" or "someone told me so" and that's it; no facts, no thoughts, nothing!

Every election you hear that everyone is concerned how the "swing votes" will go. These folks are labeled as "moderates" and that's fine if you are a moderate. I tend to believe that many of these people aren't "moderate", they are uninformed, clueless, and apathetic. However, it is more PC to call them "moderate" than to say that they have their heads stuck in the sand.


What I found amazing this primary was the lack of knowledge for state candidates among my peers. They were solid on President Bush, fairly knowledgeable about most local races, but clueless about the state races. A few of us will be working to change that.

DunbarFC
03-15-2004, 14:15
I wonder how much play this will get

Kerry Pressed On Claims About Foreign Leaders (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2922043/detail.html)

I love this particular quote

The theme was raised by Cedric Brown, a participant in a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania. He wondered whether Kerry was meeting with foreign leaders "to help you overthrow the Bush presidency."

Pressed repeatedly by Brown, Kerry finally declared: "That's none of your business."

FullGallop
03-15-2004, 16:34
Ya I saw that. he he! They've been playing it more than I thought today but there does'nt seem to be much talk about it as being negative.

Imagine that!

I agree also, that it will be a "cosmetic" choosing when it comes to peoples votes.

It will be interesting to see how people in this country take the socialists winning in Spain the other day. I hope this country does'nt end up voting similarly. The voters in that country just helped show the terrorists that terrorism can indeed pay off........and in a very big way.

eyes
03-16-2004, 10:32
.............

eyes
03-16-2004, 10:33
............

DunbarFC
03-16-2004, 10:54
Originally posted by DunbarFC
I wonder how much play this will get

Kerry Pressed On Claims About Foreign Leaders (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2922043/detail.html)

I love this particular quote

Apparently the reporter ( from The Boston Globe ) now states that since he listened to his tape at home where it was quiet, that Kerry does not say "foreign" leaders, but says "more" leaders. Nice backpedal by the ever impartial Globe

Interesting quote however from the same rally by Kerry's Florida campaign chief

His comments were preceded by a statement from Milton Ferrell, Kerry's Florida fund-raising chairman, voicing foreign displeasure with the current president. Ferrell said, "Europeans and elsewhere, they're counting on the American people. They hate Bush, but they know we're going to get rid of him." - Charges traded on foes' honesty (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/16/charges_traded_on_foes_honesty/)

Oh well since Europe hates Bush of course I'll vote for Kerry.....
:rolleyes:

FullGallop
03-16-2004, 13:39
This is some of what I meant earlier in the thread.

This whole Europe wants Bush out and Kerry will be the savior BS. There will undoubtedly be people in this country who will let Europes views, or supposed views of our President influence the way they vote. Ughhh!

DunbarFC
03-16-2004, 13:51
Originally posted by FullGallop
This is some of what I meant earlier in the thread.

This whole Europe wants Bush out and Kerry will be the savior BS. There will undoubtedly be people in this country who will let Europes views, or supposed views of our President influence the way they vote. Ughhh!

I think the strategy here is to catch the lemmings out there. If they are convinced that not only Americans but the rest of the whole world at large wants Bush gone, then they had better vote for Kerry or be on the outside. It's " everyone's doing it so why don't you "

This should be one hell of a campaign if it's this nasty already

EDIT - I also would not be shocked if both parties dispensed with the traditional ' no attacks during your convention ' pleasantries

NousDefionsDoc
03-17-2004, 14:38
Its a LOCK!

Kerry's going to win (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EA7323C4-A18D-412E-9AA2-E227120F13D3.htm)

DunbarFC
03-17-2004, 14:41
Man if this isn't dead on

Critics say

"He speaks the language of the Kennedys, which now sounds flowery and phony... Nuggets of nothing, wrapped in pretentious rhetoric, compounded by the pretence of plain speaking."
- Slate magazine