Author Topic: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
Madriver 
Registered: Mar '03
6531_Bart Vader
Date Posted: 7/6/04 7:24pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
Another article found Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.

"We are moving into a sweet spot for the economy with interest rates not too high, jobs coming back and business investment providing strength," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago, who is predicting GDP growth of 4.8 percent this year.

...

Even with the 10 months of consecutive job gains, Bush is still facing a 1.2 million jobs deficit, from the last peak for employment in March 2001.

However, many analysts anticipate the economy will generate around 200,000 jobs per month over the next six months, a pace that would be enough to erase his deficit figure by the end of the year. That would enable him to escape being the only president since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to have lost jobs while in office.

Although the economy created only 112,000 jobs in June, after averaging 304,000 jobs for the previous three months, analysts expect strong job growth the rest of this year.

They predict the unemployment rate - stuck at 5.6 percent for most of this year - will improve gradually, to 5.3 percent by December, as a strengthening job market draws people back into the labor force.


Great economic news. happy

Why don't we hear the famous quote "It's about the economy stupid" anymore?

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cyprusg 
Registered: Nov '02
8225_Duel
Date Posted: 7/6/04 8:07pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
I'm curious, what's our monthly population growth? That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. But I think it's interesting that we're supposedly creating all of these jobs but the unemployment rate has been stuck at 5.6%.

 

-----signature-----
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous 
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/6/04 8:14pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 9:34pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
You know better. Stop baiting.
---

If Kerry gets elected, then expect the news in Iraq to suddenly appear good and the economy simply to all of a sudden be roaring.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TripleB 
Registered: Oct '00
20444_Valley of the Jedi
Date Posted: 7/6/04 8:52pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
Congrats, Obi-Wan McCartnet in getting your thread back. I know you started this almost 3 years ago your ELECTIONS thread and I was just as upset as you were in having someone steal it from you, even if it was a fellow conservitive like D-M.




I gotta admit that Apathy I am reading makes me glad I am on Hiatus from these boards till the election. Of course, I am sure a lot of your apathy will be turned into denial when the Election results come in and you try to figure out how Michael Moore's movie once again derailed the Democrats (remember how he vowed BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE was going to destroy the NRA's political power and instead gave the NRA its overwhelming 2002 victory at the polls?).

I mean, I remember a bunch of people, even moderates, where outraged when I suggested that had Al Gore stolen the election, that he would have unconditionally surrendered the United States of AMerica on 9/11. So when I see some of the apathy on these boars, well, I can't wait till 11.02.2004, to shove this down a lot of peoples throats.

Cheers.

 

-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus

Registered: Nov '01
5972_No Icon
Date Posted: 7/6/04 8:59pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 8:59pm (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
I mean, I remember a bunch of people, even moderates, where outraged when I suggested that had Al Gore stolen the election, that he would have unconditionally surrendered the United States of AMerica on 9/11.

"Even moderates"?

I think it's safe to say that a statement like that effectively wipes out any credibility a person has, and will most certainly be disagreed with by all but fringe elements on either side of the political spectrum.

To say "even moderates" were outraged demonstrates a certain distance from reality.

I don't think things have been apathetic lately, as there have been some good discussions.

 

-----signature-----
Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Madriver 
Registered: Mar '03
6531_Bart Vader
Date Posted: 7/6/04 9:05pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
I'm curious, what's our monthly population growth? That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. But I think it's interesting that we're supposedly creating all of these jobs but the unemployment rate has been stuck at 5.6%.


Actually, according to this site, US Department of Labor, the unemployment rate has been steadily decreasing from a high of 6.3% in June of 2003. Unemployment reached a low in 2000 of a annual average of 4.0%, and steadily increased starting January 2001 to the afore mentioned high in 2003.

According to this site, US POPClock Projection, the US increases it's population by around 220,000 per month for an annual growth rate of about 1%.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TripleB 
Registered: Oct '00
20444_Valley of the Jedi
Date Posted: 7/6/04 9:13pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
KnightWriter said

"Even moderates"?

All right, I can be more specific and say that you were probably at the top of the list who did not like that statement when I made it.

I think it's safe to say that a statement like that effectively wipes out any credibility a person has, and will most certainly be disagreed with by all but fringe elements on either side of the political spectrum.

1) I have heard that so many times from so many people on so many subjects that saying I have no credibility means absolutely nothing to me.

2) When I make statements that get reactions like that (be it Al Gore Surrendering or my statement that liberals want US troops to die in Iraq to undermine Bush's credibility AND I SAID THAT IN EARLY 2003 AND THEY SURE ARE PLAYING INTO WHAT I SAID, DIDN'T THEY?, I tend to believe I am on target and the enemy (being those that want to bring down America) know it.

