Keep that stinkin Kerry away from my campaign!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Nicole

Being American living in Canada, I can tell you that this statement is VERY true. Most people I know will not vote, rather than vote for the 'other' party. I have dual citizenship but only vote in Canadian elections .. the last presidential election I didn't bother even registering to vote b/c I can't stand either Bush or Kerry.

Well, if you look at what Calgaryborn said, his point was somewhat different--that the only reason people would even vote Democratic is hatred of Bush, which is simply untrue--and has been untrue for years. What I was objecting to was his statement that "the average American" will not vote for the Democrats" which appeared to be based on, well.... nothing.

Apathy is actually a different issue than voter choice. If you live in Canada, you can't vote in very many elections anyway, since you have to have a home district to participate in local and congressional elections. Your presidential ballot is counted in the District of Columbia, unless you have a legal residence in the U.S.

Which is really the major point here; many Americans don't vote because they a) don't like the 2 party system (like you) or even more troubling, b) because they don't trust the electoral process to be fair and above board. Couple that with how inconvenient it is to register to vote, and sometimes how inconvenient it is TO vote, and that's a recipe for low turnout. But not participating because you don't like the choices amounts to letting someone else decide on your system of government for you. Feel free to do it, but I can't say it's a course of action I agree with. I've voted in every election that I've been allowed to cast a ballot in. (right down to S.U. elections at the University of Calgary!)

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if you look at what Calgaryborn said, his point was somewhat different--that the only reason people would even vote Democratic is hatred of Bush, which is simply untrue--and has been untrue for years. What I was objecting to was his statement that "the average American" will not vote for the Democrats" which appeared to be based on, well.... nothing.

Apathy is actually a different issue than voter choice. If you live in Canada, you can't vote in very many elections anyway, since you have to have a home district to participate in local and congressional elections. Your presidential ballot is counted in the District of Columbia, unless you have a legal residence in the U.S.

Which is really the major point here; many Americans don't vote because they a) don't like the 2 party system (like you) or even more troubling, b) because they don't trust the electoral process to be fair and above board. Couple that with how inconvenient it is to register to vote, and sometimes how inconvenient it is TO vote, and that's a recipe for low turnout. But not participating because you don't like the choices amounts to letting someone else decide on your system of government for you. Feel free to do it, but I can't say it's a course of action I agree with. I've voted in every election that I've been allowed to cast a ballot in. (right down to S.U. elections at the University of Calgary!)

The question is if you felt like both candidates were piles of ****s like Nicole and also myself whats the point... I voted in thlast election because of other issues, but I just wrote in Nader as my choice for president I might as well have voted for a pile of crap... So who would you voted for in that instance?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sowa

The question is if you felt like both candidates were piles of ****s like Nicole and also myself whats the point... I voted in thlast election because of other issues, but I just wrote in Nader as my choice for president I might as well have voted for a pile of crap... So who would you voted for in that instance?

Well, you have to vote for the person you think protects your interest the best--that's how democracy works. A lot depends on where you live; but voting for Nader is better than NOT voting, IMO.

To answer your question--I would have voted for Kerry. Not that I think he's great, but I think the Bush agenda is bad for the country and morally bankrupt. But then I'm pretty comfortable with voting for the "not as bad" in a given election.

It's a two-party system--which means that it's not designed to give every person their ideal choice for a candidate, it's designed to give you two choices so that as a collective, the electorate can articulate their desire to either continue on the current path or change to a different one. In 2004, those who chose to participate effectively endorsed Bush's presidency. Someone who chose not to vote at all was also effectively endorsing the Bush presidency. At least by voting for Nader you used your voice to express unhappiness with the nation's current direction.

But the bread and butter of American elections is all those other people that you can vote for--sheriffs, councilmen, congressmen, senators, dogcatchers, etc. These are people who affect your life far more directly than the president, in a lot of ways.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which is really the major point here; many Americans don't vote because they a) don't like the 2 party system (like you) or even more troubling, b) because they don't trust the electoral process to be fair and above board. Couple that with how inconvenient it is to register to vote, and sometimes how inconvenient it is TO vote, and that's a recipe for low turnout. But not participating because you don't like the choices amounts to letting someone else decide on your system of government for you. Feel free to do it, but I can't say it's a course of action I agree with. I've voted in every election that I've been allowed to cast a ballot in. (right down to S.U. elections at the University of Calgary!)

