PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:06 pm

user wrote: So the real issue is, when does an abortion become killing a baby? When does a clump of organic tissue become a sentient being, or get a soul, or become a truly living creature?

I could be wrong, but I think you're wrong. I was under the impression that the argument was that yes, it was killing a baby, but a woman should not be legally forced to be an incubator. At any rate, Roe v. Wade establishes the "compelling point" as the end of the 1st trimester, at which point the baby has vocal chords (and can (silently) cry), fingers, toes, and eyelids and looks like this. I dunno, you decide.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:09 pm

mkilly wrote:Also, Jefff and C Hack and others, I'd really like it if you could talk about abortion privately or if you want to start a new thread that'd be fine too.

I'd like it, too, if that helps.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:16 pm

mkilly wrote: I disagree. I find Kerry's positions to be as opaque as Bush's are.

How about "Kerry's positions are as transparent as Bush's are?" I can agree to that

mkilly wrote: JOHN KERRY ON FUTURE IRAQ POLICY. Second link down on a Google search for "john kerry iraq". Consistent with what he's said in the debates.

JOHN KERRY ON FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY. First Google result for "john kerry social security". Exactly as he diagramed in last night's debate.

Oh yeah. See, a lot of that makes sense. So why did he spend most of his time talking about how much Bush sucks? Maybe it's just the way the game is played.

mkilly wrote:Here's a link from a gay conservative blogger regarding Mary Cheney. He brought her name up as an example of an outed, public lesbian who would likely say that she did not choose to be a lesbian, but that she simply is drawn to women.

Yes, but you have to ask why he dropped her name. Was there some hidden motive? He didn't drop any other names. Was she simply on his mind? I'm sure it was completely innocent, but I still say it was rude to bring family into it.

mkilly wrote: Your "wrapping up" is something I could address but won't. It's pretty absurd in its generalities, though.

It's mostly tounge-in-cheek, as I'm sure you realised.

mkilly wrote:Also, Jefff and C Hack and others, I'd really like it if you could talk about abortion privately or if you want to start a new thread that'd be fine too.

You're right -- it's way off-topic. Sorry.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:33 pm

c hack wrote:How about "Kerry's positions are as transparent as Bush's are?" I can agree to that

Well, except you just said that "at least with Bush you know where he stands."

c hack wrote:Oh yeah. See, a lot of that makes sense. So why did he spend most of his time talking about how much Bush sucks? Maybe it's just the way the game is played.

Yeah, it's basically just the game of politics. They're even in the polls right now, Kerry has to demonstrate why and how he feels Bush's policies have failed America over the past four years, and then if there's time he'll say what his policies are. I think he could've done better in the debates outlining his policies, but he did adequately, I think, considering the medium.

Yes, but you have to ask why he dropped her name. Was there some hidden motive? He didn't drop any other names. Was she simply on his mind? I'm sure it was completely innocent, but I still say it was rude to bring family into it.

I don't know what was rude about namedropping Mary, though if you called it politically opportunistic I'd shrug and agree.

Let me quote Andrew Sullivan: It exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like President Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose. (...) Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?

blue · Post by **blue** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:41 pm

It is more important for people to be happy and healthy than it is to have more new people.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:51 pm

mkilly wrote:
c hack wrote:How about "Kerry's positions are as transparent as Bush's are?" I can agree to that
Well, except you just said that "at least with Bush you know where he stands."

Well, I mean that you know whatever he says, he's probably just gonna do more of the same. With Kerry, you have to trust him that he's not gonna pull a bait-and-switch. From his website, it looks like Kerry really would do a better job in Iraq, but planning is one thing, and execution is another. Bush may be not the smartest guy in politics, but I doubt that all the generals and whatnot in charge over there are equally dense. I don't know. I just don't know. Kerry says we need to get the rest of the world involved, and I totally agree, but how does he think that's gonna happen? I mean, Spain gets bombed and turns tail and runs. It sounds like we'll have Russia helping out, but it also sounds like they're throwing away anything related to democracy in favor of revenge (which isn't completely unlike the US). I don't know.

An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters.

Oh, I missed that one. Yow know, you're right -- they do mention their families all the time. But too much, I think. It's like we're not electing just one candidate, we're electing his wife too. and God forbid a single guy should want to run for office. Okay, I won't fault Kerry for the name-dropping. But I still think it was kinda weird.

blue wrote:It is more important for people to be happy and healthy than it is to have more new people.

