Us presidential election 2004

[Placebo 29]

Quote[/b] ]Most of the motives people have behind voting bush are simply uncomprehandable.

These 50 reasons seem pretty easy to comprehend.

Link removed.

Most likely perm ban.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Virginia is now so close that that nobody can call it. Kerry's vote there has been leaping forward like a Kangeroo on a sugar high. Kerry has a real chance of winning it!

If you are a Kerry Voter in Virginia get out and vote this election you could win the Democrats the presidency with YOUR VOTE in Virginia.

Get out 6 0' Clock in the morning on Tuesday. Make a Day of it. Make a carnival of it. Take picknic or order Piza in the queue but get out and Vote. And Vote John Kerry for President.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Virginia is now so close that that nobody can call it. Kerry's vote there has been leaping forward like a Kangeroo on a sugar high. Kerry has a real chance of winning it!

If you are a Kerry Voter in Virginia get out and vote this election you could win the Democrats the presidency with YOUR VOTE in Virginia.

When Clinton defeated Dole in the Democrat's 1996 landslide Dole still won Virginia by 2%.  Certainly Virginia has been shifting towards Kerry a bit, but he will not likely win it.

Nonetheless, trailing there by under 4% is a very good sign.  

[Bernadotte 0]

What I'm about to write is related to the above Virginia polling graph.  You'll see why in a minute.

After the elections, I'd like to find data on where campaign ad money was spent and compare it to the track records of polling organisations.  My (deeply cynical!!) suspicion is that states where polls were least reliable are also states where the most campaign ads where bought.

Fact 1:  Nearly all American media organisations survive on ad revenue.

Fact 2:  Nearly all public opinion surveys are commisioned by media organisations.

Fact 3:  If polls indicate a close race then media organisations in that state will likely make a fortune selling campaign ads.

Therefore, it serves the interests of that state's media organisations for the polls to indicate a close race.  So, I would conclude that the polls taken in 'battleground states' offer a far less reliable indication of who will win than polls taken in states with larger margins - like Virginia.  We just have to know how to use the data.

In the Democratic landslide of 1996, Republicans won Virginia by 2%.

In the great toss up of 2000, Republicans won Virginia by 8%.

Therefore, the current Republican lead in Virginia of only 4% can be reliably translated into something between a tie and a Democratic landslide nationally.

Does anyone honestly believe that opinion in Wisconsin is so much more volatile than opion in Virginia?

People are not so different across the US that voters in Wisconsin would have changed their minds 15 times in the past 15 weeks while Virginians have not.

[Acecombat 0]

Elections being decided on football games , what has the world come too

Ah well not much to wait now , we'll see who wins in a few days times.

[Colossus 2]

Elections being decided on football games , what has the world come too  

Ah well not much to wait now , we'll see who wins in a few days times.

correction: USA, not the world

[theavonlady 2]

Elections being decided on football games , what has the world come too  

Ah well not much to wait now , we'll see who wins in a few days times.

correction: USA, not the world  

Well, that's obvious! They don't play American football most anywhere else!

[theavonlady 2]

Does anyone honestly believe that opinion in Wisconsin is so much more volatile than opion in Virginia?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/wisconsin.png

People are not so different across the US that voters in Wisconsin would have changed their minds 15 times in the past 15 weeks while Virginians have not.

Maybe rigor mortis has set in.

Quote[/b] ]Votes From the Dead May Still Be Counted

1 hour, 5 minutes ago Elections - AP

By ALLEN G. BREED, Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. - An untold number of ballots from people who have died since casting them will be counted this year because of the haphazard and cumbersome process of enforcing laws in many states to weed out these votes.

With millions of voters taking advantage of new, in-person early voting in at least 30 states this year, it's even more likely that such "ghost" votes will be counted because, in most cases, those ballots are impossible to retrieve. Besides, it could be days or weeks after the election before local officials get word someone has died.

Earlier this month, in what would be her last conscious act, 90-year-old Trixie Porter gripped a pen in her weak, trembling hand, checked the candidates of her choice and scrawled a squiggled signature on her absentee ballot.

Within an hour, the petite woman who had been suffering from heart problems lay back in her hospital bed, closed her eyes and never woke up. Her ballot arrived at her local elections board two days later, Oct. 5 — the day she died.