3) I have no problem standing on the side of the Fringe Wing of my ideology. Too bad most liberals won't admit they do the same on theirs.

4) Based on Al Gore's association with MOVEON.ORG, whom did not want ANY military response to 9/11 against the Taliban, it becomes less of a stretch to believe Al Gore would not have turned tail and ran from the Middle East, and at the same time, found a way to blame Rush Limbaugh and the NRA for 9/11.

To say "even moderates" were outraged demonstrates a certain distance from reality.

Or it demonstrates a certain vision and a certain knowledge of certain mindsets. For example, both yourself and Red-Seven were FURIOUS at me for making the above statement about liberals wanting US Troops to die in Iraq, but when you look at how it has played out over the past year, and how the media trumps up US Troop deaths to Undermine the mission wihtout regard or perspective, it seems I was very much on target, was I not?

I don't think things have been apathetic lately, as there have been some good discussions.

Disagree, looking at the arguments, we are still more or less talking about the exact same things that we were when I left. Thats why I am waiting till the early morning hours of 11.03.2004, when a bunch of liberals and haters of america are going to be crying and I will of course be there to gloat.....

Cheers.

 

-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 7/6/04 9:40pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 9:41pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
Let's stick to the issues here. It's time that we put a stop the the partisan bickering and rhetoric and actually try holding civilized discussions.

That means no more of the stereotyping or labelling beliefs of anyone else (i.e. "Liberals believe ________" or "Conservatives believe _________"). No more inflammatory ad hominum attacks on people on either side (i.e. "Bush is stupid" or "Kerry is a coward").

If you want to discuss the issues and offer projections, fine. Otherwise, don't even try to turn this into any sort of attacks, battles, or partisan warfare.

My patience with that sort of behavior is wearing extremely thin. If you can't behave, you had better watch out.


Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous 
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/6/04 9:53pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 10:04pm (5 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
Let it go.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous 
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/6/04 10:07pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 10:12pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
That's quite ridiculous to edit a legitimate post. It wasn't flaming nor baiting any members here, simply stating the obvious.

If someone accuses me of 'stealing' a thread, that's laughable as is the obsessive nature of thinking it's that important to have one's username under a thread title. I'm merely responding to member who said i 'stole' it.

I can care less who has their name behind a thread, or how many posts it has, et cetera. That's obsessiveness and immaturity.

---

Anyways,

The Bush people are expecting a 15 point bounce in the polls for Kerry out of the Democratic convention at the end of this month.

The election is going to be very close, 50-50 either way, I think.

Maybe 1-2% will decide it, and Nader can tip the scale once again.

Then again, it may not be close.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TripleB 
Registered: Oct '00
20444_Valley of the Jedi
Date Posted: 7/6/04 10:32pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 10:37pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
When I say "let it go", I mean for everyone to let it go.




Triple B makes the following predictions for the 2004 Election.

1) George W Bush will be re-elected president. He will carry no fewer then 39 states, probably no greater then 46 states. No less then 50% of the popular vote, as much as 54%

2) The GOP will pick up at least 12 US House Seats, no more then 20.

3) The GOP will pick up at least 5 US Senate Seats, no more then 9 Senate Seats.


A Magic Formula, where Deja-Vu is happening all over again.....

In 2002, Michael Moore vowed that Bowling For Columbine would break the power of the NRA in American politics, had his special screening in Florida vowing it would derail Jeb Bush. COlumbine made $21 Million dollars at the box office, and when the elections came around, the GOP had picked up 6 House Seats and 2 US Senate Seats.

Doing the math, I believe that Farenheit 9/11, so far, has given the GOP at least 5 US Senate Seats and 12 House Seats.

So come MIchael Moore...keep your movie out there. In 2002 there was absolutely NO MENTION OR STATEMENT OF ANY KIND FROM MOORE on why the 2002 Election did not turn out the way he said they would (Dems cleaning house around the nation, Jeb Bush outsted, etc). I wonder if he will be able to stick his head in the sand agian.

 

-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 7/6/04 10:45pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
I mean, I remember a bunch of people, even moderates, where outraged when I suggested that had Al Gore stolen the election, that he would have unconditionally surrendered the United States of AMerica on 9/11.

I think I'd be considered to be "on track" if I said you'd gotten confused between "outraged" and "incredulous." I think people were more "gobsmacked" that you could make such an utterly unfair and innaccurate remark. Far be it for me to lecture on US patriotism, but to assume the Democrats are any less patriotic than you is really a silly thing to say; difference does not mean less than.