That's right. So, http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?key=jimmy_hat

Post by jb » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:31 pm

c hack wrote:
mkilly wrote:
c hack wrote:How about "Kerry's positions are as transparent as Bush's are?" I can agree to that
Well, except you just said that "at least with Bush you know where he stands."
Well, I mean that you know whatever he says, he's probably just gonna do more of the same. With Kerry, you have to trust him that he's not gonna pull a bait-and-switch. From his website, it looks like Kerry really would do a better job in Iraq, but planning is one thing, and execution is another. Bush may be not the smartest guy in politics, but I doubt that all the generals and whatnot in charge over there are equally dense. I don't know. I just don't know. Kerry says we need to get the rest of the world involved, and I totally agree, but how does he think that's gonna happen? I mean, Spain gets bombed and turns tail and runs. It sounds like we'll have Russia helping out, but it also sounds like they're throwing away anything related to democracy in favor of revenge (which isn't completely unlike the US). I don't know.

An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters.
Oh, I missed that one. Yow know, you're right -- they do mention their families all the time. But too much, I think. It's like we're not electing just one candidate, we're electing his wife too. and God forbid a single guy should want to run for office. Okay, I won't fault Kerry for the name-dropping. But I still think it was kinda weird.

blue wrote:It is more important for people to be happy and healthy than it is to have more new people.
That's right. So, http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?key=jimmy_hat

Well, when you say that you doubt all the generals over there are as dense as Bush is, it seems like you're discounting something: Bush is the commander in chief. When it comes right down to it, the armed forces have to follow his orders. So it doesn't matter how smart the generals are, Bush can still pull the rug out from under them either by underfunding them (why must our troops buy their own body armor?) by underutilizing them (according to many sources there still aren't enough troops over there to do the job), or by undermining them ("bring it on"). And this isn't happening because of Bush's malice, it's through his ignorance and stubbornness and probably some naiivetee (or however it's spelt) because he's not paying attention to exactly how greedy are some of the other civilians that he's allowed to become players in the situation.

When you say that at least you know where Bush stands, I don't see that as a positive trait, because he's driven us into quicksand and we KNOW where he's going to go from here. He's not going to surprise us. Hell, for many of us, he's NEVER surprised us. It's all fallen out almost exactly like the Cassandras predicted before the war started!

I don't care if Kerry's plans to get the rest of the world involved aren't solid. How can they be? Kerry doesn't get the intelligence briefs every day. He doesn't know everything about the situation. This is why he's been accused of "flip-flopping"-- he takes information and reevaluates according to new knowledge. You can see in the debates exactly how hard he tries to avoid making and unequivocal "read my lips" statement. No intelligent person should expect him to either. That's why all the qualifying. He knows he's going to get in there and there'll be some situation that's going to make it really difficult to follow through on a promise to, say, get all our troops out in six months.

The point is that he has resolved to try these things, and he's told us all that he's going to try. Bush has resolved NOT to try ANY of these things.

Nobody goes into a presidency intending to stay just one term (except Polk)-- Kerry knows that he's got to follow through on his statements, or we'll kick his lying ass out! Like we're going to do Bush, because he's ignored so many of the promises he made when he was running for the office in 2000. He cannot be allowed to get away with that! That's only one of the reasons I believe we need to vote him out of office, but it's one of the root causes of everything that (in my opinion) he's done wrong during his term.

jack · Post by **jack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:01 pm

well said. now bring on oprah for the KO.

the choice is for the same downward spiral or change. it's that clear.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:34 pm

jack shite wrote:well said. now bring on oprah for the KO.

the choice is for the same downward spiral or change. it's that clear.

Agreed - although I genuinely fear that USA will head the same road Australia did in last weeks election and fail to change.

Like your Bush, our Howard has been guilty over the past couple of years of pursuing policies which should be unthinkable in a modern liberal democracy and of a level of lies and deception which should have resulted in criminal charges being laid.

In the end though, thanks to a lame duck Opposition which offered no real alternative government - Australians voted with their wallets in mind and returned the Government.

The illegal war in Iraq, the deception of the Australian public which led up to the war, guilt by association with US war crimes in Iraq, the Australian acceptance of the illegal detention of Australian citizens by the US government, the detention without charge of asylum seekers (including children) in detention centres in Port Hedland and Nauru and deliberate lies by the government to decieve the Australian public about the activities of asylum seekers - all of these issues were ignored by the Opposition's election campaign and eventually ignored by the Australian voters.

From my vantage point over here - your election is rolling down much the same path. Sorry guys, but I think you're going to have W for 4 more years

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:51 pm

...and let me gaze further into my crystal ball. I predict that with 4 more years of insular Republican government - George W Bush will be the last American to hold the title of "Most Powerful Man on Earth". By the time they light the flame at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the mantle of World Super Power will be well and truly shifting across the Pacific to China.

American corporations will still hold plenty of power in the world, but by then the US government will be getting invitations to the "We Used To Be Important" Annual Dinners along with Spain, France, England and Russia.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:53 pm

c hack wrote:With Kerry, you have to trust him that he's not gonna pull a bait-and-switch.

