TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- -U.S.A. Has Spoken To The World!--
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

Catholics believe in Christ, so they're Christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

All Catholics are Christian, though not all Christians are Catholic.

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

Wow...not seem rude but someone needs to learn some basic religious terms...this which is one of most basic even...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Opus, i'm glad you reminded me of Arbiter's comment. I must agree to disagree with both of you again.

Without going into too much detail, I think you missed Arbiter's point completely - the Republican party has undergone a major shift in a number of policies over the past 3 decades, and bear no resemblence to what they once were or professed in the past. Much of this has to do with Kristol and the neoconservative movement, which is to effectively dominate geopolitically at any and all costs, which of course include fiscal irresponsibility, but at the same time create MORE governmental influence both on foreign AND domestic soil.

This is in stark contrast to the old Republican Party. And with over 4 million tanking into poverty under Bush's watch, as well as the income gap between the upper and lower classes increasing steadily, the increasing millions of folks who can't afford health insurance, this is in sharp contrast to the real compassionate conservatism demonstrated by Nixon's Republicans. Just a few examples, but the point remains that this group of Republicans in office and in the legislature are very different than the Republicans of the past.

quote:

No offense to either of you, because I know both of you aren't stupid. but where have you been? Have you been living in a cave since birth? The american people have not shifted views.

I disagree. Historically Christians had not necessarily identified themselves with one particular party - the Democrats held equal amounts of Christians in the past. Thanks in great part to groups such as the Christian Coalition and devisive wedge issues coming to light such as abortion and gay rights, the Christian group has certainly shifted further to the Right.

quote:

There has been relatively little change in the american political psychology except for the possibility that there are more liberal extremists these days and they are getting more publicity and legitimacy from the media.

Are you implying that there are not equal Conservative extremists out there?

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, sir. I remember quite vividly when Randall Terry had brought his fucked-up minions of extremist pro-lifers in the early 90's to town that essentially brought our town to it's knees at one point.

We can talk about extremists to live long day and fallaciously attempt to depict either side being influenced by them as a whole, but I think that wouldn't get us very far. For example, would it be fair to associate your side with individuals such as these?:

quote:

The US majority are still centered. The majority also continue to hold onto christian moral foundations.

Again with this "Christian moral foundations". You haven't explained such foundations very well with Occ in this thread, I don't think it would be prudent for you to bring such a fallacious argument over here either.

quote:

You can both think whatever you will about US democracy but it makes no difference.

Ahh yes, the "will" of the Christian "majority" tends to do that with dissenters, doesn't it?

quote:

The primary reason your candidate didn't win the election and the reason the democrats are losing power, is because of the fact they have lost their connection with the majority of americans.

Umm, 48% of the vote and the 2nd highest number of votes is not exactly "losing a connection".

quote:

They have moved too far to the left and away from the center. If they continue, they are going to get even weaker until they move back again.

Care to support the assertion that the left has moved too far from the center? What evidence do you have to support such a notion?

quote:

And believe you me, with the strength of the republican party right now they are going to have to obtain a very strong and charismatic pres. candidate next time also. A candidate that will re-establish the democratic parties credibility and earn the respect of the american people again.

Contrary to your beliefs, that respect was not lost towards Kerry, nor is it lost to our party leaders.

quote:

Perhaps a JFK type leader. I really do want to see more balance in the two parties.

Your statements up to this point tend to say otherwise.

quote:

I think it makes for the healthiest democracy. However, the gridlock and contentions of recent has to be overcome. If this cannot happen I would rather see a dominating power party that gets things accomplished.

See what I mean? You label Democratic party as somewhat unprincipled, scattered, and helpless, yet you want to see more balance IF the Democrats were more powerful.

I tend to wonder if you would truly continue to feel this way IF Ohio had gone to Kerry. Would you feel this way about Democrats?

In fact, I tend to wonder if you would truly feel this way if the Democrats were in power right now in general. For some reason, I think you wouldn't.

quote:

Pres. Bush is in a unique position in history to do what presidents of recent times have not been able to do. He is an extremely powerful leader. The likes of which our nation hasn't seen in a long time.

You know the saying - the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If Iraq goes to shit, and if our King continues to sign every spending bill coming out of Congress with no intention of actually reducing the deficit, well then it'll be easy pickins for the Dems. in '06 and '08.

quote:

I think even you would have to agree with this even if you dislike him. He has chosen to tackle the hardest problems our nation has in his next four years. The problems that presidents of yesteryear were scared to even touch. Social security and tax reform being the main ones.

Ahh yes, good 'ol SS - say, you know where Bush is gonna borrow about $1 trillion or so to pay for all that money that won't be going into the Treasury? Or are we just gonna gentle-fuck that generation before us who won't receive any SS benefits at all, "compassionate conservative" style?

And boy oh boy I sure hope Bush does throw in some tax-reform on top of all that. Let me give you a little hint - NO one is going to talk tax reform until we do something about YOUR party's reckless spending spree. No way in hell.

quote:

You know these are huge problems in this country.

