• Moderator

    @Jennifer:

    The only problem I can foresee with a female president would be how some foreign nations may view her, and in turn us. After all, there are some nations, whether right or wrong, that do not hold women in very high regard and do treat them as second rate citizens at best, cattle at worst.

    As for if Hillary runs, I sure hope Lisa Madigan, Condoleeza Rice or some other strong woman runs against her if she does. I’d hate to see her get elected because of her genes. (Not to mention, Woman v Woman would mean a Woman President. smile)

    BTW, I really wish President Bush would have selected a woman VP.

    Philipines has a very strong female Prez and they get Terrorist threats and attacks and the like more often then we…


  • I doubt that has much to do with their President being female, though; probably has more to do with the fact that the Philippines have a much larger Muslim population than the U.S. does, and a larger percentage of those are likely to be the fanatics we’re fighting against.


  • Give me a break. The Republicans did not cheat in Florida. If anything, the Dems did, what with all the recounts (notice, in every single recount, Bush still won!!), and the attempt to keep Katherine Harris (Secretary of State in Florida) from doing her job. Provide me with some actual evidence (not hearsay, mind you, evidence) that the Republicans “cheated” in Florida.

    Yeah right b/c its only the other guys that cheat. What party was Nixon again?


  • Yeah right b/c its only the other guys that cheat. What party was Nixon again?

    Oh, that’s right, I forgot about Nixon’s infamous “Floridagate” scandal…. :roll:

    What exactly does Nixon have to do with a bunch of the usual suspects throwing out military ballots, smearing a woman simply doing her job, and inventing such stupidities as “dimpled chads,” “hanging chads,” “pregnant chads,” “freckled chads,” “pimply chads,” and “Chadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.” Ok, I made up those last three, but the point stands. Oh, and let’s not forget that a New York Times article written after the whole business was over (I think about a year or so ago, I don’t know) said that Bush won the election any way you count (or dimple) it.


  • What exactly does Nixon have to do with a bunch of the usual suspects throwing out military ballots, smearing a woman simply doing her job, and inventing such stupidities as “dimpled chads,” “hanging chads,” “pregnant chads,” “freckled chads,” “pimply chads,” and “Chadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.”

    Nothing except that I am quite sure the democrats are as guilty of improprieties in Illinois as the Republicans are in Florida. Quid pro quo. However its always a sign of partisan politics to see only the other side as guilty of this sort of thing. Clearly as Nixon proves this is not the case.


  • Nothing except that I am quite sure the democrats are as guilty of improprieties in Illinois as the Republicans are in Florida.

    Ok, fair enough. Care to highlight what improprieties the Republicans were (or are) guilty of in Florida?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Point 1: The Phillipeans arn’t a world power that has a tendancy to try and shove their cultural and moral view points down the throats of sovereign nations like we do, though. I’d hesitate to put forward a theory, but, do you think their terrorist rate would drop significantly if they had a male president?

    Point 2: Yes, anyone who discards a vote where the intent of the voter was plainly obvious, FOR ANY REASON, should be disenfranchised on the spot and permanently removed from any municiple, state or federal government position. Hanging chad, dimpled chad, whatever - you still know how they WANTED to vote.

    Point 3: Wasn’t it President Clinton that held the absentee ballots from the military men and women over seas so long that there was no way they could get them back in time to be counted in the election? I’m sorry, but it’s my opinion that the only people on this country you DON’T want to get ticked off is the military! They have all the guns!

    Point 4: We are still finding ballot boxes from Republican communities here in Chicago and the suburbs. (Daily Herald - Chicago - reported that they found 3 boxes in the Chicago River when they were checking fecal material levels. Of course, this being Daley’s country, the report was buried on page 28-32, somewhere in there. I want to say 29, I’ve got it in my garage. But the report did say that it held some ballots from the 2000 election (most had been destroyed by pollution, current and time.))

    Point 5: Running against Reagan in the 80’s is sort of akin to running against FDR during WWII. You sorta only did it to prove that your party wasn’t dead, but you really didn’t expect to win anyway. wink That’s TOTALLY my perspective and is not based in ANY fact or rumored fact!


  • The one scary thing is the big cities, Demies are getting droves of ignorant to register , and obviously, they will vote Democrat, because they are ignorant.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Marine:

    There are plenty of ignorant Republicans too. I really wish people would care enough about their country to at least investigate what’s going on a little bit instead of just taking the media’s word for it and regurgitating any old sound bite that the media wants them too. That goes for BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

    Undecides are either lieing or idiots. No one has NO opinion about anything going on. Sorry to those of you who think you’re undecided, but I doubt you really are. I’m sure you have opinions on abortion, death penalties, the war, police actions, the UN, the president, taxes, medicine, socialist programs (ie Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc), religion, or anything else that can be made political. If you have an opinion one one of those things, you arnt undecided, you’re just looking for a reason to support one side or the other. (Either that or actually informed because you research the candidate and select that way!)


