1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

The All New United States 2004 National Elections COUNTDOWN!

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Mar 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Oct 12, 1999
    Nader is in.

    The 1% he could take from the Dems could make the difference in this election.

    Did you guys see how pissed Terry McCaulliffe (sp?) was?

    Nader doesn't like either party, so why should he care what the DNC chair has to say or let them tell him what to do?
  2. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998
    The american people seem to disagree with you. The fact is they like to elect Governors or incumbent Vice Presidents when given the option and that is a fair thing for the voters to take into consideration.

    I didn't say it wasn't thier option or it was unfair, I said it was stupid. Becuase the notion of really being an 'outsider' doesn't really exist to someone once they're in the President's chair. If you elect an outsider he's only going to become an insider, or get nothing done because he'll be fighting with Congress & the Senate all the time. So it would make sense to elect presidents with backgrounds from those areas or at least other areas with international experience (i.e: generals). Four out of the five last presidents had only governorships prior to holding office, and none of them are equally respected on both sides of the political spectrum as past presidents such as JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt and Wilson. Reagan fares the best but there's still large portions of the left that don't count Reagan as anything special.

    Might this be because these men came in with no washington or international experience or connections?

    And I can blame a lot of these leftist leaning nations for not coming to the plate for the US and proving they were not our allies to begin with. I dont' give a rats arse about what other country's think and if the rest of the world is Anti-Bush, I think that will help the american people solidify aroudn Bush.

    Gee, leftist leaning nations... they only account for most of the world's population. Many of these nations got behind the US over Afghanistan. What, does that suddenly not count anymore? Not to mention India, Russia, China and Brazil weren't allies to begin with.
    So it's nice you don't care what the majority of other countries think. But if so what's the POINT in pointing to ANY candidates lack of foreign relations experience? What, does it require experience to properly bully other nations into doing what you want?
    Hey, it's great Americans will rally around Bush if the rest of the world resents him. But you also have to trade with these nations and get along with them day-in, day-out. Maybe you like the fact Bush has no finesse like his father. That's your loss, and America's loss. And you get very little in return: after all America's strength comes not from anything to do with foreign relations, but because its a first world nation of 300 million freakin' people.

    Allies are not there to do what you tell them to do. If they did that, they'd be satillite states. You know, like the Soviet Union had.

  3. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998
    But then again, how does that lack of experince help him?

    It's not to say the experience helps him, but GWB's bad experiences penalize GWB. If Edwards were running against, say, Bush Snr., then his lack of experience could be a detriment. But it's the equivalent of someone applying for a job with no experience at a power plant opposed to someone re-applying who messed the power plant all up. Edwards might mess it up even worse -- but you know by GWB's record he's more LIKELY to mess it up.

    So the only question would be if GWB HAS in fact messed up the US's relations with other countries.

    Well, has it? ;)
  4. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998
    Nader is in.

    Bloody Nader.

    What exactly DOES that guy want anyway? I mean, it's his right to run, but looking at the political landscape... why? It's the equivalent of handing over the world to your own supposed worst enemy just to get in the spotlight and protest things. I mean, what happens once the protest is over?
  5. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Oct 12, 1999
    In addition to what I said above, Gonk: to Nader, both parties are the same, so what does he care?
  6. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998
    DM: Good point. In 2000 though, it was different. Everyone expected GWB to be a different candidate than he turned out to be -- perhaps even GWB himself.

    Nader can't surely think Kerry would have pushed for a constitutional amendment on Gay Marriage.
  7. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Master star 5

    Dec 5, 2001
    Check out this hilarious site:


    A Humorous Political Party Quiz to Test

    If You're an Archconservative, Leftwing Wacko, Antigovernment Libertine or a Commie Sympathizer

    [blockquote]My drugs of choice are...

    CONS: ethyl alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.

    LIBL: marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy.

    LBRT: whatever is the latest newly discovered fad drug that the D.E.A. is screaming and wailing about in the press, and warning the public not to experiment with, lest some stupid sorry soul suffer the worst of all possible fates: scrambled brains and deep fried gonads.

    COMM: vodka, cigarettes, and reds.