There's a time and place to address problems. How 'bout we handle the problems that are about to blow up in our faces RIGHT NOW first, and THEN handle those future problems a bit later?

quote:

Perhaps this powerful right wing is what was necessary for our country to have a shot at fixing these crippling problems. One thing is for sure, the bi partisan gridlock/contention of recent times was only going to further delay the problem for future generations of americans.

There is wisdom in those gridlocks and the checks 'n balances that has occurred in our government over those years. I know a good logical discussion and willingness to understand someone else's stance on policies may be somewhat missing in your party at times, especially now that Bush and his minions feel they have a "mandate" (51% constitutes a "mandate"?), but it has helped significantly in the past in understanding one another and coming to compromising, effective solutions.

Of course, you wouldn't be able to tell that with your party. Here's Bob Dole after the Republicans lost in '92:

quote:

57 percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential election voted against Bill Clinton, and I intend to represent that majority on the floor of the US Senate. ...I think [Clinton] got some good news and some bad news last night... ...The good news is that he's getting a honeymoon in Washington. The bad news is that Bob Dole is going to be chaperone.

With that, the Republicans effectively pissed all over the centerpiece of Clinton's agenda at that time, healthcare, and took over Congress in 2 years.

Contrast that to what Barack Obama stated on NBC's Meet the Press on Nov. 7th last Sunday:

quote:

...one of the things I told the president was that we all have a stake in seeing him have a successful presidency. I don't think that the Democrats succeed by rooting against the president in office. But we have to be honest where we disagree with him and he's got to make his case where he's presenting issues that we're skeptical about. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6430019/

Or how 'bout Pelosi's weekly radio address:

quote:

I hope that in this term President Bush will fulfill his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. A new term is indeed a new opportunity to bring America together. House Democrats stand ready to work with the President. Despite our divisions, there are many places where we should be able to agree. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137825,00.html

Granted, both Obama and Pelosi went on to explain areas and policy differences where they see potential arguments, but the overall messages between the two parties when they lost the election couldn't be any more clear.

quote:

Indeed, Bush has the opportunity and the motivation to do incredible things for our nation and I'm sure we can all agree on that. I hope so.

As do I, but I have sincere doubts that he will, given his track record over the past 4 years. Keep in mind that unless they change the 60 vote filibuster rule in the Senate, those few devisive issues will continue to be gridlocked by the Democrats. And why shouldn't they? You honestly expect the other party to compromise their core values and beliefs on central issues? Have the Dems. ever expected the Republicans to do the same? Have the Republicans ever indicated they would compromise their core values in the past?

quote:

If not, then i'm done conversing with you or any other opposing americans in this forum. I've seen too many of that kind on this forum already. The likes of whom can't see the positive aspects of the current situation because they can't look past their own hatred and political bias. peace.

I think it's fair to say that many here, including those few that may agree with your views, tend to think you are quite the biased fellow in your own right. Again I wonder if you would really feel any different about things had Ohio gone to Kerry - I have my sincere doubts.

Your answers and opinion up to this point leave much to be desired. I hope you stick around and clarify yourself better.

Opus

In response to one of your other threads summarizing why Kerry and the dems lost...

I believe you said something to the effect that they need to play rougher and attack character more? I completely disagree. Negative campaigning is something that really has got out of hand lately. I think most people including myself were sick of hearing all the character attacks by each candidate. It makes the other candidate look very desperate and as if they have no firm ground to stand on. A very ugly and self-weakening tactic. Pres. Bush ran a friendlier campaign than Kerry and this helped Bush a bit more in the end. Remember, Bush was not the one attacking Kerry's vietnam record, the swifties were. Kerry verbally attacked Bush with every other word out of his mouth and people were sick of it. His constant argument was that he should be pres. because Bush was screwing everything up. This is a very weak argument. This kind of negative lecturing doesn't sit well with many people. What on earth was Kerry's campaign team thinking?! No one wants to hear someone constantly criticizing our president. What we want to hear is how to fix a problem and the hard details. Kerry offered close to none.

Kerry lost because...
1. Himself and his party were not centered. Too far left. This is possibly the biggest of all and encompasses the most.
2. His negative campaigning got the best of him
3. He made too many promises.
4. He never defended himself against the swift boat vets claims, which in the eyes of myself and most americans imo suggested that he couldn't because it was the truth. This was a biggie for character credibility. Kerry needed to clear this immediately but instead his campaign retaliated by attacking the character of the vets. Bad move.
5. Character concerns in the minds of many american voters due to Kerry's innability to properly handle no. 4 above.
6. He never established his political position well with the american people. I don't feel the american people really knew what he did/did not support.
7. Mrs. Kerry pissed off a lot of women by her idiotic remarks and women are very sensitive voters. J. Kerry should have kept her out of the campaigning as much as possible. I think many despised the thought of her being the first lady by her attitude and mannerisms.
8. Most americans didn't know where he stood on religious faith and family values. The assumption was likely made that they weren't very important to him. Hence he didn't stress them. This was another biggie.
9. The catholic authority opposed him
10. A large population of small business owners opposed him because of his unfriendly tax proposals.
11. Corporate america opposed him and certainly they have a lot of money, power and influence.

well those are the biggest ones. im sure there are a few more.