Just like you had to trust Bush would do in 2000. He said that gay marriage was a states' issue, not a federal one (says that he changed his position because of activist judges that might want to force states into accepting gay marriage). He said that US troops shouldn't be used for nation building (you could say that "9/11 changed everything", but our troops are being nation builders in Iraq right now, plainly). He said that he would fight for free trade (but signed steel tariffs into law, and farming subsidies). Kerry at least has admitted that if revenue doesn't jive with projections, he'll cut his health care plan, or other spending plans he has.

From his website, it looks like Kerry really would do a better job in Iraq, but planning is one thing, and execution is another.

I agree; I don't think Bush planned or executed the war in Iraq well. Nor the aftermath in Afghanistan; he's trumpeting their elections held over the weekend, but crap, it's three years after we invaded. Iraq's government has stopped publishing civilian casualty numbers. The "green zone", the best-protected area in Iraq, has suffered American and Iraqi casualties at least twice in the last two weeks that I know of.

Bush may be not the smartest guy in politics

understatement of the year

, but I doubt that all the generals and whatnot in charge over there are equally dense.

Perhaps not. L. Paul Bremer, the former chief civilian administrator in Iraq, said we didn't have enough troops in the initial afterwar and throughout the occupancy to stabilize the nation. Some generals disagreed. Like Kerry said, there was at least one general who said we'd need a few hundred thousand troops in Iraq. He retired (though not for those comments--it had been announced far prior, contrary to what Kerry implied or said). Ultimately though, as JB says, Bush is the one calling the shots, here.

I don't know. I just don't know. Kerry says we need to get the rest of the world involved, and I totally agree, but how does he think that's gonna happen?

Well, approval ratings of Bush in Germany and France is in the single digits or the teens. The citizens of both countries would like to see Kerry elected, say polls. Maybe with a clearer plan will convince the countries to help out, if not in troops then in cash money.

Also: the recession started in March 2001, two months after Bush came into office. But I don't blame Bush or Clinton for the recession. Bush could've passed better tax cuts, more suited to the middle class than they were. As it was, a supermajority of the tax cuts went to the top two income tax brackets. Reducing rates on the capital gains tax, cuttin the estate ("death") tax rate, these are things that don't help out Joe $24,000-A-Year, who is more inclined to spend spend spend than Sir Thomas Bajillionaire, Esq. is.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:04 pm

jb wrote:Well, when you say that you doubt all the generals over there are as dense as Bush is, it seems like you're discounting something: Bush is the commander in chief. When it comes right down to it, the armed forces have to follow his orders. So it doesn't matter how smart the generals are, Bush can still pull the rug out from under them either by underfunding them (why must our troops buy their own body armor?) by underutilizing them (according to many sources there still aren't enough troops over there to do the job), or by undermining them ("bring it on"). And this isn't happening because of Bush's malice, it's through his ignorance and stubbornness and probably some naiivetee (or however it's spelt) because he's not paying attention to exactly how greedy are some of the other civilians that he's allowed to become players in the situation...

Yeah, you're right. I know, I can't stand him either, but I'm trying to see the good side. Trying to go the way with the least dying. I really wish we could decide domestic issues like stem cell research ourselves, by a nationwide vote -- then I'd vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. Man, it's hard.

Poor June · Post by **Poor June** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:44 pm

yea... one thing i'm worried of... is bush... sendin' all the troops over there... and leavin' us... more vulnerable then we should be... iraq doesn't have nothin' that can harm us right now...

should we still be twisting there tit... wastin' or time... or have our country ready to face others... cause honestly... i can only see things gettin' worse... before they get better... no matter who becomes president...

i really expect a full scale war... within' the next few years... it's just a thought... we have a lot of enemies... not just 'iraq'...

and yea i'm in the same boat with c hack... a lot of the moral things kinda hit me wrong... love democrats... but at the sametime... i don't... just wished there were like republican... democrat... and a party that is half of both haha...

MouthReliant · Post by **MouthReliant** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:17 pm

The debates were a total sham. The Commission on Presidential Debates, the outfit that runs this infomercial, is run by the ex-heads of the Democrat and Republican parties. It claims to be "nonpartisan" but is in fact "bipartisan", meaning if you're not a Democrat or Republican, even if you're on the ballot in 48 states, you can go screw yourself. Or get arrested trying to serve papers on an injunction against the debates, such as what happened to my candidate of choice, Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. Didn't hear about that in the news, though, did you?

Bush, Kerry, there's no difference. All they talked about all night long was how much more money they were going to spend than the other guy. Both support the war in Iraq. Both support the War on Drugs. Both support the PATRIOT Act. Both support huge government spending. Both support the continuing encroachment of government on our few remaining liberties.