Your bias aside - and we're talking bias to the point of irrational sometimes - that statement was mainly mocked, rejected and the like because it was untenable. The difference in responses to 9/11 - the attack on Afghanistan - would have been minimal as both sides would have struck back hard. 9/11 was unlike any other incident, and to assume Dubya made some divine choice is really politically naive and vapid.

I know in your world, TripleB, if John Kerry is elected the US will simply give money to terrorists; yet as the Economist was saying in all probability, there'll be little difference in the actual foreign policy platform of Kerry to the foreign policy platform of Bush. The reasons are outlined in the current issue.

The same would be true retrospectively of a Gore administration responding to unprecendented terrorist attacks on US soil. There are signs that indicate the attack on Afghanistan was the only logical choice - not the Divine and Unique Choice of George W Bush - and I think that even though you'd be loathe to admit it, there's no actual reasoning or rationality behind the claim of "Gore would have surrendered." I don't know that Iraq would have happened, but that's another time, another thread.


Disagree, looking at the arguments, we are still more or less talking about the exact same things that we were when I left. Thats why I am waiting till the early morning hours of 11.03.2004, when a bunch of liberals and haters of america are going to be crying and I will of course be there to gloat.....

Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, you were going "in exile" until then? tongue

I would advise anyone interested in Dubya's foreign policy to check out the latest issue of the Economist; the one with the USA Boxing Gloves on the cover:



An exert: "George Bush's critics, please note: the president has done what you asked. Iraq now has an Iraqi government backed by the United Nations. So why is America still having to struggle not only with all manner of global security problems, but also with an array of obstructive "friends"? "

In my opinion, The Economist is THE magazine to read on International Affairs, and the article is fantastic.

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 7/6/04 10:48pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
Maybe 1-2% will decide it, and Nader can tip the scale once again.

Forgive my quaint, antipodean ignorance, but is Nader still running?

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cyprusg 
Registered: Nov '02
8225_Duel
Date Posted: 7/6/04 10:52pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/6/04 11:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cyprusg
In 2002, Michael Moore vowed that Bowling For Columbine would break the power of the NRA in American politics, had his special screening in Florida vowing it would derail Jeb Bush. COlumbine made $21 Million dollars at the box office, and when the elections came around, the GOP had picked up 6 House Seats and 2 US Senate Seats.

Doing the math, I believe that Farenheit 9/11, so far, has given the GOP at least 5 US Senate Seats and 12 House Seats.


What the heck are you thinking? Bowling for Columbine wasn't even political, nobody even cared about that movie. Moore was delusional if he thought that a $21 million dollar movie that had almost nothing to do with politics would unseat Jeb Bush. (If that's actually what he thought)

Your whole post is delusional. How in the world is a movie that does nothing but bash the Bush administration, but makes over $100 million dollars in the box office going to HELP the Bush administration? That just doesn't make any sense. The tide is turning, and I can't wait until election day. Can I get your phone number? Because I know you're not going to come on here and let all of us take shots at you, so I want to call you and shove it in your face when Kerry wins.

 

-----signature-----
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TripleB 
Registered: Oct '00
20444_Valley of the Jedi
Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:14pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
Ender Sai said

think I'd be considered to be "on track" if I said you'd gotten confused between "outraged" and "incredulous." I think people were more "gobsmacked" that you could make such an utterly unfair and innaccurate remark. Far be it for me to lecture on US patriotism, but to assume the Democrats are any less patriotic than you is really a silly thing to say; difference does not mean less than.

1) If you want me to say that at least Left-Wing Liberal Democrats are less patriotic then just about anything out there short of a Marxist/communist, then I have said it.

2) As I recall, I remember KnightWriter was a bit outraged by that statement (which I 100% stand by), and I think you did not care for it. Of course, I used the analogy of Gore's obedience to MoveOn.Org, and thus it becomes less of a stretch that he would not have taken the actions needed to be taken against World Terrorism.

It would be a funny parallel: In 1993, there was BlackHawk Down. SPin it all you want, it does not change that fact that in the Arab World, the US appeared to turn tail and run; That was 8 months into Clinton's Presidency. 9/11 Would have happened less then 8 months into Al Gore's presidency (it does exist in the evil parallel universe, Gore winning in 2000, btw) and again would have failed to stand up to Terrorists and probably would have looked to blame Rush Limbaugh and the NRA for it.

Your bias aside - and we're talking bias to the point of irrational sometimes -

1) You don't know what my bias's are.
2) I just have a inflexible view of certain things and liberalism occupies a very hard part in my heart.

that statement was mainly mocked, rejected and the like because it was untenable. The difference in responses to 9/11 - the attack on Afghanistan - would have been minimal as both sides would have struck back hard. 9/11 was unlike any other incident, and to assume Dubya made some divine choice is really politically naive and vapid.