All in all, my assesment of voter turnout and the politcal pulse of american's currently would be: the moderate majority of americans don't vote. On average less than half of americans even vote. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html However, in recent elections the left has had very strong turnout at the polls. And the lefts voter strength continues to come from the same key states mainly New York and California. All of that accounts for why Bush's lead wasn't even greater and why the 2000 election was by popular vote essentially even. Obviously voter turn out was greater this election across the board with 60%- the highest since 1968.http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldl...on/10113862.htm My point here is that currently the USA isn't split as much as everyone believes it is. When you have a moderate majority who's voter turnout is less than half and a liberal minority whos voters turnout in great strength and who's strength lies in the two most populated US cities it creates an illusion and skews the real picture. Interestingly the majority of liberals lie in states with high immigrant numbers and a strong want and need for more social welfare because they mostly comprise of lower class americans but thats another discussion altogether.

the dems really needed a strong candidate to beat out a war time president. Instead they chose possibly one of the worst. It's astonishing to me that they couldn't do better. I almost wonder sometimes if it wasn't a setup to get Bush re-elected. Hmm...that would imply our two party system is really just one. Howz that for conspiracy? Oh well, that another discussion. peace.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Kerry lost because... 1. Himself and his party were not centered. Too far left. This is possibly the biggest of all and encompasses the most. 6. He never established his political position well with the american people. I don't feel the american people really knew what he did/did not support.

sorry for pointing this logical flaw out:
How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 sorry for pointing this logical flaw out: How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

I don't know about your beef with the aforementioned argument, but based on Kerry's senate record alone, he is the #1 most liberal congressman in the Senate--moreso than Ted Kennedy.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Relax The State of Denial has no electoral votes

Nice one

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't know about your beef with the aforementioned argument, but based on Kerry's senate record alone, he is the #1 most liberal congressman in the Senate--moreso than Ted Kennedy.

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

As for forcing religious moral beliefs upon others, I hope you conservatives like wearing condoms ... state legislatures are beginning to allow the discrimination of services on the basis of "moral consciense".

quote:

Druggists refuse to give out pill Tue Nov 9, 6:54 AM ET Top Stories - USATODAY.com By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control. "I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician." Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year. The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views. Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions. "We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America. "The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said. Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion. "I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township. Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim. In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay. She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely. Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral. "The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing." In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues. Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide. "The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says. In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide. "It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...setogiveoutpill

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

You bastard. Don't you know that I meant to say..."In 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990."

In any event, #11 isn't that close to center.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As for forcing religious moral beliefs upon others, I hope you conservatives like wearing condoms ... state legislatures are beginning to allow the discrimination of services on the basis of "moral consciense".

I don't have to--I'm a married man. Besides condoms stopped being fun in high-school.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You bastard. Don't you know that I meant to say..."In 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990." In any event, #11 isn't that close to center.

According to one source. Other sources such as the Brookings Institute characterize him as a relative moderate .

quote:

I don't have to--I'm a married man. Besides condoms stopped being fun in high-school.

So once you've reached your optimal level of mini-shakkas you'll abstain from sex?

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Opus In response to one of your other threads summarizing why Kerry and the dems lost... I believe you said something to the effect that they need to play rougher and attack character more? I completely disagree. Negative campaigning is something that really has got out of hand lately. I think most people including myself were sick of hearing all the character attacks by each candidate. It makes the other candidate look very desperate and as if they have no firm ground to stand on. A very ugly and self-weakening tactic.

I share your sentiments, however research has continually and clearly demonstrated that when it comes down to 2 candidates, negative attacks work. This is in stark contrast to multiple candidate scenarios, like the primaries where you have more than just 2 choices. We saw how negative campaigning tore both Dean and Gephardt apart in Iowa, giving Kerry the lead and momentum. But again, it plays into the psyche of citizens when there's just two candidates. Sure they may be sick of them, but they work.

quote:

Pres. Bush ran a friendlier campaign than Kerry and this helped Bush a bit more in the end.

That's utter crap:

This is the cumulative independent expenditures for the DCCC and NRCC from October 1st through the election.
Here's how they break down:

NRCC:

Number of IE's Against Candidate - 611
Number of IE's For Candidate - 193
Total - 804

Expenditures Against Candidate - $40,435,187.13
% of Numbers Against Candidate - 76.00%
% Total - 89.50%

Expenditures For Candidate - $4,741,391.33
% of Numbers For Candidate - 24.00%
% of Total - 10.50%

Total money spent - $45,176,578.46

DCCC:

Number of IE's Against Candidate - 31
Number of IE's For Candidate - 309
Total - 340

Expenditures Against Candidate - $4,822,996.44
% of Numbers Against Candidate - 9.12%
% Total - 17.57%

Expenditures For Candidate - $22,622,874.58
% of Numbers For Candidate - 90.88%
% of Total - 82.43%

Total money spent - $27,445,871.02

Now if you're going to argue about the "I approve of this message" ads, that may be a different story, and I haven't seen those numbers yet. If, by chance you have seen those numbers, suppose you could show us here to support your notion?

quote:

Remember, Bush was not the one attacking Kerry's vietnam record, the swifties were.

