Us presidential election 2004

[MSpencer 0]

Honestly, the only person I will vote for is....

The Reverend Al Sharpton!

He's the only candidate who in my opinion, does not suck.

[bmgarcangel 0]

I'm 18 on sept. 11th this year, so ya, i'm gonna have enough time to get my registration shit in then i'm gonna vote for the democratic man

[toadeater 0]

He gave the victory to Bush last time and I wouldn't be surprised if he will turn around quite a number of anti-Bush republicans that have a difficulty voting for the Dems.

Actually, I think Nader is a republican agent provocateur. He clearly knows that the only thing he can accomplish is to sabotage for the Democrats..

Nader doesn't like the Republicans OR the Democrats, why should he support one of them? As far as he's concerned, there's no difference between them. There basically isn't. They both refuse to deal with the corporate corruption in America, they both profit from it.

We'll see if this changes after Kerry is elected president. All eyes will be on the Democrats.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

So tonight is the night. Democratic election in about 10 states. I bet Kerry gets 8 of them!

Edwards keeps fighting but he already got the message. Like me in the VIP2003 Vote he is already basically out of the race

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]CNN) -- Sen. John Edwards decided to quit his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, campaign sources said Tuesday night, following projected victories by front-runner Sen. John Kerry.

Projection is that Kerry will win. Dean got the Vermont(his state), and Kerry is projected to get 4. Since not all state results are in, we have to wait, but seems like Kerry won.

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

and Bush is getting cocky...

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is making an unprecedented request to use up to $1 million budgeted for a possible presidential transition to train top officials who would join his administration if he should win a second term.

The proposal, which will require Congress' approval, is the first time a president has sought to use public transition funds to prepare officials to enter a re-elected administration, White House officials and others say.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, that settles it- Kerry/Edwards in '04. Now it's time to sharpen the long knives...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

9 out of 10. Bush had to congratulate. Ouch...sometimes these formal procedures of politeness are hurtfull!

[Akira 0]

We can, and should, do much better than this though.

We should be proud of the achievements of Brahms and Bach, Beethoven and Haydn, Rousseou and Voltaire, Solon and Pericles, Lord Byron and Shakespeare, Doumas an Goethe.

These are European achievements because of our unique international interactions of the past two millennia, this is a lot more fitting for a European identity than petty hatred for a petty guy.

Well, while I agree with you, that's not the way it works. You need something more populistic to succeed.

Hate is "populisitic?"

That is just sad.

[bmgarcangel 0]

Sadly Edwards hasn't won a single state yet.  I was hopeful, but now, it seems hopeless unfortunately for him.  I think he would have made a great president.  But there is something I'd like to bring up in this topic.  All these presidents support abortion.  Now I'm totally against this (hell I mean its the guys and the womens fault if they make a mistake by having sex in the first place without proper plans) but hell, if they like come into office, like Kerry, I prey to god for his sake that he doesn't like pass some law or protect abortion for being banned because the would be F * * * * * up major.  I also hope he will take more action in the world but with a better pace and with god honest truthful reasons to why he will attack this place or to why he doesn't like that guy or this guy and so on and so on.  

~Bmgarcangel

[denoir 0]

Not hate but nationalism etc. It's not "you suck", but "I rule". And if you wish to develop a form of national identity you need nationalism. The easiest way of doing that is through group differentiation ("us and them").

[Akira 0]

Sadly Edwards hasn't won a single state yet. I was hopeful, but now, it seems hopeless unfortunately for him. I think he would have made a great president. But there is something I'd like to bring up in this topic. All these presidents support abortion. Now I'm totally against this (hell I mean its the guys and the womens fault if they make a mistake by having sex in the first place without proper plans) but hell, if they like come into office, like Kerry, I prey to god for his sake that he doesn't like pass some law or protect abortion for being banned because the would be F * * * * * up major. I also hope he will take more action in the world but with a better pace and with god honest truthful reasons to why he will attack this place or to why he doesn't like that guy or this guy and so on and so on.

~Bmgarcangel

It maybe the guys and girls "fault" (I'm sure you would agree its the girls fault in the case of rape ), but it will be your when the baby is forced through a succession of fucked up foster homes because the parent's didn't want it in the first place, and there we have one more fucked up pissed off youth in the system.

And where exactly is it in the Constitution that says you get to tell a woman what to do with her body AND the soon to be life SHE has to carry and care for?