    What are the greatest sexual manuals of all time?

    CONS: - "The Joy of No Sex: Handbook for Higher Pleasure", by Swami Bhaktipada

    LIBL: - "The Joy of Sex", by Alex Comfort

    LBRT: - "The Joy of Solo Sex", by Harold Litten

    - "Recreational Sex: An Insiders Guide to the Swinging Lifestyle", by Patti Thomas

    COMM: - "Group Sex", by Ann Arensberg

    - "The Ins and Outs of Orgies", by Jack S Margolis


    Check it out. There are tons of them there.

  8. Darth Fierce

    Darth Fierce Jedi Padawan star 4

    Feb 6, 2000
    "In addition to what I said above, Gonk: to Nader, both parties are the same, so what does he care? "

    Yes, and if what I heard the other day is correct (maybe someone has proof one way or the other), Nader voters in 2000 said by a margin of 2-1 they would have voted for Gore over Bush. Most people seem to think all Nader votes would have gone to Gore. But if this is true, then only a third of them would have, and even that is pushing it. Remember, these people voted for Nader for a reason: they didn't like Gore. Perhaps if Nader didn't run, they wouldn't have voted at all.

    So, Nader's announcement is not the end of the Dems in 2004. But nonetheless, they have a major uphill battle ahead of them to defeat Bush. Worrying about Nader is a waste of time.
  9. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Oct 28, 2000
    I don't think Nader will be as big a factor as he was in 2000, because John Kerry on his own is much further to the left then Al Gore ever was. The result is that most of the Green Party members will see their issues reflected in Kerry; and only the most hardcore Nader voters will remain with Nader.


    Senate Bill S. 659/S. 1806 appears like it will come up for a vote this week. While this could be put on the gun control thread, the fact is a A LOT of democrats can lose their jobs on this bill alone; and there are a lot of Dems whom have already broke party ranks to support it. So I think it is a very relevant bill for this discussion, as there has been an attempt by Dems to avoid the Gun issue this time around.
  10. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Master star 5

    Dec 5, 2001
    I'm just full of [link=]great links[/link] today.

  11. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jan 14, 2003
    Possible excellent news from the war on terrorism
    [link=]Bin Laden trapped like a rat[/link].
    Of course one has to be careful, but the article claims that British and US special forces have trapped Bin Laden in an area of about 16 km² (with help of satellites and whatever).
    The capture of Bin Laden could IMO turn the momentum in favor of Bush as the president faces polls where he trails both Kerry and Edwards up to 10 percent.
  12. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Oct 12, 1999
    It's [link=]confirmed.[/link]

    Ralph Nader is in.

    The 1% he takes could mean the difference in this election.

    Terry McAuliffe must be steaming mad.

    All I can do is sit back and laugh...

    Hey, V03, maybe you can prescribe a proton pump inhibitor for the DNC? :p
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    May 21, 2002
    Now here is an interesting example on the power of perception.

    First off, The US and British forces have outstanding cooperation, and both are making great sacrifices.

    However, the UK-Express article above, demonstrates an interesting aspect on how opinion develops.

    The mission to track and capture bin Laden is commanded by US Central Command, with US satellite imagery support. SAS troopers are providing joint operations support.

    However, the Express artilce, in the sub-headline, boldly proclaims "SAS has bin Laden cornered!"

    Why ignore the fact that the mission is a US one? Why give the impression that the US only has failures, while minimizing its successes?

    Additionally, regarding bin Laden, another article from the Washington Post just came out which details failures that developed under the previous adminsitration, which directly led to problems in the current operation.

    In the years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the CIA carried out a secret but ultimately unsuccessful manhunt for bin Laden. But the search became mired in mutual frustrations, near misses and increasingly bitter policy disputes in Washington between the Clinton White House and the CIA.

    [in 1996] Back at Langley, the bin Laden unit, using classified channels, regularly transmitted reports to policymakers about threats issued by bin Laden against American targets -- via faxed leaflets, television interviews and underground pamphlets. The CIA's analysts described bin Laden at this time as an active, dangerous financier of Islamic extremism, but they saw him as more a money source than a terrorist operator.