Ahh yes, just like Kerry not attacking Bush that often, rather the Democratic 527's were.

You know as well as I the intermingling connections between all these groups and the campaigns. The Smear Boaters were heavily connected to Bush, and denying this is simply denying reality.

quote:

Kerry verbally attacked Bush with every other word out of his mouth and people were sick of it. His constant argument was that he should be pres. because Bush was screwing everything up. This is a very weak argument. This kind of negative lecturing doesn't sit well with many people. What on earth was Kerry's campaign team thinking?!

Uh, perhaps they were thinking that our citizens needed a healthy dose of reality?

There's a concept.

quote:

No one wants to hear someone constantly criticizing our president.

Yeah! You're either "with us or against us", right? In fact, why have an election at all? Why criticize that which need be criticized?

quote:

What we want to hear is how to fix a problem and the hard details. Kerry offered close to none.

I tend to wonder if you truly listened or read anything at all on Kerry's proposals and policies. Not all of his answers could be given in stump speeches, nor could they have ALL have been given during the debates. He gave some parts of his solutions in there, but the bulk of his solutions were on his website. Had you the chance to read any of them?

Now don't get me wrong - Kerry certainly had his weaknesses, and he most certainly could have conveyed his message better and more clearer. But to simply flat-out and say that he offered no solutions is nothing shy of ignorance.

quote:

Kerry lost because... 1. Himself and his party were not centered. Too far left. This is possibly the biggest of all and encompasses the most.

Yes, pandering to the anti-gay bashers and the pro-lifers were certainly not on his agenda.

But to be sure, his New England liberal status was of no help. It's no mystery that the last 2 Democratic Presidents (and 1 VP) were from the South.

quote:

2. His negative campaigning got the best of him

You still have to support this assertion, esp. when comparing it to Bush's negativity.

quote:

3. He made too many promises.

How many promises did Bush make in 2000? How many has he kept?

Oh, BTW, did his tax cuts, by chance, trim down the deficit, like he promised?

quote:

4. He never defended himself against the swift boat vets claims, which in the eyes of myself and most americans imo suggested that he couldn't because it was the truth. This was a biggie for character credibility. Kerry needed to clear this immediately but instead his campaign retaliated by attacking the character of the vets. Bad move. 5. Character concerns in the minds of many american voters due to Kerry's innability to properly handle no. 4 above.

Most pundits tend to think he simply didn't act on them soon enough. I have yet to see any direct evidence that shows conclusively that the Smear Boaters were a decisive factor in peoples' decisions here. In fact, Zogby tends to state just the opposite:

quote:

"Half (50%) of the electorate has seen the ads and another 40% has heard about them. 52% of Independents have seen the ads higher than either major party. The bad news for Bush is that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" seems to be taking hold. While 13% of the electorate has moved away from Kerry because of the ads, a total of 23% have moved away from Mr. Bush. And while on fifth of the electorate believe the Swift Boat Vets for Truth a fully half (50%) believe Kerry and his crew mates. Furthermore, one in five (20%) of independent voters have moved away from the Mr. Bush because of the ads, while only 13% have moved away from Kerry. Independents also remain unconvinced of the charges. While 16% believe the Swift Boat Veterans another 49% believe Mr. Kerry and his crew mates. This ad campaign may have impacted voter intensity in a way that the Swift Boat Veterans did not intend. The ad campaign seems to have shorn up Mr. Kerry's base, and energized core Democratic voters to work harder to elect Mr. Kerry. More than two in five (44%) Democrats and half (50%) of Kerry/Edwards voters are now less likely to vote for Bush or more likely to vote for Kerry because of the Swift Boat Ads. In contrast, just one in five (22%) Republicans and one quarter (25%) of Bush/Cheney voters are more likely to vote for Mr. Bush or less likely to vote for Mr. Kerry. This may largely be due to the limited effectiveness these ads had in convincing even Republicans of the Swift Boat Veterans tales. Nearly half (45%) of both Republicans and Bush/Cheney voters believed the story of the Swift Boat Veterans over that of Mr. Kerry, while on the other side, four in five (80%) Democrats and nearly nine in ten (88%) Kerry/Edwards voters believed Mr. Kerry's side of the story. The most recent numbers suggest that Mr. Bush's rise in the polls may have been a result of a better media presence during the month of August. They also suggest that any gains that Mr. Bush may have made from these ads has peaked and has the potential to do harm by turning off independents and energizing the Democratic base". (Zogby's Real America - September 2004)

quote:

6. He never established his political position well with the american people. I don't feel the american people really knew what he did/did not support.