  • @Jennifer:

    Marine:

    There are plenty of ignorant Republicans too. I really wish people would care enough about their country to at least investigate what’s going on a little bit instead of just taking the media’s word for it and regurgitating any old sound bite that the media wants them too. That goes for BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

    Undecides are either lieing or idiots. No one has NO opinion about anything going on. Sorry to those of you who think you’re undecided, but I doubt you really are. I’m sure you have opinions on abortion, death penalties, the war, police actions, the UN, the president, taxes, medicine, socialist programs (ie Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc), religion, or anything else that can be made political. If you have an opinion one one of those things, you arnt undecided, you’re just looking for a reason to support one side or the other. (Either that or actually informed because you research the candidate and select that way!)

    i may support social programs but not abortion. I would therefore be undecided as to which i would vote for - whether Kerry or Bush. This does not mean that i have no opinion, it just means that i have not yet decided who i will vote for. (i don’t really have to define the term “undecided” do i?)


  • Ok, fair enough. Care to highlight what improprieties the Republicans were (or are) guilty of in Florida?

    No b/c you will just refute them with the same kind of backwards reasoning that has lead to to believe the democrats are horribly guity of something in Illinois in the first place. It’s rather naive to think that this doesn’t go on in both parties, for no other reason than politics is a dirty business. If you accept that then you must accept to do well in it you must bend/fracture some rules to do so. Since the Republicans have done incredibly well since 1964 this is a logical assumption to make. After all the two worst presidents in US history, Carter and Hoover were two of the most principled men to hold that office which is why they failed.

    No one has NO opinion about anything going on. Sorry to those of you who think you’re undecided, but I doubt you really are.

    When the undecideds say they are undecided what they are really undecided about is whether Bush should get another term. That this is a lingering question for him in October does not say many good things. Were Bush to be reelected it would be one of the most unprecedents things to occur in American politics since he clearly hasn’t won over nearly half the people, and hasn’t had the most successful first term ever. I expect that if he is reelected he will have one of the most disasterous 2nd terms in US history. In fact it might even be worse than Hoovers term.

    The one scary thing is the big cities, Demies are getting droves of ignorant to register , and obviously, they will vote Democrat, because they are ignorant.

    Or they will vote democrat b/c they are enlightened. The Reps love to point out the media and academic bias as being liberal, but this being the case doesn’t that mean their base of support comes from the rural peasants and the hill people. In otherwords doesn’t this presuppose that their backers are ignorant.

    I’m sorry, but it’s my opinion that the only people on this country you DON’T want to get ticked off is the military! They have all the guns!

    No we don’t care b/c our society is not based upon martial valor therefore the military serves the people not the other way around. That Bush may have changed this shows he has subverted the ‘real’ traditional American values of liberty, equality and justice. All of which he claims to be for.

    We are still finding ballot boxes from Republican communities here in Chicago and the suburbs. (Daily Herald - Chicago - reported that they found 3 boxes in the Chicago River when they were checking fecal material levels. Of course, this being Daley’s country, the report was buried on page 28-32, somewhere in there. I want to say 29, I’ve got it in my garage. But the report did say that it held some ballots from the 2000 election (most had been destroyed by pollution, current and time.))

    But what is hard for most conservatives to understand is that the mere possibility of wrongness does not mean wrong was done. The same methadology can be applied in Florida. To say that b/c there were so many errors and mistakes in 2000 that this constituted an effort to defraud the voters is preposterous. In both cases one must investigate the intent behind these actions. Were those ballots thrown there after or before the election,

    Running against Reagan in the 80’s is sort of akin to running against FDR during WWII. You sorta only did it to prove that your party wasn’t dead, but you really didn’t expect to win anyway. wink That’s TOTALLY my perspective and is not based in ANY fact or rumored fact!

    Yes and if you go back to 1960 you will find Illinois goes democrat very often. Throw out the results tainted by landslide ie 1980, 84, 72 and 88, and you will see it has voted democrat 5 of 7 times.

    Yes, anyone who discards a vote where the intent of the voter was plainly obvious, FOR ANY REASON, should be disenfranchised on the spot and permanently removed from any municiple, state or federal government position. Hanging chad, dimpled chad, whatever - you still know how they WANTED to vote.

    But when was this vote discarded. How do we know it wasn’t counted. What’s more how do we know that this is indicative of larger voting problems? The same methadology applied by your party to FL can be applied to Illinois.


