US Presidential Election 2004 V

Politics International Politics
161

[quote=“Flipper”]it’s funny how liberals want to bring our troops home because they care so much about them, but as soon as one of them says something liberals don’t like, they’re automatically liars conspiring with the pentagon to hide the truth.

you can’t just say you don’t believe him, you have to slander his character without any proof that what he says isn’t true. no wonder soldiers vote overwhelmingly republican.[/quote]

stop reading too much into what I say, typical republican sophistry.

I said he was a frontman for the pentagon, which is true. I said CNN was lowbrow tv, which is true. I said he was talking about blowing stuff up-explosives etc…which is true, I didn’t infer he was lying. I said he couldn’t commit that what he destoyed was the HMX and RDX-which is true. I said that it seems to be a cover up-and it does seem that the Pentagon is scrambling to cover up the story to prevent the shit hitting the fan…

As I said, you take 1+1 and make it equal to 34. This IP forum is interesting and amusing, the poor logic skills of repubs and their willingness to criticise, misquote, lie or ignore truth while hustling in the defence of their monkey god Bush is eye opening.

162

I created a forum for this Robin…
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=23804

I went to the link you posted, read down a little, and got the following stuff which shows Bush 263 to Kerry 248 but with the trend in Kerry’s favor. EDIT: Mr. XP, please use your reading skills slightly less cynically be reading my whole quote, not the mere part which supports your beliefs. Again, Republican supporters of Shrub show sophistry to support fatasy beliefs. If Kerry does actually lose, I will be even more gob smacked at the blindness of half the American electorate:

[quote]Consequently, I have made a new map that excludes the pollsters that admit they only work for one side. It does include pollsters like Gallup, which is officially neutral but appears to be including far too many Republicans in the samples. This new map always includes the most recent poll in each state, and then goes back up to 3 days to look for other polls to average in. A given pollster is used at most once and partisan pollsters are not used at all. The new map and spreadsheet use the suffix ‘z’ and are on the menu under the name Averaged map. It gives a score of Bush 263 to Kerry 248, but remember, tiny shifts in a few states can alter this score radically.

Here is an update on yesterday’s Zogby tracking poll. Kerry has pulled even with Bush. Each one is polling 47%. Four years ago, Gore was behind Bush by 3% at this point in the campaign, yet he ultimately won the popular vote. There is less room for movement tis time because there are fewer undecideds, but it is always possible that some voters will change their minds due to events occuring in the U.S. or abroad.

Candidate E-10 E-9 E-8 E-7 E-6 E-5 Final
Kerry 46% 45% 46% 47% 46% 47%
Bush 48% 48% 49% 48% 48% 47%
Nader 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Other 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2%
Undecided 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3%

Now look at the same time period for the 2000 election, plus the final results.

Candidate E-10 E-9 E-8 E-7 E-6 E-5 Final
Gore 43% 42% 42% 41% 42% 42% 48.38%
Bush 44% 45% 45% 46% 45% 45% 47.87%
Nader 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2.74%
Other 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1.01%
Undecided 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 0%

Zogby wasn’t the only one predicting a big win for Bush at this point four years ago. On Oct 29, 2000, Gallup released a poll showing Bush ahead 49% to 42%. In the early days of November 2000, Zogby correctly noted a sharp trend towards Gore as the undecideds finally bit the bullet. Zogby ended up predicting Gore would narrowly win the popular vote. Gallup stayed the course and ultimately predicted that Bush would win the popular vote by 2%. Of course, we now know Gore won the popular vote by about 0.5%.

[/quote]

163

I guess I might as well add this to the mix: The Washington Times says the Russians done it. Now, I ain’t sayin’ the Russians done it, and I ain’t gonna argue about it, I’m just posting a link.

164

I created a forum for this Robin…
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=23804

I went to the link you posted, read down a little, and got the following stuff which shows Bush 263 to Kerry 248 but with the trend in Kerry’s favor. Again, Republican supporters of Shrub show sophistry to support fatasy beliefs.[/quote]

So, you exposed my sophistry by carefully examining the page I linked and determining that the pro-Kerry Electoral Count Dude guesses that Bush is ahead in the likely electoral count.

Nice sleuthing.

165

Explosives Timeline:

March 17, 2003 DOD overhead showing trucks loading material from the Al-Qaqaa IAEA site

April 4, 2003 3ID searches the area, finds thousands of boxes containing 3 vials of white powder and chemical warfare instructions.

April 10, 2003 An NBC news team embedded with 101st Airborne tours through the area. Sees little.

April 13, 2003 Major Austin Pearson removes 250 tons of explosive from the area. Sees no IAEA seal.

April 18, 2003 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS team shoots video showing a bunker with what looks like an intact IAEA seal, plus video of carboard barrels with small bags of material which David Kay identifies as RDX.

Recon photo dated March 17, 2003 showing trucks loading material:

defenselink.mil/photos/Oct20 … 0M-001.jpg

166

Did any of you read The Chicago Tribune’s Endorsement of Bush? I think this is the first time this paper did not endorse the Democratic presidential candidate.

[quote]A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party’s nomination: “Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: “The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. … We cannot let our enemies strike first.”
[/quote]

[quote]Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn’t vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush’s plan. All of which perplexes many.

Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. (“I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat,” he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, “where there wasn’t a threat.”) What’s not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party’s nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war–driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein’s rape of Kuwait.[/quote]

Its a very good read, IMO. Read the endorsement in its entirety.

