#1
Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:18 PM
#2
Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:32 PM
My 2C.
TimberwolfCY
of NH, NHQ, NO, NC
#3
Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:13 PM
Personally, I'm in favor of an 'approval' system where you can vote for any and all candidates that you are in favor of. This would actually give significant strength to a good, moderate 3rd party candidate because people wouldn't be afraid of handing the election to the major candidate that they are more opposed to. It would also give a better impression of what people actually want in a leader.
The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.
#4
Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:25 PM
Also just a quick question, has over type mode always been on this forum or is it just my internet?
#5
Posted 30 September 2004 - 11:52 PM
Was it just me, or did Bush answer every question with "Kerry is a flip flop". I mean, I think Kerry did a better job in the debate than gore did in '00, but the whole thing could be pretty much summed as weak sauce.The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.
#6
Posted 01 October 2004 - 05:47 AM
#7
Posted 01 October 2004 - 01:19 PM
TheTalio: Fuck you...I still love you
#8
Posted 01 October 2004 - 04:05 PM
I personally thoguht Kerry had an edge in the debate though. I mean he was able to sit back and blow holes in all the wrong choices Bush has made and say that he would fix all that, Bush though could say all the bad obvious choices bad choices that Kerry made. Just a thought.Until we change the way we elect our president any '3rd party' candidate will serve as, at best, merely a spoiler. I'm sure Nader is proud of what he accomplished in 2000 - clearly he wants another 4 for Bush.
Personally, I'm in favor of an 'approval' system where you can vote for any and all candidates that you are in favor of. This would actually give significant strength to a good, moderate 3rd party candidate because people wouldn't be afraid of handing the election to the major candidate that they are more opposed to. It would also give a better impression of what people actually want in a leader.
The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.
#9
Posted 07 October 2004 - 09:02 PM
As to who is better on polls, however, for online, you can't base your reasoning on those. The people who do those polls are normally young (thus liberal), and rich-to have internet access- (hmm..taxes?). This is not everyone, but in general thats how it works.
Although Kerry seems to have helpful plans for the US, they seem even nebulous to himself as though he isn't really sure how to implement them.
But - Bush also sucks.. - I just think that I'd be afraid to have Kerry as prez.
AA
#10
Posted 07 October 2004 - 11:56 PM
That's very unfortunate.Bush at least has the courage to finish what he started. The fact that Kerry seems to change his mind on important issues does cause high uneasiness within the population.
I'd prefer a leader who is willing to admit to his mistakes when he's wrong. Someone who allows himself to grow wiser rather than blindly holding on to his beliefs to the detriment of our country.
When you look at it that way, Bush is really no different from Majin. He's going to stick to what he believes even when the whole world disagrees with him. Even, in fact, when the facts turn out to prove him wrong.
#11
Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:22 AM
In fact, the whole world didn't disagree with Bush. UN has been talking about the removal of Hussein for years. The fact that they disagreed with his method doesn't change the fact that they are relieved by his removal.
Think of this scenario. If Hussein hadn't been caught yet, and Bush lost the election, what would Kerry do? He'd think of a strategic way to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Good thinking! We now have several hundred troops that died for a now lost cause. Basically Kerry is like a little kiddie who wants to get someone else in trouble for his own pleasure. He supports the war, but doesn't want to see Bush as the driving force behind a positive cause.
#12
Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:36 AM
#13
Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:41 AM
Contrary to what I've been posting, I'm not that much of a pro-Bush fan. I do think that Kerry sucks more than Bush. Yeah, I could see how I could of changed the last paragraph to a simple "Flip-flop."
But in any case, I don't see why people are so pro-Kerry when he seems like such a dangerous and unstable guy. At least Bush sticks with his plan.
Oh, and my last argument (does this even count?). Presidents with Big Chins have never been good recently. C'mon, Clinton? The only reason why the economy was good was 'cuz it was reaping the benefits of George Sr. Clinton was just a waste of 8 years.