Or just spin on your side to avoid giving Bush what he wanted. Which is probably why MoveOn.Org was opposed to going into Afghanistan, as they knew it would help Bush politically. Just like US Troops dying in Iraq would be used by people like MoveOn.oRg to help them politically. Remember, I made that prediction in early 2003, and a year and a half later, it is unfortunate that the left wing has proven my correct.

I know in your world, TripleB, if John Kerry is elected the US will simply give money to terrorists; yet as the Economist was saying in all probability, there'll be little difference in the actual foreign policy platform of Kerry to the foreign policy platform of Bush. The reasons are outlined in the current issue.

The same would be true retrospectively of a Gore administration responding to unprecendented terrorist attacks on US soil. There are signs that indicate the attack on Afghanistan was the only logical choice - not the Divine and Unique Choice of George W Bush - and I think that even though you'd be loathe to admit it, there's no actual reasoning or rationality behind the claim of "Gore would have surrendered." I don't know that Iraq would have happened, but that's another time, another thread.


Agree to disagree. I would have to read the article to be sure. I already detailed my reasons on why Gore woudl have surrendered above.

Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, you were going "in exile" until then?

Thats true, I did say that. However, you can ask Obi-Wan McCartney when we both got banned for trying to restore his Original Trilogy/KOTOR-like ELECTIONS THREAD, and he told me his way to get around what had just happened was to wait untill Kerry announced his Veep, and then he was going to come back and create a new thread again where he would once again 'be the creator'. So when I Kerry made his veep announcement, I of course came back to see if he had followed thru on it.

Note to KK/Vaderize- OK, that is all I wanted to say on that subject, I won't bring it up again, although YOu have to admit, that it is funny Obi-Wan and I planned this out months ago.

I would advise anyone interested in Dubya's foreign policy to check out the latest issue of the Economist; the one with the USA Boxing Gloves on the cover:



An exert: "George Bush's critics, please note: the president has done what you asked. Iraq now has an Iraqi government backed by the United Nations. So why is America still having to struggle not only with all manner of global security problems, but also with an array of obstructive "friends"? "

In my opinion, The Economist is THE magazine to read on International Affairs, and the article is fantastic.


Fair enough, Iw oudl have to read it first before passing judgement.


Cyprusg said

What the heck are you thinking? Bowling for Columbine wasn't even political, nobody even cared about that movie. Moore was dillusional if he thought that a $21 million dollar movie that had almost nothing to do with politics would unseat Jeb Bush. (If that's actually what he thought)

Your whole post is dillusional. How in the world is a movie that does nothing but bash the Bush administration, but makes over $100 million dollars in the box office going to HELP the Bush administration? That just doesn't make any sense.


Ok, so you are saying that Michael Moore had NO POLITICAL MOTIVE with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE?. even though he vowed that it woudl break the NRA's power in politics. Even though he claimed when he screened it in Florida it would destroy Jeb's Re-election as he was an NRA-backed candidate? Even though Moore claimed all NRA-backed candidates would run away from thier positions with his film?

Because the exact opposite happened. It has been the Democrats that have been in complete retreat from the Gun Issue, to the point that only the most left-of-left wingers out there still campaign on the Gun Issue. The fact that Moore's response was to remove from his page all references to the 2002 Elections, and has never even acknowledged what happened on that great day of November 5th, 2002.

You realize that even though Bowling for Columbine "only" made 21 million, that it got a lot of publicity, was pushed by many in the main stream press whom did not realize that the Dems were on the Run on Gun Control. Remember how Jean Carnahan did that ridiculous photo shoot trying to pretend she was a sportsman with the Shotgun? DId not even have the safety off or hand on the trigger, and did not know how to handle the 'kick' of the gun?

Or how the NRA, back in 1999 vowed they would take out Max Cleland for going back on supporting Gun Owners and sided with Rosie O'Donnell instead? Yet Mary Landrieu stood with America's Gun Owners and the NRA in those dark days after Columbine?

And whom is still in the Senate? Mary Landrieu

Whom got kicked out of office by his home state for standing with the fring left wing instead of Georgia? Max Cleland.

Should tell you something.

The tide is turning, and I can't wait until election day.

Oh, so NOW Farenheit 9/11 is relevent? I thought you just got done saying above that I was off target using the movie like that in the context of the Election? Are you now saying using it to back up the election is relevent? Because if it is, then it seems my 'prediction' will carry some weight then, shouldn't it?

Can I get your phone number? Because I know you're not going to come on here and let all of us take shots at you, so I want to call you and shove it in your face when Kerry wins.

Oh, I will probably actually be back a little before that, to post my "2004 ELECTION RESULT THREAD: VICTORY FOR THE GOP...A KICK IN THE TEETH TO THE LEFT" thread.

 

-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History