167

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”]Explosives Timeline:

March 17, 2003 DOD overhead showing trucks loading material from the Al-Qaqaa IAEA site[/quote]

Oops, you did it again! The trucks were outside the wrong bunkers. It’s really pathetic when you post so easily discredited and outdated information.

globalsecurity.org/wmd/world … agery4.htm

“However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.”

168

Saddam Hussain was a threat but Iraq wasn’t? It’s clearly inconsistent. I think it must have been a slip of the tongue. We all have heard Bush’s slip-ups:

“Americans are serving and sacrificing to keep this country safe and to bring freedom to others. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this nation resolved to fight terrorists where they dwell. We resolved to arm the terrorist enemy.”
– The White House website quietly changed “arm” to “disarm”, but forgot to take down the video of the event. Charleston, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2004 To listen to audio, scroll down until you find the right quote

“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.”
– Dubya’s answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission says that there wasn’t one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

169

Please send your absentee ballots for Bush! We need to reelect Bush so he can protect Taiwan from the dirty Chicoms and keep the world safe from terrorists like the KMT and Bin Laden!

170

President Bush spent only one month in Communist China, serving as the son of an ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

As Bush has spent more time in that communist nation China (land of how you put it, the “dirty Chicoms”) than most Americans, I’m not as sure as you that he will “protect” Taiwan.

[quote]
BUSH: What I want to do is preserve this relationship as best I can, and I hope the conditions that lie ahead will permit me to preserve this relationship.

And it appears that George W. Bush has adopted his father’s way of playing the big power game with China. In public, speak firmly; in private, work hard to solve the problem. That may be a consistent policy. With China, it’s also a family legacy.[/quote]

171

It’s just because they couldn’t get any zoos to loan them some elephants.

172

For the first time in its history, The New Yorker magazine has endorsed a candidate for President of the United States.

This magazine kept me alive and healthy in Taiwan, and I encourage any homesick American to get a subscription since the fiction published isn’t always available online.

(e.g., Thom McGuane is writing very well again, imo, and he’s never been accessible online).

(they’ll deliver to Taiwan approximately 25 days late, if my experience can be generalized to include yours)

I have an admittedly sentimental attachment to this magazine because I believe it to be the only mass-circulation American magazine devoted to both the art of fiction and its craft. Every writer there (except, imo, Malcolm Gladwell and Seymour Hersh) is an outstanding craftsman - if not artist - of the American English language; both its poetry and its fiction rely fundamentally on oral rather than written presention, imo. The cartoons alone helped keep my sanity while I lived in Taiwan.

The magazine’s endorsement of Senator Kerry is here, and I encourage every American to read it.

The New Yorker’s standards of reporting (it’s a news magazine of sorts as well) are also above any reproach I’m aware of, although I admit I could probably fall for its opinion on style points alone.

173

They used to have good cartoons.

Although Elaine Bennis didn’t get them.

174

Besides, the donkeys would vote for Kerry because they would recognize that he is a fellow ass. :laughing:

175

from The Scotsman, Sat 30 Oct 2004

“WHATEVER you think about American politics, US presidential contests are more fun than British general elections. The iconic example is 1948 and the photograph of the victorious Democrat, Harry S Truman, holding up the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune with the errant headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman”. The embarrassed editor was not the only one to get the result wrong. Months before polling day, Life magazine ran a cover of a picture of Dewey captioned “The Next President of the United States”. Only Truman thought Truman would win.”(excerted from article)

A good story about US elections. It share the facts about John Kennedy and some of the truths behind his election that rarely see print in US newspapers. It seems that ‘Camelot’ was built on bent-noses, bribe money and pecker power.

176

i know it’s killing you that bush is more pro-taiwan than kerry. :laughing:

usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/010426/epf405.htm

and what was his speech about? he was criticizing this bush statement:

[quote]When asked by Charles Gibson, on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” whether the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if Taiwan were attacked by China, President Bush said:

Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that.

Charles Gibson then asked:

With the full force of the American military?

President Bush responded:

Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.
[/quote]

177

So which one is Rumsfeld?

178

I haven’t seen this posted - last month’s AP analysis. Some people feel Bush has a warmer atmosphere with Taiwan, but according to the article, political analysts don’t think there will be a significant difference between Bush or Kerry.

This quote from Kerry is identical to the Republican platform on Taiwan. Didn’t you cite it to show that Kerry is less pro-Taiwan?

“as reflected in the three communiques” = Taiwan is a part of China
According to the Shanghai Communique negotiated by Henry Kissinger, the U.S. acknowledged, “that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.”

Parenthetically I’ll include the other two communiques currently endorsed by the Republican party:
In the Joint Communique, Jan. 1, 1979, the U.S. recognized the PRC “as the sole legal government of China.”

On Aug. 17, 1982, a third Joint Communique, under Ronald Reagan, negotiated by Alexander Haig, went even further. The U.S. declared that it “does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplies in recent years… and that it intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution.”

179

http://www.gnn.tv/videos/viewer.php?id=27&spd=hi

180

THE PRESIDENTIAL FIRING SQUAD

Nader was placed against the wall, and just before the order to shoot was given, he yelled out, “Earthquake!” The firing squad panicked. In the confusion, Nader jumped over the wall and escaped.

Kerry was next, and while the squad reassembled, he pondered what Nader had done. Before they could shoot, he shouted, “Tornado!” Again the firing squad scattered and Kerry slipped away to safety.

Last in line was Bush. He thought, I see the pattern here. Just scream out a disaster and hop over the wall. As the firing squad raised their rifles and took aim, Bush grinned smugly and yelled, “Fire!”