  • No b/c you will just refute them with the same kind of backwards reasoning that has lead to to believe the democrats are horribly guity of something in Illinois in the first place

    I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply to this, but… I never said anything about the Democrats and Illinois. Never even mentioned it. You insisted the Republicans were guilty of fraud in Florida, and refuse (because you are, to all appearances, unable) to provide any evidence to back that claim up. So, you simply assume that, because one side does something in one state, the other side must be doing the same thing in another state (and let’s pick Florida, 'cause it’s so controversial!), and to hell with the evidence.

    Since the Republicans have done incredibly well since 1964 this is a logical assumption to make.

    Uh huh. And since Ted Kennedy keeps getting elected in Mass, he must be cheating. The same goes for Dick Gephart, Tom Daschle, and a horde of other Democrat strongmen. Has it occurred to you that maybe most people in the country just prefer electing Republicans, because they like their principles (such as they differ from Democrats…)?


  • You insisted the Republicans were guilty of fraud in Florida, and refuse (because you are, to all appearances, unable) to provide any evidence to back that claim up. So, you simply assume that, because one side does something in one state, the other side must be doing the same thing in another state (and let’s pick Florida, 'cause it’s so controversial!), and to hell with the evidence.

    No what I was getting at is that there was no direct evidence in either case that anything wrong really occured. In the case of both its troubling, but the fact is that its entirely possible Buchanan would’ve done just as well in Palm Beach regardless, and note that he didn’t do all that well anyway. Just because their is a hint of evidence does not in itself indicate cause and effect. What is more troubling is the pattern of irregularities in both places which tends to lead one to this conclusion, but these individual cases could easily be harmless, but indicative of other problems. I was warning against Partisan politics. When you let somebody else do your thinking for you, you’ve done yourself a great disservice.

    Uh huh. And since Ted Kennedy keeps getting elected in Mass, he must be cheating. The same goes for Dick Gephart, Tom Daschle, and a horde of other Democrat strongmen. Has it occurred to you that maybe most people in the country just prefer electing Republicans, because they like their principles (such as they differ from Democrats…)?

    So you don’t believe politics is a dirty game? Isn’t that a little naive. By this token you probably would’ve voted for Carter and Gore as they were both extremely principled. Note that on principles alone Gore was more so than Bush. If you accept that politics is a dirty game then it goes w/o saying that to win someone must break/bend their conscience in some ways, does it not. In this way I assume that both parties in order to be successful must at some level do wrong things to get elected. However, we chose to believe the politicans WE back are not crooked, despite acknowledging the general truth that politicans are crooks. It cannot work both ways that politicans are bad, but a certain sect is immune to that general pressure. I would argue it is this naivity that not only lead Nixon to get away with Watergate for a while, but to also convince himself that he could. For example, Nixon seeing that JFK cheated him in Chicago in 1960 therfore concluded that it was okay to break the rules sometimes, or even so long as you are not caught.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    UHm, the Democrats were recounting the ballots in Florida, not the Republicans. Just to clear that up a bit.

    And yes, finding ballot boxes in the bottom of the river when Illinois State Law dictates they be archived for 14 years does smack of the Daley Political Machine cheating as usual.

    And yes, both sides may be accused of cheating, but it does seem that the Democrats have a tendancy to be less able to conceal their cheating. I don’t know if it’s because the cheaters are less intelligent or the investigators more intelligent.

    As for Illinois, other then Reagan and when a Daley wasn’t mayor of Chicago, I don’t think the state’s voted for a federally elected republican. Sorry, I did forget Peter Fitzgerald, but then again, it’s been rumored that the reason he isn’t running again is because Daley’s put a contract out on his family if he does. Obviously, no one will say, but the rumor persists. And let’s not forget about Mr. Ryan (Geri’s ex-husband, not the old Govenor) who’s only crime was wanting to have sex with his wife, but the Daley administration perverted it and him and forced him to step down giving us a choice between two democrats for office instead of a republican and a democrate

    And let’s talk Govenor’s office. Liscence for Bribes scandel, there’s so many leads pointing right at the Mayor’s office you have to be a blind mouse in a maze to miss it. But the Govenor is the one who got in trouble.

    Then there’s the trucking scam where Daley gave no-bid contract awards to his family, paid them on time, but they didn’t go to work or complete the contract.

    And my favorite! FAA tells him he can’t expand O’Hare because he has three airports. So over night, he violates another city’s sovereign rights and bull dozes their airport! (Mig’s Field.) Claim’s he wants to build a park, but they havn’t so much as planted a blade of grass in over 3 years!