That I can agree on, and it's clear Kerry should have done much better in this aspect. Of course the negative attack ads against Kerry further muddied the waters a bit as well, but Kerry should have done a better job here.

quote:

7. Mrs. Kerry pissed off a lot of women by her idiotic remarks and women are very sensitive voters. J. Kerry should have kept her out of the campaigning as much as possible. I think many despised the thought of her being the first lady by her attitude and mannerisms.

I know, having an outspoken, strong-willed woman is a bit of a concept for many of those Southerners, ain't it?

quote:

8. Most americans didn't know where he stood on religious faith and family values. The assumption was likely made that they weren't very important to him. Hence he didn't stress them. This was another biggie.

I agree here too, though it's never a stance of any Democratic candidate to wear his religion on his sleeve, nor use it directly for any policy stance. Reason and logic usually preside instead, which again seems somewhat lacking for our "faith-based" president.

Forgive me if I feel a bit uncomfortable with our President making major decisions because his "gut" tells him it's the right thing to do.

quote:

9. The catholic authority opposed him

At the height of their moral hypocracy, yes I would agree. Bush aligned a few extra Catholic votes here, no doubt.

quote:

10. A large population of small business owners opposed him because of his unfriendly tax proposals.

Actually his proposals wouldn't have hurt small businesses much at all, but again he didn't explain his stance well here. Of course Bush's wasn't exactly truthful on his tax cut proposals either:

quote:

On a campaign trip to Michigan in December of '03, President Bush echoed one of his familiar claims, saying "I want to remind people about is that the tax relief was geared toward small businesses...When you hear us talking about reducing all taxes on individuals, you really hear also the message that we're reducing taxes on small businesses."(1) This statement is the most recent in a long line of similar assertions - an unscientific Lexis-Nexis search shows, that in just the three years since Bush became President, he and Vice President Cheney have given at least 150 separate speeches claiming that their tax proposals are specifically geared to helping small business. But simple statistics show just how misleading these statements are. In talking about his 2001 tax cut, the President specifically promised that there would be "more than 17.4 million small business owners and entrepreneurs who stand to benefit from dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 33%" - the major piece of his proposal.(2) But according to nonpartisan analyses of IRS and Treasury Department data, just 3.7% of small business owners are subject to these top tax rates - meaning the rest receive almost nothing from the major piece of his plan.(3) In other words, for every small business owner that benefits, there are 15 small business owners that do not. All told, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit" in any way. Similarly, in pushing for his second tax cut in 2003, the President said that "small businesses stand to gain a great deal"(4) from his most recent tax cut proposals, because he said it would "give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042." In fact, "nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than this amount," according to the nonpartisan Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.(5) Additionally, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." The President produced the $2,042 average figure by deceptively averaging the large tax cuts that would go to a small number of wealthy individuals who have some small business income with the miniscule (if any) tax cuts that would go to millions of more typical small business people. Sources: 1. President Discusses Economy in Michigan, 12/01/2003: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20031201-6.html 2.Remarks by the President During Meeting with Small Business Owners, 03/16/2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20010316-3.html 3.Reducing the Top Tax Rates: How Much Benefit to Small Business?, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 05/03/2001. http://www.cbpp.org/5-3-01tax2.htm 4.President Discusses Jobs & Growth Plan in Radio Address, 01/18/2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...1/20030118.html 5.President's Radio Address and Other Administration Statements Exaggerate Tax Plan's Impact on Small Businesses, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 01/21/2003. http://www.cbpp.org/1-18-03tax.htm

quote:

11. Corporate america opposed him and certainly they have a lot of money, power and influence.

Bingo.

quote:

well those are the biggest ones. im sure there are a few more. All in all, my assesment of voter turnout and the politcal pulse of american's currently would be: the moderate majority of americans don't vote. On average less than half of americans even vote. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html However, in recent elections the left has had very strong turnout at the polls. And the lefts voter strength continues to come from the same key states mainly New York and California.

Evidently you didn't receive my memo back on this thread on Democratic partisan gains throughout the country:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=3

quote:

All of that accounts for why Bush's lead wasn't even greater and why the 2000 election was by popular vote essentially even. Obviously voter turn out was greater this election across the board with 60%- the highest since 1968.http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldl...on/10113862.htm My point here is that currently the USA isn't split as much as everyone believes it is. When you have a moderate majority who's voter turnout is less than half and a liberal minority whos voters turnout in great strength and who's strength lies in the two most populated US cities it creates an illusion and skews the real picture. Interestingly the majority of liberals lie in states with high immigrant numbers and a strong want and need for more social welfare because they mostly comprise of lower class americans but thats another discussion altogether. the dems really needed a strong candidate to beat out a war time president.

You should have included this last sentence in with your list of reasons why Kerry lost. It was my personal first and foremost reason - it was extremely difficult to beat out an incumbent war time president. Keep the fear drive up and you'll win every time.

