My feeling is that there are Hard Line conservatives and Flaming Liberals make up about 20%-30% of the Left and the Right. Leaving 40% to 50% to make up the middle.
So it is the middle who will decide this election.
The Truth of the Matter appears to rest on the Performance of George W. Bush. Has he done a good job in the 4 years he's been in Office?
No.
The Economy. The War on Terrorism. Iraq. Global Relations. Civil Leadership. Overall vision.
It's hard to argue that George W. Bush has done a GOOD job and the country is running smoothly.
Middle ground Americans can feel this, and will decide that George W. Bush has not done well enough to deserve another term.
So John Kerry will not WIN this election, George W. Bush will lose it.
posted
I believe that bush well Win. I want Kerry to win, I simply do not believe he well. I wish that everyone who wanted Kerry to win hadn’t gone out and started trying to convince everyone to vote, Kerry’s only hope in my eyes is if the people who are leaning towards bush end up not going to the polls and I believe that most of the people who wernt already convinced to vote probably don’t have enough facts to make an educated decision. Elections are coin tosses these days, and the Electoral College is complete bullshit.
I live in Texas, why should I vote? There is no chance that Kerry well win Texas, my vote is useless under this system, we live in the United States, peoples votes should count, not the states.
posted
chase: For you'd, I'd suggest some basic learning of the Constitution and the political theory that went into the creation of the US.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most polls show undecided voters believe Bush did a great job on homeland security and the war on terrorism.
The truth is, there were no further terrorist attacks on American soil after 9/11. That should count for something.
Let us understand our enemy if we can.
They were allowed 20 years pretty much uncontested to plan out thier first attacks, they used our own commercial airplanes to bring down two historical skyscrapers, kill over 3000 people.
After this horrible attack, we became aware and have begun to be prepared.
I do not believe that unless they can get their hands on a Nuclear Weapon, that they can pose any SERIOUS threat to the United States.
The worst terrorist attack ever occurred on George W. Bush's watch. I do not believe that the terrorist will ever commit a worse attack on American soil.
The enemy only seems to have weapons of a common thug.
Guns and Explosives.
Guns and Explosives.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, what's the basis of your attack on the Electoral College?
simple, if you live in a state that is bound to swing in favor of one canidate than your vote quite simply doesnt count. so in california for example everyone who voted for bush well simply be left off the bored. either go with majority rule or not, I would like to vote and have it count.
I am well aware of why they did things, I am also aware that not all of it was right and that not all of it was valid. the republican democrat system for example.
posted
When they elect class presidents in Highschool, maybe they should start to give the departments electoral votes, like Science would get 7, Math 4, English 3 and Physical Ed 1.
The kids would have to declare a department.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think presedents should stop concentrating on public aproval and start thinking about the obvius things that are way beyond what is logical and just.
in otherwords the electoral colledge should be abolished and if it can not be done under our current government, well then that also needs to be revised. simply because things are the way they are does not mean it is right.
also it should be based on population, so students would first have to declare a department and then the number of votes would be delved out.
quote: I am well aware of why they did things, I am also aware that not all of it was right and that not all of it was valid. the republican democrat system for example.
Republicans weren't a major force for quite a while...
The reason we have the Electoral College and all those other provisions is because the country is not a Democracy. Democracies do not work on large scale. If we were a true Democracy, anything that was against popular opinion would be outlawed.
The whole system is designed to prevent Mob Rule.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do not believe that unless they can get their hands on a Nuclear Weapon, that they can pose any SERIOUS threat to the United States
Ummmmm, anybody can make an EMP for just under $400.00. They could throw us back a couple hundred years if they wanted to. You don't need nuclear weapons to be a serious threat.
[ November 01, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:thank you silver, I assumed that that was common knowledge these days.
Assuming an opinion about the best way to manage national elections in an incredibly diverse country is "common knowledge" doesn't strike me as very realistic.