Undoubtedly you also support gay marriage ban. And don't get Biblical on me with all the bullshit about the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Since when is this country run on what the Bible says? Or am I the only one that remembers that magical phrase "Seperation Of Church And State"? I love the hypocrisy with all the laws forbidding discrimination based on sex, race, or sexual orientation, but then deny them the basic right to be recognized by their own damn government. This is different right? Bullshit.

This country is pissing me off...

[Akira 0]

Not hate but nationalism etc. It's not "you suck", but "I rule". And if you wish to develop a form of national identity you need nationalism. The easiest way of doing that is through group differentiation ("us and them").

Now what a damn second here.

I remember not to long ago, during the build-up to a farsical Middle East war, you decried the "evils" of Nationalism, and pointedly said the U.S. is nationalistic and that, in your mind, equals evil! (Ok maybe you didn't say EVIL but you clearly meant it was bad)

You also made a point to say that Europe has progressed past nationalism and sees the "bigger picture" on the global stage. It deals now with social ills and societal and global betterment.

And now you are saying what Europe needs is good old fashioned Nationalism? An "Us and Them" attitude?

Are you saying that such an exclusionary mindset as "us and them" doesn't produce hate? By its very nature it is hate. "They" are not "us". "I rule" so you must suck for you are not me. I remember the last time Europe was gripped in nationalism. That was a pretty mess wasn't it?

[denoir 0]

No, you're not understanding me correctly. I do not advocate such measures. I am very much against nationalism. I'm just pointing out that some form of comparison between groups is unavoidable. If there was nothing different in the bond between the European nations and other nations in the world, then we would not be building this union. And if we thought that our values were not superior to other values, then again we would not be basing a union on them.

In any way, to identify a group you have to have some form of distinguishing it from other groups. If we build a world government we will be focusing on the common things for all humans. If you build an American government you focus on the common beliefs and values that Americans share. If you build an European government you do the same. And that I think is a step in the right direction, as the EU is not a country in the classical sense. We have many different cultures and traditions that are united under a set of common values and features. So it's a step away from nationalism. Your one level higher. Ultimately I hope one day that all forms of nation-states and unions of states will be gone and that we will unite all the people in the world under one system that looks out for the best for all man kind. We're not there yet.

The important thing to remember that the group mentality must be an introspective property of the system. You have to accept that while you may think its the best system, others might not. So it's really an internal mechanism that holds things together rather than an ideological standpoint.

Or do you have another idea of how you can form a group without focusing on the features that the group has that other groups don't?  

I think indeed that Europe is going away from the classic nationalism. Our group now consists of many countries with their own individual cultures. The larger and more divergent the group is the more you are likely to end up with a system that will be based on truly universal human values. Still, to hold such a system together, you must intensly focus on what it has in common. The same thing, when we one day build a world government, we'll be focusing on how cool it is to be human and what common values we have.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Or do you have another idea of how you can form a group without focusing on the features that the group has that other groups don't?

Nope I sure don't, other than as you said, to concentrate on what the group, together as a whole, shares. I merely pointed out that if the best they can come up with is a mutual loathing of or hatred of one political figure that will be gone (the stars willing) in at most 4 years, that is not a strong bind to build a nation state or nation federation on.

I would think the EU would be stronger and better served to unify under the common social ideologies that you share. Arguably, Europe takes care of its people better than most countries. And the general common ideology is an aversion to war, while have the resolve to get dirty if needed. These common points don't emphasize hate, but fulfillment, betterment, and the desire to do good. That I think can be a strong bind. Don't look without, look within. Right now instead of "its cool to be human" think how cool it is to be European.

While that mind set in general can lead to the nationalism most despise, the ideological counterpoint I think will keep that in check. That and seeing your continent blown to hell numerous times.

Tell the US to shove it, not because of hate or loathing but because what the group feels the US is doing is wrong (this is already starting). Take away the need for Poland and other countries to be lured by Washingtons promise of billions. Make EU solidarity worth more than that.

Have no idea where that came from....

And I agree with you for the ultimate abolishtion of national boundries.

[denoir 0]

Well, then we are in agreement

There seems to be however a darker side of it. The strength and the weakness of the EU is the multi-cultural composition of it. European nations have historical ties aroud the world and as former colonialsits they have widely divergent interests around the globe. If they agree on something, it's probably the right thing to do and not as a result of pure self-interest. On the other hand, the stronger the union is, the interests will also be convergent. And it can already be seen today in a wide number of areas where EU acts no better than USA. Our Common Agricultural Policy ruins third world countries around the world, just so that an inefficient and non-profitable European agricultural industry can be artificially kept alive. A European cow gets more money in subventions per year than two thirds of the world's human population.  