You don't think Bush and Rove didn't know this?

quote:

Instead they chose possibly one of the worst. It's astonishing to me that they couldn't do better. I almost wonder sometimes if it wasn't a setup to get Bush re-elected. Hmm...that would imply our two party system is really just one. Howz that for conspiracy? Oh well, that another discussion. peace.

As I said before, this could very well be a major gift to the Democratic movement, depending upon the outcome of events in the next 2 years. As I've said somewhere before, historically speaking the 2nd term for any incumbent is often riddled with controversy and problems for that President and his party.

There is absolutely nothing outside of a miracle in Iraq and a miracle in our economy/deficit that can convince me that this will surely NOT be the case for Bush over his 2nd term.

Aye, how you ramble!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider According to one source. Other sources such as the Brookings Institute characterize him as a relative moderate .

I don't buy it. But upon reflection, there are certainly more liberal people in politics, but I certainly put Kerry near the top of my list.

quote:

So once you've reached your optimal level of mini-shakkas you'll abstain from sex?

Yeah, right! And that optimal level is zero! There are other methods to child prevention and I like to live dangerously!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Aye, how you ramble!

Aye, yo mama!

First of all its ridiculous to say Kerry didn't attack Bush as much.
Reason being:

Debates--- He won the nationally televised Debates on that...He started his rebuttals by attacking Bush and his adminstration. Then he used the remaining time to talk about himself...and his "I have a plan." He lost the easiest to win election in American History.


Now as to why he lost?

Culture----- Senator Kerry was never going to be credible as a faith-based candidate... It's not... who he is and it's not what he's about. He didn't need to be. What he needed to do was let a vast swath of Americans (particularly in the middle of the country) know that he shared their cultural concerns. Chief among these are the porno-ization of American media, the sexualization of children and the "pimp and ho" Rap culture...... Kerry never uttered a critical word of the media sewer. He aligned himself with Hollywood, the music industry and Big New York media. He paid the price in exurbia.

Lifestyle----- Pick your poison: wind-surfing, wind-surfing outfits, snow-boarding outfits, $8000 bicycles, the daughter's dress at Cannes, Teresa, Nantucket. A veritable Robin Leach smorgasbord. Teresa especially was emblematic of the Kerry disconnect.

Rationale--- Kerry's book on Bush might have been called Liar, Incompetent, Moron, Fool. It was never going to sell above 50%. It felt good and it ginned up the base, but a majority of people simply did not and do not share this view of President Bush..... The court martial strategy was too harsh. A "gold-watch strategy" -- in which President Bush was thanked for his service and shown the door -- was much more in tune with the national mood.

Bush as initiator, Kerry as consolidator was a potentially powerful paradigm. And it would have enabled Kerry to portray Bush as spent; exhausted by the stress and bone-crushing pressures of the job. Americans were and are grateful to Bush for his superb leadership in the wake of 9/11... They were never going to fire him. They might have retired him.

Strategy---- Karl Rove "the Architect" Did the Kerry campaign really imagine that they could out direct-market Karl Rove? By buying into the 17-state strategy, they walked right into Rove's trap. By reducing the battlefield, they enlarged the Bush campaign's tactical brilliance. The key to defeating Bush in the biggest national election since 1968 was to nationalize the race, not localize it. And the way to do that was to do it, with national campaign advertising, national campaigning and a direct national appeal that said======= this is not Florida's election or Ohio's election, this is your election. You pay the bills, you have a right to be heard. I will not disenfranchise you...... I will not marginalize your vote.

Yes, national advertising and campaigning is inefficient and expensive.... But the Kerry camp had money to burn...Look at Teresa's BANK ACCOUNT for crying outloud. Had they advertised nationally (and had the DNC supported national advertising with thematic national advertising of its own), the Kerry campaign could have built a much bigger lead in national polling and put a great deal more pressure on the Bush campaign early...... By changing the scope of the battlefield, the Kerry campaign could have maximized the Bush campaign's most glaring weakness, which was communications.

War-- I never thought the metaphor for Kerry's waffling on the War issue was the famous "I voted for it, before I voted against it" quote. John Edwards was the problem. A presidential campaign has five Big moments; the VP selection, the convention speech and the three debates........ The first of these was a disaster for Kerry because it sent exactly the wrong message about his view of the War on Terror. Two guys who voted against funding? Yea Yea bring your facts..but the average american didn't have time to check these out and let this famous quote sink in.

Media/HollyWood----The Average American doesnt want to be affiliated with those scumbag millionares from hollywood. They backlashed against the bias media........ It was evident that Fox news as the nonliberal news network, was pulling all the ratings on cable. Basically the American people realized how CBS and other news networks were pushing this candidate to try to win. It didnt work buddy.

In the end is boils down to:
The democrats will spend months looking for excuses while ignoring the truth......

People voted for President Bush because he is an Honorable, Moral, Decent, Caring, man with Integrity..... We know that what is says is what he means and he will do what he says.....

The democrats put forward a man with no Character, Dishonest, who only attends a church to get votes, and will do or say anthing to get elected.

People saw the difference and voted for the one they knew they could trust. democrats will never understand that simple fact.