"We commented that day that it probably won't count," said daughter Cheryl McConnell. "But she went to her grave not knowing any different. It counted with her."

The thousands of lawyers from both parties who will be descending on battleground states Tuesday looking for reasons to pick up a few votes could find the phenomenon of dead voters more than just an Election Day curiosity.

In Florida alone, more than 1.8 million people, many of them elderly and sick retirees, have cast absentee ballots or voted early in person in the past two weeks.

How many of those voters won't be alive on Election Day? Considering that an average of 455 voting-age people die in Florida every day, and that the 2000 presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes, dead votes that slip through the cracks could become a meaningful bloc.

"There are lots of examples of elections being decided by one vote or 300 votes," said Tim Storey, a senior fellow with National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "It's the classic policymaking dilemma when you're trying to embark on new methods like early voting."

The problem has arisen as an unintended consequence of laws meant to prevent a repeat of the 2000 presidential election debacle. Unlike traditional mail-in absentee ballots that are stored in labeled envelopes and can be pulled if someone dies, most of the new "in-person" early voting is being done on machines with no paper ballot to tell how those people voted.

So if a person in Florida casts an early ballot, then is run over by a truck right outside the polling place, there's no way to rescind the vote. But the vote of a Florida soldier who mails an absentee ballot from Iraq (news - web sites), then is killed in action, won't — or shouldn't — be counted.

"You've got potentially two people with exactly the same situation being treated differently under the law," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at The University of Akron in Ohio. "And on the face of it, that's unfair."

Some elections officials go to great lengths to purge voter rolls of dead people. In Flagler County, Fla., elections supervisor Peggy Rae Border has staff members scan the obituaries regularly.

"Here we check our newspapers every single day," she said. "We're still a fairly small county, so we're able to do that on a regular basis."

In Florida and other states, the vital statistics agency sends local elections officials monthly computer lists of people who have passed away to be checked against the voter rolls.

But if that data dump occurs at the beginning of the month, as in North Carolina, the death of a voter may not be caught until after the election, when it's too late to take it back.

In Missouri, absentee voting began Sept. 21, but the latest state-provided list of dead people was only current through Oct. 15 — and only went out late this past week.

"I personally know at least two absentee voters who are in hospice care and their minds are clear and they know what they want when they vote," said Christian County Clerk Kay Brown. "But who knows if they will be alive Election Day?"

Pennsylvania Secretary of State's spokesman Brian McDonald said enforcing that state's disqualification of dead voters is just impractical on the eve of a big election. "How the heck is the county supposed to know if an absentee voter has died?"

Several states — including California, Texas, Tennessee and the presidential battlegrounds of Ohio and West Virginia — specifically allow absentee votes from those who die before the election. This patchwork of state laws also means two identical sets of circumstances can lead to very different results.

Take the hypothetical of two Fort Campbell soldiers who cast absentee ballots and were killed in the same incident overseas. The vote of the soldier who lived on the Tennessee side of the base would be counted. The vote from the soldier who lived on the Kentucky side should be pulled because an attorney general's opinion in that state says those ballots should be tossed.

But such opinions are not legally binding — allowing the Christian County, Ky., clerk to count them with impunity.

"As far as I'm concerned, Christian County will count their vote," says Clerk Mike Kem, who is also chairman of that Kentucky county's election board. "I think if somebody votes, their vote ought to count."

North Carolina structured its early voting process specifically to address this situation, with a retrievable ballot that is not counted until Election Day. So if election officials are notified that an early voter has died, that ballot can be removed.

The only two ways those ballots can be removed is if the computer crosscheck catches it, or the family submits written proof to election officials that the voter has died.

"We don't check the hospitals on the day before the election," said Don Wright, general counsel for North Carolina's Board of Elections. "We're not at the morgue."

Cheryl McConnell won't say how her mother voted before she died, but she made a copy of the ballot to keep.

As for the real absentee ballot, election officials hadn't pulled it because the family had yet to notify them of her death. McConnell says she's in no hurry.

[billybob2002 0]

Oops....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6354942/

Quote[/b] ]Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

DAH DAH DAH VOTING IS FUN DAH DAH DAH DAH

[Pathy 0]

Ahh from the same highly intelligent interviewer who said, regarding Saddams WMDs

Quote[/b] ]Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

.....totally forgetting that he didnt actually HAVE any WMDs to destroy.