I see your point (I think .. lol) and you are right and I do think that people should vote .. it is our duty and also our chance to be "heard" so to speak. I was just trying to say that I know a lot of people in the U.S. who do not vote based upon the fact that they don't like any of the presidential candidates, and so to vote and put their support behind someone who's ideas and agenda and let's face it - personality, they don't like; they'd rather just not vote .. I'm not saying it's right but it's just a fact. I know that if I actually were living in the U.S, I would vote .. I just have no idea who for and there is no way I'd be voting for Ralph Nader - that's just scary!

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if you look at what Calgaryborn said, his point was somewhat different--that the only reason people would even vote Democratic is hatred of Bush, which is simply untrue--and has been untrue for years. What I was objecting to was his statement that "the average American" will not vote for the Democrats" which appeared to be based on, well.... nothing.

I'm sick right now and so maybe I'm not reading things right and not quite getting the point due to the fact that I feel awful and a bit fuzzy headed :P

[mykalberta]

If you are in a state that was within a 5 point victory margin I would definately vote for someone.

If you are in a place like Alabama or Washington - its really not worth voting if you are on the "other" side. I know that doesnt sound good but its a reality.

If you are in Ohio, NY, California, Florida, or Illinois, I would vote no matter what cause there your vote could change things.

Since I dont vote in US elections I wont tell you who I would vote for, figure out your top most important issues, see where everyone stands. My personal test for Canadian elections is the backstab test. I watch the debates and attempt to download as many scrum video clips I can then I say, which one would less likely stab me in the back (or maybe in your case which one would stab me with less force ).

No matter who you vote for, you should vote, anything less than 80% voter turnout in any country (of those over the age 25) is disgusting.

Also, dont watch FoxNews, CNN, John Stewart show or ABC Sunday morning political show.

The best non obvious bias shows in the US are Meet the Press on NBC (Sunday 8am MST) and PBS (they normally have a slight left slant but they are good about not only interviewing leftys and they allow each side the same amount of time - similar to The Hour up here in Canada on CBCNW.

MYK

[Devils'Advocate]

BTW - Kerry's speech was written to read:
"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get US stuck in Iraq."

Kerry just didn't read it right. It's sad that more troops are going to be killed, the region will further distablize and more money will be wasted because John Kerry MISSED A WORD IN HIS SPEECH.

Loved the clip on Colbert of Tony White, White House Press Secretary, saying it just doesn't make any sense. "Where would you put the word "US" in that sentence that would make any sense? 'You us get stuck in Iraq'? 'You get stuck us in Iraq'? It just doesn't hold water."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Loved the clip on Colbert of Tony White, White House Press Secretary, saying it just doesn't make any sense. "Where would you put the word "US" in that sentence that would make any sense? 'You us get stuck in Iraq'? 'You get stuck us in Iraq'? It just doesn't hold water."

Haha, that's classic! If there's a hall of fame of the deliberately dumb, that would be the first inductee!

[RougeUnderoos]

Just watching that fool Glenn Beck in Headline News. He jumps right into bashing the NYT for not running this story until page 18. "It's the biggest election story of the week! How dare they!"

Now no offense, but anyone who believes this is truly the biggest story of the week and believes it should be treated as such is a moron.

It is effing shocking that so mant people can be duped into buying this nothing event, this slip of the tongue, is the most important thing of this or any week.

I mean for chrissakes, isn't yesterday's little announcement that Iraq is slipping into chaos a little more important than what a washed up Senator has to say?

Protecting the troops from John Kerry's miscues is apparently more important than protecting them from death.

It is pathetic. Shameful. Suckers. Anyone who falls for thid kind of thing is a sucker. And a moron.

/rant

[Flashpoint]

I'll take the bronze star winner over the drunk every day of the week when it comes to comments about Iraq. Slip of the tongue or otherwise.

Also - even with the bungled joke - Kerry is right. How come nobody is talking about that? the predominance of the US military is from a poor minority background with highschool or less as education.

There may not be a draft anymore, but the economic climate certainly has allowed the military to get its hands on the same pool of candidates.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I'll take the bronze star winner over the drunk every day of the week when it comes to comments about Iraq. Slip of the tongue or otherwise.

Also - even with the bungled joke - Kerry is right. How come nobody is talking about that? the predominance of the US military is from a poor minority background with highschool or less as education.

There may not be a draft anymore, but the economic climate certainly has allowed the military to get its hands on the same pool of candidates.

So what should be changed and why?

I guess I don't understand the argument.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So what should be changed and why?

I guess I don't understand the argument.

What should be changed?