^Alright, maybe that wasn't the most qualifying argument...^
#14
Posted 08 October 2004 - 01:37 AM
-Diablo
NHQ Administrator | www.nerfhq.com
#15
Posted 08 October 2004 - 02:02 PM
Not so quick there, Chester. Those troops volunteered to defend The United States of America. They trusted the president to only send them into war if it was absolutely necessary. Bush told them they were going to Iraq to get rid of the WMD threat. Everyone found out he lied. He then had the unmitigated gall to say that he would have done the same thing all over again even if he knew that our country was in no way threatened by Iraq. Bush has gone on record that he thinks it's a good idea to invade a sovereign country just because it has a lousy leader.Sure, 1000 troops died. Bush didn't "kill" them. They volunteered to go to war, knowing that if they died, it was for a cause. But those 1000 troops gave their lives to save several thousand more civilian lives that might have been gassed or shot, or under some other form of torture.
In fact, the whole world didn't disagree with Bush. UN has been talking about the removal of Hussein for years. The fact that they disagreed with his method doesn't change the fact that they are relieved by his removal.
Thinking that Iraq is better off without Hussein should in no way imply agreement with Bush's decision to invade. The US attacked Iraq with no provocation or imminent threat. A survey of less than half of the hospitals in Iraq found that there have been over 3,200 confirmed Iraqi civilian casualties. Most current estimates are well over 10,000. Some Iraqis think they are better off now, some don't. Many are dead. It should not have been our decision to make alone.
Think of this scenario. If Hussein hadn't been caught yet, and Bush lost the election, what would Kerry do? He'd think of a strategic way to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Good thinking! We now have several hundred troops that died for a now lost cause. Basically Kerry is like a little kiddie who wants to get someone else in trouble for his own pleasure. He supports the war, but doesn't want to see Bush as the driving force behind a positive cause.
So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that it's so important to make a "positive cause" and justify all those deaths, that you would risk many more lives in order to accomplish it? You're against our pullout in Vietnam also?
Kerry doesn't support the war, he supported the President having the authority to wage war as a last resort. Now that we all know it was not a 'just war', what sane person would continue to suggest that it was a good idea?
#16
Posted 08 October 2004 - 03:59 PM
Actually, since this is my brother's generation and probably some of your's, I do recall the recruiters promising the eligable enlistees that they were not going to go to war within the next five years. The recruiters said that in '99; We started this war in 2002. Do the math.They volunteered to go to war, knowing that if they died, it was for a cause.
Where do you get "commies" from? And even still, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had big chins. So did Bush Sr. If you want to make a good argument (or comment on an argument), be sure it isn't ass-pickings.Down with the big chinned commies!
So who knows Bush's IQ? is it 99? 101? I highly doubt it is any higher than 115. I'm not saying that Kerry's Einstein or anything, it's just that I'd prefer a new president every four years. Otherwise terms would be "until death."Bush has gone on record that he thinks it's a good idea to invade a sovereign country just because it has a lousy leader.
Now, I have a new question: Why are there political parties? They just allow biases in elections. Does anyone else agree with that? I seriously think everyone would be better off if there were no political parties. Or if all the people who were unable to think truly about who they are voting for (and not just saying "That candidate is a Democrat/Republican") didn't know about elections.
Even still, what does a president do that is so important to have one at all? Wouldn't a group of individuals, who share the common beliefs of certain regionally divided people, all coming together and voting on the dicision(s) be good enough? To make it better, there could be two such "gist voting" groups that each would vote seperately on the same topic to get the most decisive conclusion. Then again, though, we all could switch back to the monarchy and have more fun that way.
Edited by GeneralPrimevil, 08 October 2004 - 04:49 PM.
#17
Posted 08 October 2004 - 04:51 PM
My theory on why we only hear about Democrats / Republicans is the fact that they are both heavily backed by larger corporations. If you look at the largest campaign contributors for the election, you will notice that some corporations contribute to both parties.Now, I have a new question: Why are there political parties? They just allow biases in elections. Does anyone else agree with that? I seriously think everyone would be better off if there were no political parties. Or if all the people who were unable to think truly about who they are voting for (and not just saying "That candidate is a Democrat/Republican") didn't know about elections.
Europe and Canada: I envy you and your governments. Why can't Americans stop the partisan spin bullshit and run as independents for a change? That alone would help level the playing fields in future elections, therefore letting the leaders with actual brains take office.
I find it sad that a majority of the American people blindly only vote for these two parties, but I am afraid that this will keep up for the years to come until something major happens to our nation (i.e. the public pulling their heads out of their asses and THINKING FOR THEMSELVES). I hate having to admit that I plan to vote partisan this election, however the reason why I am voting for Kerry this year is because he has the best chance at beating Bush. Although the Republians claim that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," He has repeatedly explained his reasoning behind his voting patterns in the senate, which does seem to make sense.