[theavonlady 2]

Ahh from the same highly intelligent interviewer who said, regarding Saddams WMDs

Quote[/b] ]Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

.....totally forgetting that he didnt actually HAVE any WMDs to destroy.

If you'll bother reading the interview in context, a few lines up you'll see that what's being refered to here are the explosive materials that were claimed to be under UN seal.

[Pathy 0]

And if you bothered thinking about it, we wouldnt have been led to war to disarm saddam of TNT or C4....either way he (the interviewer) has still proved himself a retard

[Bordoy 0]

Though they did find the mobile workshops and materials to make WMD's

[theavonlady 2]

And if you bothered thinking about it, we wouldnt have been led to war to disarm saddam of TNT or C4....either way he (the interviewer) has still proved himself a retard  

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians . . . We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

- John Kerry, CNN Crossfire, 1997

We're in a loop here.

[Bordoy 0]

And if you bothered thinking about it, we wouldnt have been led to war to disarm saddam of TNT or C4....either way he (the interviewer) has still proved himself a retard  

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians . . . We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

- John Kerry, CNN Crossfire, 1997

We're in a loop here.

Theres another one Akira.

[theavonlady 2]

Theres another one Akira.

No. There's only one Akira!

But, frankly, I'll ask you: what major mobile workshops and materials to make WMDs did the US find and confirm that they served for that purpose?

[Pathy 0]

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2004/anthr.shtml

[Bordoy 0]

Theres another one Akira.

No. There's only one Akira!

But, frankly, I'll ask you: what major mobile workshops and materials to make WMDs did the US find and confirm that they served for that purpose?

Nothing major. I think the mobile workshops were burnt out, and yes i can remember them on tv, not sure about the materials though.

[theavonlady 2]

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2004/anthr.shtml

Yep. Discussed this already. Looks like you missed the counterside, as you did in the above Kerry interview. Have fun! maybe you'll learn something new.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

[shinRaiden 0]

Hey, Brokaw's actually done a pretty good job here. Made Kerry squirm a bit, wish I had a tub of blueberries to go on every waffle he dished out. mmmm...

Quote[/b] ]

We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden.

So how come all you Europeans keep applauding this guy? His only consistent statement in this campaign is to call you guys a bunch of slackers that aren't doing your fair share of the dieing. Bush on the other hand at least makes public statements thanking those that are there helping out. Even if you think those are jsut PR spin, the fact is Bush is thanking those that are in the coalition, and Kerry is trashing those that are not.

Seems to me that Kerry doesn't want to draft the MTV kids, it's you guys in the EU he wants to draft and send to hold the hands of the inspectors, because he himself admits that Saddam was ignoring the inspectors.

Quote[/b] ]

Brokaw: Let me ask you about social and domestic issues. Your colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, says that he's proud to be a liberal. Are you proud to be a liberal?

Kerry: That depends on what the issue is, Tom. I've always hated labels. ...

Well Mr. Kerry, if you hate labels why did you immediately turn around and try to say you wanted to be 'labeled' a conservative, but only where it suited your own self interest? There's a reason the 'Right' is right...

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry: ... On certain issues I'm a conservative. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe in balancing the budget. And we worked at it, and we did it in the 1990's.

So, the artifical bubble economy built on the backs of Enron et al was a good thing? False long-term trend projections based abnormal short-term indicators, skewed by accounting malfeasence and the one-time burst of Y2K spending created an artificial and un-sustainable bubble. That 'balanced budget' was based on continued raiding of the Social Security slush bucket and on the assumption that the maniacal corporate accounting and IPO'ing would continue unchecked, creating a fiscal stream to generate the predicted tax revenues. Why doesn't Kerry offer a campaign pledge fo presidential pardons for Ken Lay and Denis Kozlowski and Martha Stewart, etc? They're the ones that made the economy hum in the 90's. And while he's at it, pardon good old Mike Milkin. He's the one who dreamed this whole structure up.

Quote[/b] ]

Brokaw: Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?

Kerry: I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him.