Sorry ass americans

look at how sad they are

http://72.3.131.10/gallery/1/

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Sorry ass americans look at how sad they are http://72.3.131.10/gallery/1/

LOL. This one is my favorite:



Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, this dimwit might win:


Representin' the Jessica Simpsons of the world, like, for reals yo.

Apparently there are more millionaires living in America than there are non-millionaires. At least according to one expert...

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec First of all its ridiculous to say Kerry didn't attack Bush as much. Reason being: Debates--- He won the nationally televised Debates on that...He started his rebuttals by attacking Bush and his adminstration. Then he used the remaining time to talk about himself...and his "I have a plan." He lost the easiest to win election in American History.

Overtaking a war-time president has historically been a losing scenario for any challenger. Your sentiments of "losing the easiest election to win" ring hollow on that fact alone.

quote:

Now as to why he lost? Culture----- Senator Kerry was never going to be credible as a faith-based candidate... It's not... who he is and it's not what he's about. He didn't need to be. What he needed to do was let a vast swath of Americans (particularly in the middle of the country) know that he shared their cultural concerns. Chief among these are the porno-ization of American media, the sexualization of children and the "pimp and ho" Rap culture...... Kerry never uttered a critical word of the media sewer. He aligned himself with Hollywood, the music industry and Big New York media. He paid the price in exurbia.

So his ticket to win Florida was to condemn rappers? Damn, if only he knew it was that easy.

quote:

Lifestyle----- Pick your poison: wind-surfing, wind-surfing outfits, snow-boarding outfits, $8000 bicycles, the daughter's dress at Cannes, Teresa, Nantucket. A veritable Robin Leach smorgasbord. Teresa especially was emblematic of the Kerry disconnect.

Umph, soooo different than Bush's millions, I suppose.

Jesus, not this "Kerry has more money" bullshit argument again!

quote:

Rationale--- Kerry's book on Bush might have been called Liar, Incompetent, Moron, Fool. It was never going to sell above 50%. It felt good and it ginned up the base, but a majority of people simply did not and do not share this view of President Bush..... The court martial strategy was too harsh. A "gold-watch strategy" -- in which President Bush was thanked for his service and shown the door -- was much more in tune with the national mood.

I disagree, as do the statistics. According to the exit polls, what issues mattered most - moral values, Iraq, and terrorism. The 2nd and 3rd issue favored Bush over Kerry from the getgo (remember the war-time president rule), but Kerry had made significant progress on Bush here (rightfully so, I might add). The first issue was really the sleeper issue, which overall made no significant impact, which I stated back on
this thread, but had ENOUGH impact on those key states, as well as make the popular vote look more impressive.

Honestly I was bettin' against Kerry from the getgo primarily for those last 2 reasons, but top it off with some good 'ol Southern discrimination, and he has no chance in hell.

quote:

Bush as initiator, Kerry as consolidator was a potentially powerful paradigm.

How 'bout Bush being a "uniter, not a divider"?

quote:

And it would have enabled Kerry to portray Bush as spent; exhausted by the stress and bone-crushing pressures of the job.

Why would he - Bush did that all on his own during the 1st debate:

"It's hard work!"
"It's hard work!"
"Workin' on Saturdays...."

Okay, maybe that last one was from SNL, but you get the idea.

quote:

Americans were and are grateful to Bush for his superb leadership in the wake of 9/11... They were never going to fire him. They might have retired him.

Have you ever asked yourself what any other President in Bush's position would have done? Would they have honestly responded any differently, outside of trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 and invade them as a consequence?

quote:

Strategy---- Karl Rove "the Architect" Did the Kerry campaign really imagine that they could out direct-market Karl Rove? By buying into the 17-state strategy, they walked right into Rove's trap. By reducing the battlefield, they enlarged the Bush campaign's tactical brilliance. The key to defeating Bush in the biggest national election since 1968 was to nationalize the race, not localize it. And the way to do that was to do it, with national campaign advertising, national campaigning and a direct national appeal that said======= this is not Florida's election or Ohio's election, this is your election. You pay the bills, you have a right to be heard. I will not disenfranchise you...... I will not marginalize your vote.

Actually I agree with you about Rove, but I disagree about local vs. national strategy - I think the Dems. underestimated the grassroots strategy by the Republicans a great deal, and the Repubs. were the ones that carried the local strategy through to win the national map. Local elections and local issues bring folks to the polls.

quote:

Yes, national advertising and campaigning is inefficient and expensive.... But the Kerry camp had money to burn...Look at Teresa's BANK ACCOUNT for crying outloud. Had they advertised nationally (and had the DNC supported national advertising with thematic national advertising of its own), the Kerry campaign could have built a much bigger lead in national polling and put a great deal more pressure on the Bush campaign early...... By changing the scope of the battlefield, the Kerry campaign could have maximized the Bush campaign's most glaring weakness, which was communications.

Then why didn't Bush advertise more here in Kansas?

Why didn't he advertise more in Oklahoma?