Isn’t it obvious?

How about if the president stopped sacrificing innocent lives in a foreign quagmire without solution, and instead invested in his own country to improve the disaster that is the national economy, and an education system that is leaving every child behind?

How about if he actually focused on the war on terror instead of Iraq?

If those things changed, maybe Kerry would be wrong. As it is, he is dead on.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

What should be changed?

Isn’t it obvious?

How about if the president stopped sacrificing innocent lives in a foreign quagmire without solution, and instead invested in his own country to improve the disaster that is the national economy, and an education system that is leaving every child behind?

How about if he actually focused on the war on terror instead of Iraq?

If those things changed, maybe Kerry would be wrong. As it is, he is dead on.

Wow.

Not one word of what you just said had anything to do with the post I replied to.

Try again?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Wow.

Not one word of what you just said had anything to do with the post I replied to.

Try again?

Nope. You're on your own.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Nope. You're on your own.

OK.

So how about you don't make any more comments that start with "How come nobody is talking about X" and then refuse to answer a question about X.

Jerk

[Calgaryborn]

Here's a little humor to lighten up the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIm28_5e1zI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfQnJqkAydM

O and by the way Iowa_Flames_Fan we won't know the results of the election until Nov 11, 2006. Past elections we do know and Americans have not been inclined to elect democrats for a very long time. Even when they gave Clinton the White House twice they were reluctant to give him Congress.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

O and by the way Iowa_Flames_Fan we won't know the results of the election until Nov 11, 2006. Past elections we do know and Americans have not been inclined to elect democrats for a very long time. Even when they gave Clinton the White House twice they were reluctant to give him Congress.

Well, the party in the White House has lost seats in midterm elections in every election for the past 60 years except one: 2002. In that time, there hasn't exactly been a groundswell of support for the GOP--if anything, it's about as close to 50/50 as it can get.

What I'm asking you to do though is look past the number of seats in Congress each party gets and at the number of hard votes that they receive in congressional elections. The results may surprise you: in recent years, more Americans have preferred Democrats, but due to the geographical advantage Republicans enjoy, their majorities have been safe until now.

Otherwise, you're right: we won't know until after the election--though I'm going to bet you that we'll know by November 7th, 2006.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that the Dems re-take the house and miss the Senate by one seat on Tuesday. A turnaround of something in the neighbourhood of 20-25 seats in Congress, and a 50/50 split in the Senate, meaning that things in the Senate will start to hinge on the datebook of Cheney's cardiologist. Call it an informed hunch.

[ernie]

Personally I thought it was pretty obvious that he was making a remark about Bush and that he stumbled over the wording. The spin doctors just latched onto it and have blown it completely out of proportion.

And now that the proper wording is known it should be the republicans that look stupid once again. And Tony White made them look like bigger imbeciles with his ridiculous routine.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I thought it was pretty obvious that he was making a remark about Bush and that he stumbled over the wording. The spin doctors just latched onto it and have blown it completely out of proportion.

And now that the proper wording is known it should be the republicans that look stupid once again. And Tony White made them look like bigger imbeciles with his ridiculous routine.

With all do respect to your plitical views, how the speech was written is irrelevant and doesnt protect the speaker in anyway.

What Kerry said is public record, had he in the scrum after clearly cleared his position and said his words got muddled then that would be a different story.

As per why are there no for few college grads in the Army? Umm well that has to the with the North American social structure, alot of minorities and those in families who arent in the middle/upper class dont have the opportunity to go to college without the assitance of the US Military.

The military teaches disipline and respect for others. With the qualifications being equal, I would hire someone who had served in the Canadian military vs someone who had done kegstands at the local community college any day of the week.

Just because you dont agree with the Presidents actions, dont slag the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I would gather that the pilots in AF, Navy, and Army are quite intelligent. I am sure anti war activists durring WW1 and WW2 were saying the same thing.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I thought it was pretty obvious that he was making a remark about Bush and that he stumbled over the wording. The spin doctors just latched onto it and have blown it completely out of proportion.

And now that the proper wording is known it should be the republicans that look stupid once again. And Tony White made them look like bigger imbeciles with his ridiculous routine.

Yep... seems pretty clear that this is the case, though it was a glorious opportunity for Republicans to misdirect the debate.

I'm sure Kerry hates the US troops in Iraq... he probably hates freedom and democracy too

[Agamemnon]

Why do posters feel the need to sign their name at the bottom of their posts? Their name is in big letters to the left of their post with their avatar... I'll never get that.