Sucka. Debates are a sideshow stunt. In the real work, Kerry consistently is missing the boat because he can't fathom how-why-what Bush is thinking. The only possible response is various alien conspiricy stories, and the National Enquirer and Weekly World News generally have a copyright on all those reports.

Btw, did you know that the 'hump' was actually a hyperwave control modulator that slave-links Dubya to the Markon back on Stroggos, and that the entire Quake-Doom series is a autobiography of John Carmack's future life? Why do you think he's been working on Armadillo Aerospace - and what are they 'really' doing - and what's with the Texas 'connection'? It's all a conspiracy to enslave the human populace as spacemarines in Carmack's plan for Galactic conquest, and Kerry's the one that doesn't get a clue.... All hail Zumlin.

Anyway, enough with the rambling conspiracies.

Email from GOP district chair has loads of good news. In the most Socialist county in Washington, voters have been so incensed over the abyss that Kerry would lead our country into that volunteers have been turning out in record numbers. We beat out phone banking goal last week by 413%, and the doorbelling goal by 166%.

And to top it off, over half of the volunteers this year that I've worked with are doing so for their very first time. Personally, I need to thank Walker for motivating me to get out and get involved. I'll be the official GOP poll watcher at the polling place tomorrow for where I am Precinct Chairman, and I'll have my cell phone with the lawyer team hotline list in case the ranchers decide to get out of hand. If the have WiFi at the place I'll even try to check in from there.

[Pathy 0]

You know ive been away from this forum for a little while. And taking a step back from it i realise how childish most of the people here seem to be. Thats not aimed at you, its in general. The people i had always thought were good debators....now i look at their posts and i just see them as being childish and picky in order to win petty arguments, that usually have nothing to do with the initial topic.

I didnt miss the counterside. When you are arguing for one side you dont go with the other sides arguments. Maybe you'll one day learn that.

And when all is said and done, other people saying Saddam is a threat is still no excuse for TBA for not waiting for the UN, WMD or not, the proper process should still be followed.

[theavonlady 2]

Personally, I need to thank Walker for motivating me to get out and get involved.

Walker definitely inspired us to register and mail in our ballots.

Why just earlier today, he was cheerleading us on.

Can I vote again?

[Bordoy 0]

You know ive been away from this forum for a little while. And taking a step back from it i realise how childish most of the people here seem to be. Thats not aimed at you, its in general. The people i had always thought were good debators....now i look at their posts and i just see them as being childish and picky in order to win petty arguments, that usually have nothing to do with the initial topic.

I didnt miss the counterside. When you are arguing for one side you dont go with the other sides arguments. Maybe you'll one day learn that.

And when all is said and done, other people saying Saddam is a threat is still no excuse for TBA for not waiting for the UN, WMD or not, the proper process should still be followed.

I am not sure about the childish point and ive been here since April 2002, so i know people. But i am now posting more then ever.

But yes the proper process should of been followed in this situation. Everyone is a threst these days, N Korea, PR China, Iran.

[theavonlady 2]

The people i had always thought were good debators....now i look at their posts and i just see them as being childish and picky in order to win petty arguments, that usually have nothing to do with the initial topic.

Yum! Anthrax ice cream!

Quote[/b] ]I didnt miss the counterside. When you are arguing for one side you dont go with the other sides arguments. Maybe you'll one day learn that.

That your arguments on the last page are out of context and irrelevant? Yes.

One side? Other side? How about facts? Or are you a fan of Stalinism?

Quote[/b] ]And when all is said and done, other people saying Saddam is a threat is still no excuse for TBA for not waiting for the UN, WMD or not, the proper process should still be followed.

The UN has no proper process in many people's opinion. Maybe one day you'll learn that.

[Pathy 0]

I thought like you Bordoy until i kinda grew away from it this last month. Ive started coming back here only because i am looking for some addons for a squad im starting. But coming back after time out....you see people posting the same old oneupmanship crap for what it is...look in every topic and it ends up as 2 (or 2 groups of) people bashing it out just to prove whos right, not to actually debate the issue.

Anyway, kinda way OT......

I'll be quiet now  

Edit: As much as your little attack on me makes me want to burst into tears Avon, i think i'll hold them back and let you have that little bit of joy you get from feeling youve just got one up on another forum member.