Bush or Kerry (1 Viewer)

[jameseginton]

According to Bush's only taken/publicised intelligence test result (SAT), his IQ > Kerry's IQ. In fact, unless your UAI is 96+, Bush is smarter than you too. Perhaps you're making fun of a speech disorder? Why, that's noble of you.

Although i support the republicans, i think Bush is rather dim. He got through to uni on a c+ average, he is also dyslexic which many people dont know. However, his stance is clear and he fights for what he sees is right for the American people and this is more comendable than someone who stance onn many policy changes with the wind. I hope he gets back in, last time the democrats were in, Bin Laden was given up because there was nothing to hold him. I mean what, we have to be just with this butcher? He went on to kill thousands because the Democrats dont like preventing terrorism, there fine if its only a few Americans a week being killed, for example Yemen bombing, WTC bombing and there naval ship.

 

[JayWalker]

Although i support the republicans, i think Bush is rather dim. He got through to uni on a c+ average, he is also dyslexic which many people dont know. However, his stance is clear and he fights for what he sees is right for the American people and this is more comendable than someone who stance onn many policy changes with the wind. I hope he gets back in, last time the democrats were in, Bin Laden was given up because there was nothing to hold him. I mean what, we have to be just with this butcher? He went on to kill thousands because the Democrats dont like preventing terrorism, there fine if its only a few Americans a week being killed, for example Yemen bombing, WTC bombing and there naval ship.

EGGY!! your so TALL!!!!! Hows the weather up ther?

 

[Benny_]

Although i support the republicans, i think Bush is rather dim. He got through to uni on a c+ average, he is also dyslexic which many people dont know. However, his stance is clear and he fights for what he sees is right for the American people and this is more comendable than someone who stance onn many policy changes with the wind. I hope he gets back in, last time the democrats were in, Bin Laden was given up because there was nothing to hold him. I mean what, we have to be just with this butcher? He went on to kill thousands because the Democrats dont like preventing terrorism, there fine if its only a few Americans a week being killed, for example Yemen bombing, WTC bombing and there naval ship.

Well done, you've just successfully sumarised Bush's campaign line.

.....this is more comendable than someone who stance onn many policy changes with the wind.

Really, what policies? Because going by Bush's rhetoric so far in this campaign (and we're pretty darn deep into it), the only policy Kerry's changed his stance on is funding for the war on Iraq, which as I mentioned was perfectly reasonable. He supported funding for the war, but didn't support it when it required deficit funding. I'd say a leader who's able to adapt to changes in circumstance is far superior to a leader who stubbornly sticks by the same line regardless of how wrong it is.

However, his stance is clear and he fights for what he sees is right for the American people

Yeah? What is right for the American people exactly ?

last time the democrats were in, Bin Laden was given up because there was nothing to hold him. I mean what, we have to be just with this butcher?

I'm not familiar with the incident you're speaking about but yeah I agree. The Republicans' way of arresting and torturing their prisoners is much better. And if I'm not mistaken, it was also during a Republican administration that Bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA in the first place.

He went on to kill thousands because the Democrats dont like preventing terrorism

Quite honestly I have no idea whose rhetoric you're listening to. Bush wouldn't go so far as to make generalisations as stupid as this.

 

[Mike iE]

taken from punkvoter.com, a site that encourages people to register to vote, whilst the operators dislike Bush, they don't advocate Kerry either - they encourage US people to make a choice.

I thought it was an interesting rundown of where each party stands .... can you guess who i would support ...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

According to Bush's only taken/publicised intelligence test result (SAT), his IQ > Kerry's IQ. In fact, unless your UAI is 96+, Bush is smarter than you too. Perhaps you're making fun of a speech disorder? Why, that's noble of you.

I HIGHLY doubt the legitimacy of that test

 

[neo o]

taken from punkvoter.com, a site that encourages people to register to vote, whilst the operators dislike Bush, they don't advocate Kerry either - they encourage US people to make a choice.

I thought it was an interesting rundown of where each party stands .... can you guess who i would support ...

I don't know much about domestic American policies, but I can see one error: Bush supports leaving civil unions to the states, he isn't opposed to them. I'm sure there are more.

By the way, alot of the proposed amendments to the Violence Against Women Act such as pre-tial dtention in sex offense cases are ridiculous.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Again, you failed to see the point.




THIS IS PRECISELY THE POINT.

REPUBLICANS APPOINT CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES.

DEMOCRATS APPOINT LIBERAL JUSTICES.