There is an electoral vote strategy played by both sides, and the Republicans won it this time around.

And personal finances by Teresa wouldn't have boded well with the voters by any measure. I doubt that would be a good strategy for any candidate to follow.

quote:

War-- I never thought the metaphor for Kerry's waffling on the War issue was the famous "I voted for it, before I voted against it" quote. John Edwards was the problem. A presidential campaign has five Big moments; the VP selection, the convention speech and the three debates........ The first of these was a disaster for Kerry because it sent exactly the wrong message about his view of the War on Terror. Two guys who voted against funding? Yea Yea bring your facts..but the average american didn't have time to check these out and let this famous quote sink in.

Bingo - who defined whom here? Kerry didn't strike back hard enough on this. I concur.

Edwards wasn't the best "war-time" VP, I suppose, but he did do well in garnering the grassroots Populist message. Of course, not good enough, but that was the primary purpose of his candidacy.

quote:

Media/HollyWood----The Average American doesnt want to be affiliated with those scumbag millionares from hollywood. They backlashed against the bias media........ It was evident that Fox news as the nonliberal news network, was pulling all the ratings on cable. Basically the American people realized how CBS and other news networks were pushing this candidate to try to win. It didnt work buddy.

Please don't pull that "darn liberal media" rhetoric again, will you? Outside of Rather's stupidity, I have yet to see any firm evidence that the media sways one way or the other. Arguments can be made for either case, which overall the bottom issue is sensationalism and the almighty dollar.

The media is a business, and it cares 2 shits about who's elected so long as they outcompete their competitors.

quote:

In the end is boils down to: The democrats will spend months looking for excuses while ignoring the truth...... People voted for President Bush because he is an Honorable, Moral, Decent, Caring, man with Integrity..... We know that what is says is what he means and he will do what he says.....

***mmghgpeafsdghgh***

Sorry, I just had a little throw-up in my mouth to clean out there. You've been lambasted on numerous occasions on this forum, speed, for pushing this bullshit rhetoric about Bush. We've given numerous instances of Bush's distortions and blatant flip-flopping;

Are you really trying to act as if all that never happened? Surely you jest.

quote:

The democrats put forward a man with no Character, Dishonest, who only attends a church to get votes, and will do or say anthing to get elected.

Oh yes, God forbid a liberal Christian is in the midst.

You honestly think him saying or doing anything to get elected is really any different than Bush, or any other freakin' Republican politician for that matter?

Surely you jest?

quote:

People saw the difference and voted for the one they knew they could trust. democrats will never understand that simple fact.

Well judging by the way you present it, I suppose no we will never understand it. Perhaps it simply boils down to these simple things:

1. War-time presidents usually get re-elected

2. Fear plays well into the presidency, and most war-time presidents know this and use it to their advantage

You think its any coincidence that Bush decided to have his convention surrounding 9/11, even though he stated in the past that he will never politicize 9/11?

3. Kerry wasn't the best choice, and it was a mistake of the Dems. to elect him on the basis of him being the "most presidential". Stupid logic. They didn't see past this superficiality personally.

I'd have to say that out of all the candidates back in March, Clarke would have likely been the best one. I'm tempted as hell to say Dean, but that opens up a can of worms that I don't have time to defend right now (and I'm not sure I could very well anyway).

Re: -U.S.A. Has Spoken To The World!--

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover What the world saw with this election is that there is indeed a division in the USA, but that division is the division religious belief in america. This is the fact. This was a battle between faithful christian america and unfaithful or non-christian america and if you don't believe this you are just plain ignorant or in denial. The opposition opposed Bush because of his beliefs and strong morals. I don't really think it was so much about Iraq honestly. I believe now that was mostly a liberal front. It could have been donald duck instead of Kerry and it would have made no difference. They voted to oppose Bush and everything christian that he represents. This is the other side of america. As much as liberal america would like everyone to believe, a moral christian america is still very much alive and strong. God bless America.

Disclaimer Note on Electronic Dance Music:

This form of music inspires drug usage, sex, and general immoral behavior. Please delete all of your Dance Music files, throw away all of your CD's and records. Then proceed cautiously to your nearest music store and buy as many Christian Rock CD's as your on hand monetary assets will allow.

Dance Music is not for the weak or deeply religious.

Thank You.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 sorry for pointing this logical flaw out: How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

Because I took the effort to go to his web page and do a little extra research about his positions thats why. Particularly his economic plan of which there was very little solid details to substantiate it. I really thought I might find some hard numbers serious details on how he planned to fulfill all his promises. I really gave him the benefit of the doubt. But I was wrong. There was no substance.

His religious views ect. only came out breifly and left ppl wondering what exactly he did believe. He said he was catholic yet didn't believe half of what the catholic doctorine.

If all the average american ppl saw were the debates and didn't do any extra research I think they would think most probably feel confused as I did. And still do about some issues. The exception might be those people in florida and ohio since they got lectured by him and Bush day in and day out but even then it seemed like mostly Kerry just throwing out insults and no real substance about his domestic or foreign plans.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.