More than half the states benefit from the electoral college. 3/4 of the states would have to approve any change to the process. Many states would be utterly ignored in every single election without the electoral college. Is it the best way to elect a president? Maybe not. But certainly more thought is needed on the subject than assuming the world has come around to your opinion.
posted
I heard on a news show (radio) today that neither Clinton nor Bush Sr won a majority of the popular vote ...
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
You aren't really looking at the larger picture. The electoral college was put into place, to give the government the power to put down any candidate the people may want that the government opposed. Even if 100% of voters voted for a single candidate, it allows the politicians to elect a candidate of whom they approve.
You say that states would be left out, yet many states are left out anyway. Only the larger states are noticed and attempt to be swayed. Any person who has observed even the last group of elections can tell that the electoral college does not work. Whether its last year's victory without a win in the popular vote, or the mere fact that in the elections before less than half of the voting population actually voted and in those cases the candidates still only won by a minimal margin. Meaning that less than fifty percent (in some cases as low as 23%) of the nation actually voted for the person. This is atrocious.
Make the elections a simple popular vote. This makes every individual's vote actually count.
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst terrorist attack ever occurred on George W. Bush's watch. I do not believe that the terrorist will ever commit a worse attack on American soil.
Somehow I suspect that the 9/11 attacks would have happened regardless of who occupied the white house Thor. Do you seriously think that they wouldn't have? I hope that you're right about those being thw worst terrorist attacks the nation will ever have to endure, but I'm a little fuzzy on why you think that. Can you elaborate?
quote:The enemy only seems to have weapons of a common thug.
Because the people interested in attacking us certainly aren't capable of developing new methods of attack, aquiring new types of weapons, etc.
Even without any new weapons, it would still be pretty easy to launch a crippling attack on our country's infrastructure, don't you think?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our country we have two groups constantly vying for power. When one group gains power they tear down everything the other has done. No matter what they well both take any opportunity to get at each other and criticize their work. Often people don’t vote for whom they think is better they vote for their party, politicians’ well side with their party before what is right.
that is what i was refering to.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many states would be utterly ignored in every single election without the electoral college
Texas. New York. California.
These big states are virtually ignored.
In a REAL election, the big states would get more time, and little states would get less time, but what does this have to do with ELECTING the best candidate?
And about it being the "Worst" possible terrorist attack...
The terrorists are gang of criminals. They are not a nation. They won't develop major weapons in the next 50 years.
This is real life, not some television docu-drama.
These guys are frickin' sand people.
Not genius mad scientists.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted, they don't have the budget of a first world nation, but they don't have to Thor. There are *plenty* of ways they could disrupt our economy with conventional explosives, which they definitely have the funds to aquire if they don't already possess stockpiles. All they really need to do is be creative, don't you think? Hit us from an angle we weren't quite expecting?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm hoping Kerry wins too, Thor. I just think that your ideas about future terrorism are a bit naive. I'd love to have to eat my words in this case though.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the turnout of voter registraitions is so high, I'd say Kerry will win. Time to get my novel on.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in Oklahoma, a decidedly republican state. I am about 90% sure that our electorals will vote republican on November 2nd.
I myself am republican, and am voting such on the 2nd.
Yet even still, I think the race is going to be close everywhere else. I fear another Florida deciding the race after a dozen recounts and lawsuits. It makes me cringe.
On the other hand, like the OU-OSU football game yesterday, I like to watch a close game.
quote: I just think that your ideas about future terrorism are a bit naive.
I don't think you fully understand my ideas on terrorism. I do think that if the terrorists can get their hands on an actual weapon of mass destruction, we are in a series shitstorm of pain and backwards time warp.
I do understand that there are about 30,000 Nuclear weapons on Earth and their numbers are growing.
And if one of these weapons is too fall into the wrong hands, the World will suffer a horrible, horrible wound.
Life as we know it could fall apart tomorrow.
I am not naive.
I realize the great seriousness of this War.
I also believe in the War for Hearts and Minds.