    The paid Afghan agents could monitor or harass the Saudi up close, under CIA control -- and perhaps capture him for trial, if the White House approved such an operation. Operators and analysts in the bin Laden unit argued passionately for more active measures against him.

    At other times, plans to track or attack bin Laden were delayed or watered down after stalemated debates inside Clinton's national security cabinet.

    At Langley, CIA officers sometimes saw the Clinton cabinet as overly cautious, obsessed with legalities and unwilling to take political risks in Afghanistan by arming bin Laden's Afghan enemies and directly confronting the radical Taliban Islamic militia.

    On Aug. 20, acting on intelligence reports of a scheduled meeting of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, Clinton ordered 75 cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the Arabian Sea against a network of jihadist training camps in eastern Afghanistan. The attack killed at least 21 Pakistani volunteers but missed bin Laden


    It's interesting because the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" isn't exactly a secret..

  14. Luscious

    Luscious Jedi Master star 1

    Apr 10, 2001
    If Nader stays in the race Bush will win. Mark my words. This is country is split 50 / 50 right now. The current polls reflect what's going on. There's a Democratic primary and everyone is gunning for Bush. Bush won't start spending his money until Kerry locks up the nomination which will be after Super Tuesday in March. Then the real thing starts. The race will be very, very close. If Nader stays in Kerry will lose and Bush will win just like in 2000. Kiss Kerry good bye. He's done.
  15. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jan 31, 2003
    QR -

    But, no, sadly I have never hunted Wild Boar, all though I've heard it's a fun hunt....

    It does sound fun, but I probably won't have the time. As you understand, work and a woman can be time consuming. Just wait until you have kids!

    Actually, I voted for you Deathstar as a write-in. If they are going to have Democratic nominee they mind as well have one who likes to hunt!


    Thanks for the compliment. :)

    I actually might run for office when my kids get a little older.

    Sellars -

    P.S. DS1977, come hunt boars in Texas. There is a huge feral pig problem and the counties around here are exhausting all the bounty money they have to hunters. You can have fun and make money, what a deal.

    I've always wanted to be a bounty hunter. [face_mischief]

    P.P.S. I have never hunted or shot a gun in my life though, much less driven a pickup ... I guess I am one confused Texan, though I did own a pair of Western boots once, like C&W music, vote Republican, drink beer, support the death penalty, and like to grouse about all the Yankees and Californians moving here ...

    Well, like most people here, you are living proof that conventional stereotypes of what is a Democrat or Republican are simple assumptions that are often inaccurate.

    In regards to the election, it will be interesting to see what effect Nader has.

    Much has been said in the morning news shows that the fact that he is running as an independent may make it difficult for him to get on all of the state ballots.

    Anyone know where the Green party stands at this point? Do they have a nominee-in-waiting, so to speak? What about the Libertarians?

    For comparisons sake, I'd be interested to know how it works in England, Australia, etc. Two party systems like the US? Or is it quite different? Where is our foreign affairs expert Ender Sai to answer these questions?

    "Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax"
    Homer Simpson

    "Uh Dad, thats the homeOWNer tax"
    Lisa Simpson
  16. MoonTheLoon

    MoonTheLoon Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jun 23, 2001
    I seem to recall from 2000 that Nader fell short of garnering enough votes nationally to automatically earn the Green party a certain amount of US tax dollars to support the '04 campaign. Maybe as an independant he's eligible for more money than if he represented the Greens again.

    Either way, I think he'll detract votes that normally would have went to the Domocratic nominee. Same for whoever will be the Libertarian nominee.
  17. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    May 21, 2002
    any comments relating to the political side of things in the post that I addressed to you, Moon?
  18. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Oct 28, 2000
    Kerry is crying now that the GOP is specifically targetting his record as a US Senator. Man, they guy just does not want to stand on what he has done in the Senate, but then again, neither would I.

    Kerry Accuses GOP of Attacking Patriotism
    2 hours, 8 minutes ago

    By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

    NEW YORK - Democratic front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites) said Monday that he considers Republican criticism of his voting record on defense and national security an attack on his patriotism because "that's the game they play."