So the more united we are, the more we are likely to have common interests and the more we are likely to act according to them, rather than what's globally good. Acts of selflessnes are really rare in the world.

You will only have a globally fair system when everybody in the world has a say in how things are done.

The positive thing is that I think indeed that it's possible. Take a look at this forum and you'll see a truly multi-cultural blend where the individual opinions are far more divergent than the difference grouped by nationality. For instance I think you and I agree on a lot more things than you do with some of your countrymen. And vice-versa. Global communication has great potential of bridging that "us and them" gap.

Having said that, there are still wide differences in culture and ideology between groups. It was first when I started posting at this forum that I beacame aware of the Europe/US gap. And when the Iraq war was started, the gap widened.

Anyhow, to go back on topic, I'm not too fond of Kerry. I would have loved if Dean won - I think America needs some radical reforms and that Kerry is just another ambitious career politician. I don't see a coherent ideology on his part. I think he is yet another populist that will say anything that goes well with the crowd. When the Iraq war was popular, he voted for it. When things started to go bad, he suddenly opposed it. He claims to be a liberal but yet now he's saying that a "marrige is between a man and a woman". To me it's unbelievable that such discrimination could take place in this day and age. In 20 years this will be looked upon with shame, the same way as we look today at past racial discriminations.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

The main thing that gets overlooked in the discussion of the US economy's downturn is that while Clinton might get the credit for the good economy in the 90's, he got out of office just in time to escape the blame for the crash which occurred because too many companies bought into the internet economy hype too much and too soon, not to mention all of the crooked "cooking the books" that was going on while Clinton was in office.

While I'm not blaming him for the illegal activities of corporate executives, I'm also not giving him props for the economy. His 'Deficit Reduction Package' aka BIG tax increase had little to do with the surplus. That would have come anyway with a little bit of fiscal responsibility due to the surge of the economy as everyone went bonkers, i.e. making fortunes just from being able to program in html. It was an economy built on a weak foundation and it crashed us back down a ways. I think Bush should have waited for 2004 to run, personally, because Gore would have gotten the blame for the economy.

I don't care if people earning over $200k get more money back from the taxcut. It's simple math that as a % of your earnings, you'll pay more money if you earn more money.

Here's the problem..people LOVE to blame other factors for their problems. In almost every case, people are where they are because of the sum of decisions that they've made in their life. If you're going to rely on a government or someone else to keep you afloat, then you're entering into a losing proposition.

Politics is all about blaming someone else for problems.

BTW, maybe this GDP discussion should be held in another thread? If I wanted to learn how to decipher all of that, then I'd dig up my macroeconomics book. The economy is like the weather. You might be able to have some miniscule effect upon it, i.e. seeding it, but for the most part it's so massive that it has a life of its own.

[denoir 0]

I don't care if people earning over $200k get more money back from the taxcut.  It's simple math that as a % of your earnings, you'll pay more money if you earn more money.

The problem is that the money has to be taken from somewhare. The question is if you want to give people earning over $200k+ some extra money they don't need anyway or if you want to give it to those that live below the poverty line.

Then there's the problem of the budget deficit. Reaganomics 101 states that if you cut the taxes, you stimulate the economy (both production and consumption) and that through that you'll even with a small tax get enough money to the state. (A small percentage of something big is still much more than a large percentage of nothing).

The problem is that the economy has passed the limit of what economists think is possible to recover through such measures. The deficit is double in proportion compared to the previous record low point, when Reagan pulled his magic recovery.

When you are in this state, then no economic upswing in the world will save the state. So America is heading not necessarily towards a financial crash, but to the bankrupcy of the US government. We're talking about government services, pensions, social security etc The only way to recover is to both have an economic upswing and tax the hell out of everything that moves. It won't be pretty, but the alternative of the state collapsing is well.. no alternative.

[havocsquad 0]

I totally agree, the U.S. economy needs a complete makeover, like what happened shortly after World War II.  The U.S. must elminate ALL tax cuts, reinacting the Capital Gains tax, and spending a LOT of money on Education and tutition assistance for U.S. citizens.  