Republicans and Democrats both suck. I'm for letting people do whatever they want as long as they're not infringing the rights of others, with absolutely no exceptions. I'm voting Libertarian.

http://www.badnarik.org
http://www.lp.org

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:26 pm

MouthReliant wrote:The debates were a total sham. The Commission on Presidential Debates, the outfit that runs this infomercial, is run by the ex-heads of the Democrat and Republican parties. It claims to be "nonpartisan" but is in fact "bipartisan", meaning if you're not a Democrat or Republican, even if you're on the ballot in 48 states, you can go screw yourself.

The CPD ran the debates in `92, too, and the Reform Party candidate H. Ross Perot was invited and spoke.

Or get arrested trying to serve papers on an injunction against the debates, such as what happened to my candidate of choice, Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate.

I can respect Badnarik's views, and agree with him on several points, but the guy's polling at .2-.7%. That's a fact. Your guy's not going to win. Solidarity, brother, but your guy's not going to win. Crossing a police barricade to gain entrance to the President of the United States and the most high-profile Senator in the US Congress is sure commendable, but he couldn't have expected to not have been arrested.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:13 am

When it comes to voting third party, it's a matter of principle. Of course he's not going to win. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my vote away on a sub-standard leader just because he has a good chance of winning.

I understand that some people just dislike Bush or Kerry so much that they'd rather have anyone in office, so they vote for the opposing candidate, but that's kind of a short-sighted course to take--unless you truly believe that if whoever you're against wins, then something irreversibly bad will happen.

For example, I have a friend going into medical school who hates Kerry, but is also very interested in stem cell research, which she believes will be completely snuffed if Bush stays in office. Even if it would eventually be relegalized, she would miss out on more than four years of great research. That's a respectable enough reason to vote for Kerry (if it's true that Bush will wipe out stem cell research--I know he wants to, but can he actually do it? Discuss.).

However, I still firmly believe that the whole bipartisan, one-dimensional political system we Americans have set up is complete bullshit, and the fact that, even when people <i>do</i> recognize this, they're too worried about "throwing away" their vote to actively change the system, makes the system very hard to escape. The mentality that you shouldn't vote for the better candidate if they're not going to win is by far the largest obstacle that keeps better candidates from winning--even from being talked about in the media.

As for Badnarik (and the other guy) being arrested, of course they knew they'd get arrested. Point is, they did it anyway, to show that they really mean what they say. I wouldn't have it any other way. A candidate who's not willing to be arrested for anything he believes in is not someone I want to be president. Publicity stunt, you say? Yes, it was. One with a very good point that deserves even more attention than it got.

As for the Ross Perot thing, call me suspicious, but I suspect that that had something to do with him being really really rich. You can make the seemingly legit argument that the third party candidate <i>would be</i> invited, but they're too low on the polls so the systems's still fair, but that rule is just like a law specifically designed to restrict a certain group unfairly--like the literacy voting laws that were designed to keep blacks and poor whites from voting. Does nobody see that?

If there's anybody out there who really believes that the bipartisan system is acceptable, I'd like to see your side of the issue. As for everyone else, why keep it this way?

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:37 am

This is a matter to which I've devoted quite a bit of thought recently. I think it's to America's benefit to break the two-party logjam, especially given the base similarities of the prevailing parties.
The fundamental problem a three-party system presents is this: The winner would need only 34% of the vote. I think it would be a very hard road for any candidate who held office without the majority of the voters behind him. Actually, we've seen that, haven't we?

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:13 am

That's a good point, the 34% issue. But the with the bipartisan system, not everyone who voted for the winning candidate is neccessarily behind him--just less against him. Therefore, it's possible--I daresay probable--for a president to be disliked by the majority of the country, despite having won the majority of votes.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:49 am

Do it like sports -- start out with 8 candidates. The 4 who get the most votes move on to the next round, 2 more voting rounds and you've got a president.

Or even better, do it like survivor. Put 8 candidates in the white house in september, and vote one out every week until november. The one left is the president.

We just have to look to TV for the answers.

Post by jb » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:08 pm

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/200 ... 22/03.html

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:32 pm

the problem with having more than one voting round is the large cost/difficulty of actually having an election. you'd then have to have several of them and it would all get pretty unmanageable.
i did see some explanation of another system but darn, i can't remember what it was.
-bill

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:48 pm

user wrote:That's a good point, the 34% issue. But the with the bipartisan system, not everyone who voted for the winning candidate is neccessarily behind him--just less against him. Therefore, it's possible--I daresay probable--for a president to be disliked by the majority of the country, despite having won the majority of votes.

Every voting system has flaws. In every system where every person is given one vote, and all votes are equally weighted, there is a chance for the winner to be disliked by the majority. Having more than two candidates does not remove this possibility.