That is where this war is Won.
If the terrorists hate us and the rest of the world doesn't like us, where does that leave us?
What kind of future is that?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hust to comment, about the EMP for 400 dollar thing, an EMP of that cost would have a range of 100 yards if you're lucky, more likely to have a range of 10-50 yards. Next, Terrorists getting WMD's, all they need is a tub of nuclear waste and a high explosive of some type. That results in a cloud of radioactivity that if it doesn't kill, will maim and cripple any person within a good quarter kilometer or more of the blast depending on the size of the bomb used. That's scary. I have heard that that has allready been attempted once. Luckilly, our security is a heck of a lot better than it was on 9/11 and it failed. Furthermore, I read this...
quote: They were allowed 20 years pretty much uncontested to plan out thier first attacks, they used our own commercial airplanes to bring down two historical skyscrapers, kill over 3000 people.
And I think, man, he forgot what happened in 1993. 9/11 was the second attack on the WTC in a decade. What happened to Osama after that attack, when Clinton was in office? (Yes, Osama did that one too, he admitted it openly) Nothing happened. Nothing at all. Then about five or six years later, Osama's group bombs an embassy. What happens, then? Clinton orders the firing of Cruise Missiles at some un-known building in Afghanistan, and nothing more happens. I fear having another inactive president like that in the White House. From what I've seen, Kerry's a lot of talk with no action. I have yet to hear anyone tell my why I should vote for him. If someone can give me a GOOD reason that doesn't invole something that Bush did, if someone can give me some quality and serious reasons to vote for Kerry, like maybe his ACTUAL plan for getting our men out of Iraq (His idea of getting allies involve doesn't count, Turkey and several other countries have allready been terrorized out of that, so getting allies in there probably isn't going to happen), I may start thinking seriously about voting for him. For the most part, the only argument I've heard FOR Kerry is that he isn't Bush. Some people go so far as assuming he's going to pull us out of Iraq. He won't. I promise you he won't, because he can't. Whether it was justified for us to go in there or not, we ARE there now, and there's nothing we can do about it except make Iraq able to stand on its own feet, and as much as I hate it, we have to do that. Taking Bush out of office isn't going to do it. I WISH it were that easy. It isn't. So yeah, after all that rambling...My answer for the thread. I HOPE Bush wins. But I think the only real good that will come of this election is some serious changes IN the election system. I think that because this election has so many eyes on it watching carefully, that voter fraud and manipulation is finally going to be seen for what it is. I don't think either candidate is going to make the world any better or worse. Certainly if our homeland security falls lax, hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions could die. Right now, that security is the only thing that matters to me, because I want to live in a country where I don't have to fear for my life or that of my family. Right now, that's what we have. So I'm voting for the man who's trying to keep it that way.
[ November 01, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of one of the suspected bombing conspirators Mohammad Salameh and exactly one year later four terrorists were convicted for their roles in the bombing.
The capture of Salameh led authorities to Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa.
Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime in December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS in May 5, 1995. Jamal was acquitted by a Jordanian court and now lives as a free man in Saudi Arabia.
In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot), and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers - no one was ever convicted for the actual bombing. Another man named Eyad Ismail was tried alongside Yousef for the bombing.
Six militant Islamist conspirators were convicted of the crime in 1997 and 1998 and given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each. The main reason that the World Trade Center did not collapse was due to the towers' strength and the fact that Yousef did not have enough money to build a more powerful bomb.
Another conspirator in the plot was Nidal Ayyad.
FBI Foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem asserts that the original plan was to have the plotters build the bomb using a harmless powder instead of actual explosive, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiates his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.
Salem says he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office.
The FBI has not explicitly denied Salem's account."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now you wanna reelect Dubya who is personally responsible for allowing looting of Iraqi armories for the weapons currently being used to kill US troops. As well as handing over 380tons of high-power plastic explosives for use by terrorists.
