PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:51 am

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents duke it out here, there is no need to create hundreds of topics.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Jkw777
Posts: 4427
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:56 am

Fighting fire with fire I see?

I read this and thought, not another US Election thread, please...

Anywho,

Laters,

Justin  Wink/being sarcastic
jkw6210@btopenworld.com or +447751242989
 
pilot kaz
Posts: 4591
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:07 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:57 am

PPGMD,

THANK YOU!!!
-
 
QIguy24
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 1:13 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:58 am

PPGMD,

If you took your time to do a search you would have found out that we already had an official President election 2004.
 
pilot kaz
Posts: 4591
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:07 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:59 am

QIguy24,

Well it is obvious we need a new one, with all the new topics popping up (constantly)
-
 
Jkw777
Posts: 4427
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:59 am

QIguy24,

He posted this so they can all battle it out here as opposed to another 100 threads about it!

Justin  Wink/being sarcastic
jkw6210@btopenworld.com or +447751242989
 
PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:01 am

Re this:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/ambulance_terror_040818-1.html

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If they warn the public it's sparking fear, if they don't warn the public and something happens they are accused with neglect.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
QIguy24
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 1:13 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:01 am

Kaz and Jkw, I know he did it for a good cause. But why start one more when we already have one? Big grin


http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/611293/
 
Jkw777
Posts: 4427
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:04 am

Don't you have other things to worry about people?

Cheers,

Justin  Big grin
jkw6210@btopenworld.com or +447751242989
 
PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:04 am

Re this:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64602,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Someone in my previous thread said that it doesn't represent mainstream democrats, well will the Democrats condemn this attack since it's in their name?
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:31 am

I think it's really time for a very serious and well organized Third Party, in the USA. Give me the better part of each of the two major's. Think along the lines of T. Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" party. Obviously old T.R. was doing something right, 'cause he beat Taft in popular votes, if I'm not mistaken. I liked H. Ross Perot back in 1992, but had he won, Congress and the Senate would have made his probable one term a hell for everybody!

I'm getting rather unhappy w/my party, and there are pieces and parts of the OTHER party I could easily like, and agree with. But I'm not wild on what THEY stand for, anymore than what MY party stands for!
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
jasepl
Posts: 3499
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 3:15 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:33 am

It would be hypocritical of me to post here. It would suggest I care.
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:48 am

I think it's really time for a very serious and well organized Third Party, in the USA.

Even a 'second party' would do it  Wink/being sarcastic

I would like to see a Green Party, similar as in Germany, a real alternative to the existing people in power...
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:52 am

The green party is unlikely to catch on, it's too socialist for the average US voter.

From anti-GOP hack attack
Jetservice:

Yes it's probably illegal, but a well planned DDOS attack his hard to track.

Also it's unlikely that you will see any prosecutions, because they will probably be claimed to be politically motivated. Even though the folks were breaking the law.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:29 pm

The green party is unlikely to catch on, it's too socialist for the average US voter.

I would agree. What is needed is a party devoted to fiscal responsibility, monetary stability, no direct religious connections (but not anti-religious), and generally conservative values. Call it the Sensible Party. Some might say the Libertarian Party represents these values.

ANY Party whose essential platform is based on dogma (eg. Greens => Environment) is to be avoided like the plague.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:12 pm

I would agree. What is needed is a party devoted to fiscal responsibility, monetary stability, no direct religious connections (but not anti-religious), and generally conservative values

This does not contradict your statement. A green party could be devoted to fiscal responsibility.. Then, why a third conservative party?? How about an alternative, as change?

ANY Party whose essential platform is based on dogma (eg. Greens => Environment) is to be avoided like the plague.

Exactly.. down with the republicans!!  Big thumbs up You just are not able to understand: a green party does not have to be solely be based on a dogma. look at Germany..

Let the people decide between as many parties as they can without pre-selection..
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:47 pm

Let the people decide between as many parties as they can without pre-selection.

There is no "pre-selection". It is simply the mechanics of the type of democracy practiced in the U.S., which says that the party with the most votes wins... period - as opposed with other types which grant representation according to election results, so that even if you get 5% of the vote (and no majority anywhere), you still get 5% of the legistlature.