Those with skill and potential for college, should be given a chance at a 4 year college or university so they can boost the economy by maintaining our competitive advantage in business.  That includes middle aged workers stuck between poverty line and lower class, these people suffer the most.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Who are we to determine who doesn't "need" the money they earn? If you earn the money then you should be able to keep it. I would warrant that most people who earn $200k + a year work their asses off for that. Granted, you'll always have those who inherit money, but most of the time they squander it and end up in the poor-house.

Jealousy of high wage earners is a common tactic of the left, used to wage class war and I think it's rather worn out.

The best thing to do is get rid of the Social security system and allow people to save their money elsewhere. Hell, you can earn more money in a long-term very secure CD than you can with Soc Sec. Plus you can leave it all in your will. It's the social services the gov't provides that create such huge deficits, and they came about because the gov't piles more and more taxes upon everyone. IHMO the Social Security Administration is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on us. I say cut our losses now, and run up some deficits paying off everyone who payed into it, since all of the money in it has been spent on everything but SS.

I could go on, but here's the point, the economy might be sagging, and the gov't might be in deficit, but the gov't is in deficit because of all of the social services that it wastes trillions on, not because of tax cuts.

I earn the money, I should be able to keep it after paying a FAIR share toward infrastructure.

[denoir 0]

Who are we to determine who doesn't "need" the money they earn?  

If you earn the money then you should be able to keep it.  I would warrant that most people who earn $200k + a year work their asses off for that.  Granted, you'll always have those who inherit money, but most of the time they squander it and end up in the poor-house.

Jealousy of high wage earners is a common tactic of the left, used to wage class war and I think it's rather worn out.

The best thing to do is get rid of the Social security system and allow people to save their money elsewhere.  Hell, you can earn more money in a long-term very secure CD than you can with Soc Sec.  Plus you can leave it all in your will.  It's the social services the gov't provides that create such huge deficits, and they came about because the gov't piles more and more taxes upon everyone.  IHMO the Social Security Administration is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on us.  I say cut our losses now, and run up some deficits paying off everyone who payed into it, since all of the money in it has been spent on everything but SS.

I could go on, but here's the point, the economy might be sagging, and the gov't might be in deficit, but the gov't is in deficit because of all of the social services that it wastes trillions on, not because of tax cuts.

I earn the money, I should be able to keep it after paying a FAIR share toward infrastructure.

Not you and I, but the government/state. The state has the responsibility to provide good living conditions for all its citizens. The distribution of wealth is arbitrary. It's up to the system. You are not a free individual living in alone in a void. You are part of a system that has rules. Contemporary states have it as an ideal to protect all its citizens, regardless of how much money they make. You could of course advocate a different system, like the mideval European feudal system, but I don't think you would find many that agree with you. As soon as you put in the requirement for the system to provide protection for all the citizens, you can forget most of the things you posted. If you want the state services be proportional to what you earn, then you advocate that the police or the fire department should only help rich people as they are the ones in practice paying for it.

If you want to look at it a on a more fundamental level, your whole concept of earning money is related to the system you are in. The money is an abstraction for a service rendered relative the value of the system. No system, no money.

So, you might as well accept reality that you don't live in a world where you pay just for youreself, but you finance others as well. Most people do not have a problem with it as it's part of their empathy and compassion to other human beings.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Akira-". I merely pointed out that if the best they can come up with is a mutual loathing of or hatred of one political figure that will be gone (the stars willing) in at most 4 years, that is not a strong bind to build a nation state or nation federation on."

Tell that to George III. (Yes ill grant you there were one or two other things in the US constitution apart from criticisms of poor george just as there are indeed other things holding the EU together apart from the percieved smugness on the face of GWB).

Anyway, i cant help but feel that despite the current polls Kerry wont quite make it. GWB is spending enough money on his campaign to convince Arafat hes Israeli.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

I am sorry, but I am not a borg, or an ant, I am an individual, free to do as I choose within certain bounds. Government is of the people and it is merely an institution bound to uphold a code by which free people live by in order to respect each other's right to freedom.

If one person decides to drop out of school and work at McDonald's for the rest of their life, while the next works hard and earns millions, then the person who earns millions should not be forced to pay for the other guy's meal ticket.

Using the police power of government to take away money and using it to buy votes through "populist" policies is immoral. Both sides are guilty of it, but that doesn't make it right.

Obviously if you're in a system that relies upon the government for everything then you'll have a much different view. Extremely socialized economies will have people who tend to think of gov't as their nanny, i.e. the one who'll take care of them no matter what.