    Slideshow: John Kerry

    Kerry Courts Blue Collar Workers
    (AP Video)

    Latest headlines:
    · Kerry Accuses GOP of Attacking Patriotism
    AP - 31 minutes ago

    · Bush, Democrats Trade Jabs in November Warm-Up
    Reuters - 56 minutes ago

    · Kerry to Run Campaign Ads in 3 States
    AP - 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

    The four-term Massachusetts senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran argued that Bush's re-election campaign is trying to portray him as weak on defense by citing specific votes. But Kerry, who argued that he has voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in U.S. history, said he will not allow questions to be raised about his commitment to defense by Republicans "who never fought in a war."

    "They're somehow stronger on defense because they embrace every (weapons) system that was ever proposed," Kerry said. "That's not the measure of whether you're strong on defense."

    The Bush-Cheney campaign says it is not questioning Kerry's patriotism or military service but rather his 19-year voting record in the Senate on military issues.

    "Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism," said Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot in a conference call with reporters. "We have praised repeatedly his patriotism."

    Asked for examples of Bush attacking his service in Vietnam, Kerry cited published reports that the campaign plans to question his outspoken opposition to the war after he returned.

    "That reflects on the service," Kerry said. "That is a reflection on me and what I chose to do."

    Kerry won numerous medals for bravery and injury during the Vietnam War and has challenged Bush to a debate on their experiences during the era and the impact on their presidential vision. Bush served in the National Guard during the war and received an honorable discharge, but he's faced questions about whether he always showed up for duty.

    Kerry was introduced at a rally in Harlem Monday by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a fellow veteran who said Bush "parades around like he is a war veteran."

    "When someone parades around campaigning like he is a war president, it's time for the Democratic Party to get a warrior," Rangel said.

    Kerry and his supporters are eager to engage the president in a debate that would highlight his experience in the war and has accused Bush of attacking his service.

    Kerry is focused on defeating his last remaining major rival, fellow Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina, in the 10 states that hold nominating contests on March 2, known as Super Tuesday. Hawaii, Utah and Idaho vote on Tuesday, but Kerry and Edwards have not campaigned in the states and focused on the more delegate-rich contests next week.

    Kerry will spend more than $1 million to run television ads in three March 2 states ? Georgia, Ohio and New York ? beginning Tuesday, outspending challenger John Edwards 5-to-1 this week.

    Bush is stepping up his campaign in preparation for a match against Kerry. Racicot said although there are mathematical possibilities of someone else winning the Democratic nomination, Kerry appears to be headed toward the nomination.

    In another sign that Democratic leaders are unifying behind Kerry, two prominent Democratic governors ? Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell and Bill Richardson of New Mexico ? said Monday they expect Kerry will wrap up the nomination in the first or s
  19. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998

    This is in fact what Kerry will probably want. This is the Republican's attack vehicle and it's not going to stick. Because every vote Kerry made he can give very specific reasons for voting (whether they were his reasons or not). If Kerry can get his own voting record straight it will decimate GWB if the president brings it up in a debate. Kerry merely has to stay on the same footing he's used in interviews and shoot down whatever specific vote the President throws in his direction to show where he's consistent. Considering how the administration's now on its 3rd plan for an Iraq handover, it can't really say a whole lot about Kerry being indecisive.
  20. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Oct 28, 2000
    Kerry cries anything that attacks his voting record is an attack on his patriotism? So who is being paranoid now?

    They GOP have made it clear they are not attacking him on his Anti-War Protest activity (which I believe they should). They are focusing on his actual voting record as a US Senator, which I have long said is the worst in the Senate when it comes to supporting the US Military. I think more then anything else in this campaign, that the candidates record as Elected OFficials should count more then anything.

    Kerry seems to not want his record discussed, and I don't blame him. That record of his is going to help turn every moderate and independent voter in the country against him. Thats why he is moaning about it.

    Why would he NOT want his Senate record used? That has been the basis of his entire campaign so far? WIthout his US Senate Record, are we supposed to look at his record 20 years ago as a LT Governor in Massascusetts?