The good thing about such a majority-rules system is that it eliminates the extremist parties, or one-issue parties who can only attract a few percent of the population. The only parties who can have an impact are those who can attract at least 40-50% of the vote - for which they MUST be in the mainstream of the national will. Even the Republicans and Democrats are not that far apart on most issues - they both have to have a more-or-less middle-of-the-road stance.

Which is why the Greens or the Communists never could get anywhere in the U.S.. Also, the proportional method increases the role of the political party itself, rather than individuals. Therefore, when you go to vote, you would not vote for a person, but simply a party platform, and once voted in, the party will select who takes office. I don't like that system, as it is too reminiscent of smoky back room political deals. Such a system also favors the creation of an established cadre of politicians who hang around for years and years, swapping posts and creating a soap opera of conniving and backstabbing within and between the parties. Just look at the French government. They really should make that into a reality-TV show. More drama, corruption and nastiness than any other reality show.

Exactly.. down with the republicans!!

Like I said, the Republicans are not extremists. If they were the extreme-right that propaganda make them out to be, how come they have not totally elimininated the welfare state? Shipped all the blacks back to Africa, and the Mexicans back south? How come there is still a "progressive" tax system? How come they haven't passed laws (or amendments) requiring adherance to a particular religion? They have had the majority in the executive and legislative branches to do it, right?

They have not done it because they are not the extremists they are painted out to be. Same with the Democrats. On a scale of 1 (liberal/socialist) and 100 (conservative/capitalist), I would put the Republicans at 52 and the Democrats around 48. The difference is actually quite small.

That said, I do agree that it is a pity that some 3rd parties, like the Libertarians cannot seem to establish themselves. That will only happen if one of the two current dominating parties runs itself out of the middle ground. It has happened before - The Republican and Democratic parties have each not been around since the establishment of the U.S.. They supplanted other parties that found themselves well out of favor at some time. So it is possible.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:57 pm

Charles,

The good thing about such a majority-rules system is that it eliminates the extremist parties, or one-issue parties who can only attract a few percent of the population

Principally agreed. On the other side, a majority system eschews that parts of the population is accomodated in the system and transfers the 'battle' outside the Parliament.. I personally prefer broad representation

Like I said, the Republicans are not extremists.

I doubt that. The Neo-Republicans look like some

On a scale of 1 (liberal/socialist) and 100 (conservative/capitalist), I would put the Republicans at 52 and the Democrats around 48

I agree that the parties are quite similar in this, however I would put them 98 and 96, respectively. Agreed to your statement with the third party, however I prefer a multi-party system on a state basis (I like the US Federal System) with proportional representation in DC.. Good stuff to discuss about..
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:03 pm

It's too early for an "official" thread.

Wait till after the polygraphers have a field day at the RNC, and then about 3 weeks after that-the beginning of October, THEN we're in the meat and potato's of the election.

Until then, it's too soon
 
QIguy24
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 1:13 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:08 pm

When is the RNC??
It would be very interesting to follow and see what the GOP can offer for the next 4 years.
 
PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:25 pm

I agree that the parties are quite similar in this, however I would put them 98 and 96, respectively. Agreed to your statement with the third party, however I prefer a multi-party system on a state basis (I like the US Federal System) with proportional representation in DC.. Good stuff to discuss about..

That's compared to the system in your country. The idea of conservative and liberal vary from country to country. Here in the US both parties are about in the center. Compared to Europe both parties are slightly to the right, with the Greens near the European center.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:27 pm

The RNC starts around Sept 6th, I think.

The GOP moved it back for two reasons: 1. So Bush could raise more money before he accepts the nomination, and 2. They wanted to hold it just before the anniversary of 9/11 to A. Highlight Bush as a war president, and B. To try to scare voters once again, as they've done since 9/11, as a tactic to get people to vote for them.

But with Iraq still a mess, and Afghanistan still a mess; with OBL still running around, it may not be quite the backdrop they wanted when they changed the date about 18 months ago.

Bush will get a little bounce, but I don't think it'll be much. I still think this election isn't decided till the week of the vote. It's just too damned close, and most people have made up their minds.

Btw, reading CNN this moring, showing Kerry up by about 5% in Ohio.  Big thumbs up

...still a long way to go though.
 
QIguy24
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 1:13 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:35 pm

Thanks for the info Alpha.

I just hope that some of the channels over here will show anything from it.
I wonder what they will say about the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. And how they will tackle all the new terrorist threats that have started since the war began.
But I'm sure CNN will send something at least.