I think this mentality is dangerous in large doses and will eventually produce a population that only does what it can to get by, rather than actually innovate and create wealth.

As Thomas Payne wrote in Common Sense

Quote[/b] ]

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave

little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

[walker 0]

Hi Karrilion

Why whithin certain bounds?

You seem to misunderstand the concepts of freedom and responcibility.

No one owes you a society where you are not robbed, mugged and murdered. It is typical small "c" conservative error they want Freedom but go running for the protections of privatised communism when others exersize their personal freedom to take from them.

You have to pay for such a society. You do so with your taxes. They pay for police, courts, laws etc. It is a social contract that all around you have to agree. If you dont like taxes go live in Somalia. It is not that you are paying the other guys meal tricket it is that you want to live in a society that is not Somalia.

Any person is free to renegotiate the contract on a personal basis and muggers often do. Police and courts renegotiate it again. That is what you pay taxes for but if people stop feeling the contract is fair they tend to renegotiate it from the barrel of a gun. Your taxes ensure that does not happen a lot. Full employment and factors to mitigate unemployment and ill health are part of the insurance scheme you pay for to prevent it turning real uggly and madam guilotine being brought in to play.

Aspects of your social contract gets rengotiated once every 4 years other aspects are in constant state of flux for instance the US's bargaining position in economics has been reduced by its debt and the falling value of the dollar. Your tax contract is renegotiated by your executive representatives in your annual budget and in emergerncy measures by your national bank.

I wish the conservatives would quit moaning when the tax contract gets renegotiated. It is part of a balanced economy you have to pay for what you have. I know Bush has tried to say that borrowing is OK and fooled some conservatives but any one with an ounce of economic knowledge will tell you borrowing is an expensive business. Tax and Spend Republicans often fool people though like any other good shuksters but its a plane fact you in the US will have to pay back your bank loans same as any other debtor.

Bush may have put the repayments back till after the election but that only means the interest has gone up. After your US elections your tax rates will go up by 70% its a fact. The only question is is whether all US citizens should pay it or whether those earning $200k + a year will continue to be tax exempt. Thus meaning a much higher rate of tax on the middle clases. Personaly I think tax scroungers are the lowest form of sponger on this earth.

You could of course remove all veterans benefits as George Bush Jnr. is doing and reduce peoples pensions if they are public employees. Or like George Bush Jnr. let you dollar go into free fall. That should not be too bad the Chinese are buying Dollars except it will give them a strangle hold on the US economy for decades to come.

Kind Regards Walker

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

I don't misunderstand. I consider police, military, roads, etc. to be infrastructure. As I said in my earlier post, I'm willing to pay my FAIR share for infrastructure. I am for a much more limited government, not the abolishment of it. This is a common liberal mistake, to think that just because I don't wish to pay taxes that subsidize corporations, welfare, medicaid and social security means that I don't believe in social order through laws and enforcement of those laws. I believe the economy needs some "conscience" i.e. not complete Laissez Faire Economics. As I also said, freedom doesn't mean you're free to do everything you wish. With freedom comes the responsibility to respect other individuals' rights.

Human nature dictates that there will be those who respect your right to freedom, and others who wish to deny that freedom for either their own personal gain, or simply to snuff out your freedom through murder. Government is therefore a necessary evil. Unfortunately, government sometimes becomes more of a menace than other individuals who cause harm.

I agree Bush has overspent. I don't disagree with his military spending for the most part, but I do disagree with the extra social spending he has piled on, i.e. the prescription drug benefit being the largest.

I think, however, that a liberal would increase social spending, which I am against.

I would say I'm more of a Libertarian than I am a conservative on many issues, although some do intermingle. I think that most liberal ideology, while it sounds greatand compassionate on the surface, is often unworkable and actually restricts freedom while spending money in a wasteful way. Not only that, but lack of burden of responsibility for your future will dampen the human spirit and cause a severe lack of innovation.

[walker 0]

Hi KaRRiLLioN

You need to be aware of some facts

Republicans Tax and Spend

They then fool people like you in to beleiving they didnt. Look at the facts. You are in Debt up to your eyeballs.

Democrats balance your budget.

Look at what your ballance of trade was under the democrats.

Look at the books, all in the Black under the Democrats all in the Red under Bush.

Look at your jobless totals compare them under Republicans and under the Democrats.

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Kind Regards Walker