HENCE, THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE SUPREME COURT IS AT STAKE IN THIS ELECTION WITH UP TO THREE JUSTICES RETIREING.


ERGO, THERE ARE MAJOR RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS ELECTION RESULT

ERGO, YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES ARE BASICALLY THE SAME IS INCORRECT.


Moonlight: Yeah, that's true. Which is why I said he was 'sort of right'. Shrug. He still went on my ignore list for stupidity

SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES BELONG TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

 

[Nick]

has anyone noticed that when americans are asked their opinions of the two candidates and why they are voting for either one, people voting for kerry seem to point out issues like the economy or social issues or foreign policy, while bush supporters invariably come up with things like "he sticks to his guns" or he does what he says, he does what he believes in, and other such abstracts

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I've seen it about the same from both sides... don't go partisan on american politics or i'll have to think of u as a retard... u don't want that do you?

 

[Nick]

I've seen it about the same from both sides... don't go partisan on american politics or i'll have to think of u as a retard... u don't want that do you?

well they say you should treat people as you want to be treated yourself

so i guess i can't complain if you think i'm a retard

 

[Rorix]

SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES BELONG TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

HAY GUYS THE PARTIES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AMIRITE

 

[Nick]

HAY GUYS THE PARTIES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AMIRITE

only in australia

 

[Rorix]

Regarding the SAT thing, an SAT score in the top4-5% certainly doesn't reflect negatively on his intelligence...

Really, what policies? Because going by Bush's rhetoric so far in this campaign (and we're pretty darn deep into it), the only policy Kerry's changed his stance on is funding for the war on Iraq, which as I mentioned was perfectly reasonable. He supported funding for the war, but didn't support it when it required deficit funding. I'd say a leader who's able to adapt to changes in circumstance is far superior to a leader who stubbornly sticks by the same line regardless of how wrong it is.

I've got to go study for my last HSC exam but I'll quickly drop some choice Kerry quotes

"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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 b elieve 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.

"[W]ithout 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 contin ued 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.

..............wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? A diversion from the real threat?

I'm not familiar with the incident you're speaking about but yeah I agree. The Republicans' way of arresting and torturing their prisoners is much better. And if I'm not mistaken, it was also during a Republican administration that Bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA in the first place.

I presume you're referring to THIS war?

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 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.

"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.

Relevance to the Bin Laden issue is questionable, but since you brought it up...

Anyway, I'd feel (with the benefit of hindsight) that Clinton should have done something about Iraq (and Osama Bin Laden) during his two terms, rather than cut back on the military. But Bush would have done the same, running his election campeign with the idea of leaving foreign policy alone, until 9/11.


Anyway, I like this jim_green guy.

 

[Generator]

The US Presidential voting system operates on a first past the post per state basis, doesn't it?

 

[Nick]

The US Presidential voting system operates on a first past the post per state basis, doesn't it?

it operates on a first past the post per supreme court judge basis

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i'm sure u wouldn't be saying that if the democrats won cuz of the supreme court...

 

[Nick]

i'm sure u wouldn't be saying that if the democrats won cuz of the supreme court...

i don't let partisan politics get in the way of a joke

 

[Rorix]

By 'first past the Supreme Court', Nick means 'upholding the American constitution which states all voters should be treated equally' - which is exactly what the Federal Court found, hrm hrm.


Anyway, Generator, in 48 states, I think it is, the idea is that the winner of those states takes all the electoral college votes from that state. In the other two, it's based on a proportion of the vote (so if Bush gets 60% and Kerry 40%, Bush takes 6/10th and Kerry takes 4/10ths. I'm not exactly sure what happens if they both had half a college vote, but anyway). Basically, this is the way it works, but there's nothing (at the moment) which forces the electoral college voters to vote this way - for example, in 2000 one of the Gore voters abstained as a protest about lack of.....I think it was minority representation in Washington.

Electoral college votes are based on how many seats the state has in the Senate/ House of Reps, I think it is, which is based on population. However, regardless of population, each state must have at least 3 votes (which gives an inherant bias toward the Republicans as these states are predominantly Republican, I think they all are) to prevent some states being marginalised. You can read about the system on electoral-vote.com, I think.

 

[Generator]

Fwoa, thanks for that.

Edit: Yep, http://electoral-vote.com/ was the link. Just looking at that map explains quite a bit.

 

[bloodysunday]

woah, if only the current standings were like this poll.