    Answer: He knows it will doom him in mainstream america.
  21. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Knight star 6

    Jul 8, 1998
    It's not that Kerry doesn't want his record discussed, its just that he doesn't want to focus on defending it just yet, which he will probably get to once he wins the nomination. He'll have more than ample oppertunity to go through each issue vote by vote if the president wants.

    Which is precisely why this falls into Kerry's court. Think about it: Kerry could make up any reason he WANTS for making the votes he did, whether its true or not. He no doubt knows the details of his own votes more than GWB. He can simply say "I didn't like this stipulation on this bill" and "I favored spending on this military project instead of this one" or any number of things.

    The very fact GWB appears weak on his National Guard service is that a military outfit will only accept a very limited number of excuses for getting out of duty or not showing up.

    Kerry can come up with any amount he needs to and the only thing he has to show is that he's at least relatively consistent on the majority of his votes. In order for this to stick they have to make Kerry look ineffectual. That's very hard when the president is dodging allegations -- hardly limited to just Kerry or even the Democrats -- that he himself is ineffectual. It's even harder when the man doesn't seem ineffectual or seem even slightly uncomfortable, and greets questions about his character, etc. with nods and encouragement to the person giving the quetion before it is done (like a non-interruptive 'yes', or 'right').
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    May 21, 2002
    is that a military outfit will only accept a very limited number of excuses for getting out of duty or not showing up.

    It really not strict at all, as long as one follows the procedure.

    There is actually a wide leeway in this regard. Depending on what is happening, of course.
  23. MoonTheLoon

    MoonTheLoon Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jun 23, 2001
    any comments relating to the political side of things in the post that I addressed to you, Moon?

    First off, someone asked for what he stood for and I provided it, being the only Edwards supporter here.

    How much of that list is purely politically based, and has no basis in reality?

    I think the ratio of promises based in reality versus politics are the same for Kerry, Edwards, Bush & Nader.

    1- Establish new protections for library and business records, limit the government's authority to search homes without giving people notice and require the Department of Justice to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers.

    I think Edwards is on the right track here in that first, he believes the act should be reviewed and some issues addressed. I'm in full support of reviewing these specific provisions because simply we can not afford another wacko like J. Edgar Hoover taking advantage of said provisions. He's thinking down the road for what may come, not necessarily how things have been done in the past.

    2- Strengthen due process rights for people arrested on American soil as an "enemy combatant" without access to a lawyer or a day in court. He says appropriate limits on choice of lawyers and judicial forum could be imposed.

    None of this was contained in the Patriot Act, even if not Patriot specific, the precedent for this action has existed for 63 years, and is part of what the Supreme Court is reviewing in April.

    Ok, for 63 years it's been done one way, and he wants to ensure the a citizen's rights are protected while not being able to turn the legal system around on itself. I think that's a good idea.

    3- Creation of a new Homeland Intelligence Agency.

    You mean because additional layers of government are always helpful?

    I never said that.

    I thought Edwards was criticizing the President about spending..

    How is Edward's agency going to be paid for,

    I'm sure part of it would come from closing the tax loopholes for big corporations and those earning >$200,000, neither of which Bush plans to do. Which begs the question, with the deficit ballooning, does Bush plan to pay for anything at all?

    and how is redundancy going to be reduced between it, the CIA, and the FBI?

    I would suggest the CIA handle foreign intelligence, the new HIA to handle domestic intelligence, and the FBI would stick to law enforcement.

    Remember, I'm one of those key independant swing voters. If Edwards doesn't win the nomination I plan to vote for Bush.

    I guess we'll find out today how much more of a fight there will be for the Democratic nomination.
  24. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    May 21, 2002
    I appreciate your reply. It answered alot of questions regarding his views.

    For you, even though Edwards has not yet completed his first term, his "outsider" status is what makes him the first choice?

    What about Nader in relation to this..Has he been completely discounted?
  25. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Oct 28, 2000
    I don't think Nader will be as great a factor in 2004 as he was in 2000 (and he was not that big a factor anyway), because John Kerry on his own is farther to the left then AL Gore ever was. I think Nader voters whom really believe in Ralph Nader's message and views will see them reflected in Kerry, and thus have somewhere to go. I think Nader's hard core supporters will stay with him no matter what, though.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.