Getting to the "Clinton not doing well in office" argument: How can you say someone is a horrible president, yet we enjoyed some of the best economic growth while he was in office? Bush Sr.'s main campaign promise was not to make new taxes, but he lost his re-election. The current Bush in office is flaunting about his tax cuts helping the economy. Do you start to notice a pattern here? As history has shown us, it is not a good idea to cut taxes in a time of war. Thanks to Bush, our unemployment rates have reached record highs, prior US allies have gotten pissed off at us, and our defecit is taking a huge ass-pounding. I still don't understand what people see in Bush.
#18
Posted 10 October 2004 - 10:24 PM
#19
Posted 11 October 2004 - 01:04 AM
I knew that George Soros was endorsing Kerry this year, but I haven't found out about Buffet until now. Any other billionaires like them supporting Kerry?Kerry's policy was domestically far better, as biollionaires Warren Buffet and George Soros have already endorsed Kerry.
Edited by Oroku_Saki, 11 October 2004 - 01:05 AM.
#20
Posted 11 October 2004 - 06:36 PM
CXWQ, I'd assume you're a supporter of Instant Run-off Voting?
And I'd personally be completely in favor of a parliamentary system here, where it's representation based on percentage of the vote instead of winner-take-all. That way, you have coalitions instead of set parties and more opportunity for politicians to vote what they believe instead of party lines. Not only that, but we'd have a few green party or libertarian representatives in there to shake things up a bit.
#21
Posted 11 October 2004 - 07:01 PM
Yeah, I support IRV, though I too think a parliamentary system would be interesting and considerably more fair than what we have now.CXWQ, I'd assume you're a supporter of Instant Run-off Voting?
Final debate is wednesday night, folks. If you're 18 you need to be watching that. If you're not 18, watch it anyhow because it's good to be informed.
#22
Posted 11 October 2004 - 08:15 PM
Can do. Gladly, in fact, I was going to anyways.If you're not 18, watch it anyhow...
It turns out there are actually 13 presidential candidates. Unfortunately I didn't know about most of them....a few green party or libertarian representatives in there to shake things up a bit.
The Green Party really has a good look on everything. In this link it shows the four major candidates views and records on a few topics. After reading a few, I noticed that Libertarians are gun nuts, so I think I should join them.
I know what you're talking about. 5.56x45mm has gone up in price over the last four years. If it were up to me, I'd convert the U.S. army to 7.62x39mm seeing as how there are millions of rounds (literaly) just sitting around in the country we are occupying. We actually would be funded by the Iraqis, instead of the Saudis who own 7% of America.After all it is a fact that with the amount of money we spend on ammunition alone each ye(a)r we could feed the world 4 times over.
#23
Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:06 PM
You're right about the president not being as powerful as he's made out to be; his counsel really has more power than he and more powerful is the beuarucrats (SP) who sit around for 10 years and no one bothers to appoint someone else.
And you're comment about people who don't "think for themselves" being kept unaware of elections. Yeah, let's keep the ignorant from voting. At the polls you'll have to take a test before voting. It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south. Most of your statements have been chicken shit and I'd like it if you could present some logical, realistic arguments.
And I tried so hard to stay out of this one.
#24
Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:41 PM
I think that it would help if the government funded a decent program to promote informed voting. Hopefully, that would help people have more confidence as well as make better decisions. Also, I am in favor of changing the rules of electing officials. If we went by popular vote alone, instead of the "winner takes all" bullshit the Electoral College came up with, I think the elections would be more fair in general.And you're comment about people who don't "think for themselves" being kept unaware of elections. Yeah, let's keep the ignorant from voting. At the polls you'll have to take a test before voting. It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south. Most of your statements have been chicken shit and I'd like it if you could present some logical, realistic arguments.
#25
Posted 12 October 2004 - 12:14 AM
I can give you a brief overview and a wikipedia link.I'm not familliar with the IRV concept, can you explain Cx or Merl?
With Instant Runoff Voting, everyone ranks some (or all, depending on the implementation) candidates as their first, second, ... choices. From there the flowchart is as follows:
1. Add up the votes for everyone's highest ranked candidate that is still in the runoff.
2. Did someone get > 50%? If yes, declare winner.
3. Remove the candidate with the least votes, goto 1.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users