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Election 2004

Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:45 pm

Now, according to CNN, North Carolina, once thought a no-brainer for Mr. Bush, is up for grabs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=16&u=/ap/20040818/ap_on_el_pr/fighting_for_nc

In a close election, a candidate can't afford to have what was a "sure bet" head to the other candidate. Could North Carolina be to George Bush what Tennessee was to Al Gore in 2000?

Interesting to read how the Bush people say this is just taking resources away from Kerry in other states, even though that doesn't seem to be the case.

If Bush would lose even part of the "solid south"-even one state, it could be costly. But if he can hold N.C., and come back in Florida, he has a good chance at a second term.

Just shows how tight this race is.
 
slider
Posts: 6806
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:57 am

I'm with Tristarenvy...it is time for more Americans to vote their conscience and denounce the "lesser of two evils" construct.

It's ridiculous. Both the Democrats and Republicans are on the road to hell...just one's in the slow lane, one's in the express lane. But there's no substantive difference in their overall direction.

Conservatives? Indeed. Is that why Republicans and Bush are spending like drunken sailors and expanding government while in control (marginal) of both Houses?

Liberals? The honest to goodness Democrats have had their party hijacked by a bunch of leftist statist wackos, if not outright Marxists (ala Hillary).

The only way we're going to get this ship turned, end the widespread corruption that politics is about today is by having term limits for Congress and Senate, and people supporting a third party as they see fit and now chickening out when they reach for the lever.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:09 am

Hillary Clinton a marxist ?

Can you name one US politician who could qualify as "leftist" in any country outside the North American continent ?
 
PPGMD
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:06 am

Iakobos,

As we have said earlier in the thread, our idea of left and right are different than the European idea. Marxist are people that follow his ideals to a certian extent, because any further and it's unlikely that they would get elected.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
slider
Posts: 6806
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:17 am

"From each according to their ability, to each according to his need." - Marx

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary

******
No ambiguity there, Senator Clinton. The most liberal elected officials in the US could make darn good leftists outside America...maybe even better since they have to pretend to be something else more often than not. I wouldn't wish Ted Kennedy on anyone else...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:02 am

PPGMD, I know left and right are subjective but if you take a full width political spectrum in a multi-party country, your Reps would be ranging from right to extreme right, and your Dems from center right to right.

Would your Libertarians (why such a name btw ?) fit closer to the center ?

Cfalk: you are not right about the "eliminates all extremist parties".
In many countries political parties exist not only, and even not necessarily with the aim to be in power, but to try to defend their ideas, move part of their agenda and play their role in a parliamentary system.

An example: Greece is an "amplified direct representation" in that sense that the party who gets the more popular votes automatically gets the majority in parliament. Among many parties, there are 6 main clubs, including the communist party who traditionally gets 5-6% of the votes.
There is not a chance in a zillion that the communist party would get into power, still they play an active and important role in this democracy.
When you do have extremist parties it also has the positive effect to avoid the main parties shifting too far off the center.
The President is not elected by popular vote, but by the parliament where he must obtain 2/3.
The fact that single party leads is definitely not a good thing, but it is the only way to make the system work here.
 
air2gxs
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 1:29 pm

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:06 pm

Iakobos,

I was in Greece during the elections and watched a bunch of the coverage. you're right. The Nea Democratia (conservatives) seemed a bit left of what we would consider center here in the states. PASOK (liberals) were, and have always been, socialists at the core. When explaining the platforms to my wife, she doesn't speak or read Greek, I told her it was like Lieberman running against Dean.

So, how is the new government doing? I see they managed to put together the games. It didn't look like they'd make it back in Feb & Mar.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: US Election 2004

Fri Aug 20, 2004 1:20 pm

One interesting local sidenote from greater Cleveland. The ABC affilliate in Cleveland, WEWS, was reporting that the Cuyahoga County Elections Commision has been receiving 800 to 1000 voter registration cards A DAY, and that they are projecting a near-record turnout of 72% in Cuyahoga County this November.

If that's the case, that's good news for Mr. Kerry, because much of Cuyahoga County is still staunchly Democratic. The higher turnout for Kerry in cities like Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Toledo and Youngstown, and parts of Columbus, the better his chances in Ohio. A lower turnout in Ohio normally favors Repubicans.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], drew777 and 15 guests