So please don't pull your "I'm voting for Bush cuz I care about the US" drivel: it ain't even minorly believable.
quote: Now you wanna reelect Dubya who is personally responsible for allowing looting of Iraqi armories for the weapons currently being used to kill US troops.
That's an insane stretch of the imagination my friend. I seriously fail to see how a president can be responsible for a military failure. At best the people at fault are the commanders who were in charge over there. But I guess we all have to have someone to blame that we KNOW.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The military has made some noises that some of that might have been some of the cache of very high explosives, but it seems most of what the army removed were less powerful conventional explosives, and that none of what was under seal (which most of the many tons that have disappeared were) was removed:
So no, they didn't remove 250 tons of the 380 or so. They removed 250 tons of stuff, some small part of which may have been part of the 380.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Thor, sorry about accusing you of being naive; I was in a bit of a bad mood last night, but thinking about it on the way in to work this morning, I regreted my phrasing.
What I meant was just that I didn't think that you were taking into consideration the amount of damage that could be done to our country's infrastructure just with a few well placed conventional explosives. I don't want to go into the details on the internet, but there are all sorts of ways that an attacker armed with TNT and a little imagination could hurt us.
I really don't see how we can close all of our points of vulnerability; I'd go so far as to say that it's impossible. This is a conflict that has quite a few fronts. The military front is a necessary part of it, but it's a mistake to think that we can be successful with that and that alone. You're right that a "hearts and minds" front is necessary, as is a financial front.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Finally, someone else brought up the moment that Kerry lost my vote (note, Bush has most certainly lost it as well). But it was good to see someone, even if they are British, noticed the same thing I did.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Who still disdains the current state of national politics, and will have to spend the rest of the day scrubbing his hands in a futile attempt to get the dirt off.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to “try men’s souls,”
Or, when Jim Jones felt that the feds were finally closing in on him...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.
I find it intriguing that the article defines the "enemies of America" so broadly. I understand why it's necessary, however; otherwise, it would have to admit that nearly everyone in the world except roughly half of all Americans is pretty much unanimous in hoping for a Kerry victory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm still sticking with good ol' www.iraqbodycount.net for a more grounded number on the death toll.
They seem to be dedicated to some sort of truth, and offer links to reports and justifications for their numbers. It feels like much less of a biased SWAG than that 100,000 story reported.
And newfoundlogic, if I had money to pay your bail, I'd ask you to lettuce Moore for me.
posted
One can be pro-life and still support wars, Thor, it's possible. Believe me, I know. And I linked the article not because it's from a pro-life site but because I think it gave a really good breakdown of the electoral college votes and how they are likely to break out.
Certainly it's just one person's opinion, but I think it's well thought out, and I happen to agree with it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Predictions:Kerry wins popular vote and EC. I changed my mind because I think the 18-30 age group will turn out in greater numbers than 2000, echoing their enthusiastic voting in 1972 and 1992.
Dems pick up 1-3 seats in the senate.
The house remains roughly where it is now.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, by the numbers in that article, Bush wins because of Florida and New Mexico and Ohio. If Bush wins all three of those states, not only will he win, but in my estimation, he will deserve to win.
My prediction,
Large recent immigrant turn-out. The democrats are losing the battle on religion, but the Republican party is still the party of the rich white guy and the wannabe rich white guy. All of the immigrants who don't want to be rich white guys are going to turn out. That's good for Kerry. This is because Bush is lazy. The guy didn't study for the first debate, and his poor performance isn't due to his english-- he speaks well when he is prepared-- it's due to something, some strange thought that he was above reproach or even questioning. _____
That's mitigated, though. Rich white guys got to be that way by accumulating and protecting their stuff. And when it comes to shooting indians and protecting the homestead, anyone voting against Dick Cheney is crazy. Republicans are going to see a surge in mothers. Instead of lying to their husbands about who they voted for, like they did with Clinton, married women with kids are actually going to vote for Bush/Kerry.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