    Daley’s friggin above the law. I’ll wager that if he told Pres. Bush to stop running for office, his administration would seriously consider it. Of course, Daley could have the Pres. killed and not even end up with an eggshell on his suit!


  • Why dont you ever hear of this guy?! :-?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Hear of who? Mayor Richard Daley?

    He’s a local fish, he’s just so connected to the mob that I think he shares a certain male anatomy part with them as well as their genes and their business practices.


  • And yes, both sides may be accused of cheating, but it does seem that the Democrats have a tendancy to be less able to conceal their cheating. I don’t know if it’s because the cheaters are less intelligent or the investigators more intelligent.

    No that isn’t true, remember Watergate, Iran Contra. It’s just that when republicans get caught as per recently they have this tendency to immediately resign just so that there remains some shadow of doubt to their guilt. Remember that Livingston guy.

    And yes, finding ballot boxes in the bottom of the river when Illinois State Law dictates they be archived for 14 years does smack of the Daley Political Machine cheating as usual.

    Yes but there were likewise valid criticisms of the republican electoral machinery in Florida, and especially as to why the ballots were made to be confusing. Shouldn’t they be as easy to understand as possible.

    As for Illinois, other then Reagan and when a Daley wasn’t mayor of Chicago, I don’t think the state’s voted for a federally elected republican.

    Well there was that guy named Lincoln.

    And let’s not forget about Mr. Ryan (Geri’s ex-husband, not the old Govenor) who’s only crime was wanting to have sex with his wife, but the Daley administration perverted it and him and forced him to step down giving us a choice between two democrats for office instead of a republican and a democrate

    Well but this wasn’t all daley’s fault. The republicans find themselves in a precarious position in that they hold ‘familiy values’ and morality to be their exclusive domain. As such when they get caught in compromising situations they have such little defense that they cannot even contest it as was the case with Ryan. Now the solution is to not beat people over the head with these issues, but since that is all that has worked for them that isn’t going to happen.

    Daley’s friggin above the law. I’ll wager that if he told Pres. Bush to stop running for office, his administration would seriously consider it. Of course, Daley could have the Pres. killed and not even end up with an eggshell on his suit!

    But all the issues at the core of these daley scandals are similarly levied against Bush. Except one controls the fate of only one state and the other the entire world. Which is more dangerous I would ask.

    This is the result of the politics in the US today. Bush could run a horrible 2nd term, cause a depression, start WWII and still the Plains and South would vote the next Republican in. This kind of self serving brand of democracy will not last.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Lincoln was before my original mandate of Since WWII.

    Mr. Ryan’s only impropriety was wanting to have Sex with his Wife. He just didn’t want to reveal that they attended social gatherings of an adult nature. But he didnt want to have sex with other people or let her do the same. When she said no, he dropped it.

    Bush did not personally order the destruction of ballot boxes. IF anyone did that, it would probably be Cheney. I don’t think Bush has a wicked bone in his body, he may or may not be foolish and brash, but I don’t think he has the intention of harming the US Gov’t or it’s citizens.

    Daley on the other hand, would burn the flesh off his own screaming mother if it meant he could get 4 more years in office.


  • Smith, if you get caught in a scandal, the proper thing to do is resign, or you could be like our beloved Bill, and stay in office.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I think the point would be to just NOT engage in a scandle…or is that too simplistic for the Dems and Reps to do???

    Go Nader! (hey, I view it like this, if you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil, right? Why not throw your vote on a 3rd party and vote against ALL evil!)


  • because in general, third parties are extensions of special interest groups. they tend to be the extremes on both sides. id prefer a kerry to any of the third parties ive encountered, even though i hate kerry

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You missed the point, Janus. I wasn’t voting FOR Nader, I was voting AGAINST John and George!

    No way Nader’d win, even if he was hte only candidate on the ballet.


  • I don’t know if this applies in the US or not, but in a previous federal election, i felt that:

    1. the Liberal candidate (incumbant) was out of touch with his riding,
    2. the Progressive Conservatives were not ready to lead the country and needed to ontinue to be punished for their misdeeds (also they were inappropriate for the riding)
    3. i will NEVER vote for the New Democratic Party (far too sociallistic).

    so i destroyed my ballot thereby sending a very small signal that i thought everyone sucked.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Unfortunatly, I think, that the only way to vote against a candidate in the states is to vote for another candidate. However, you may write your own name in for your vote, if you so choose.

    I used to do that on certain elections, but with the fiasco in Florida where the Dems were throwing out votes left and right because of in-complete punches, I’ve grown wary of doing this - and choose to just vote 3rd party and hedge my bets that 90% of the nation isn’t doing the same thing!


  • Jennifer,
    Well I agree. Not willing this time. Too much dangerous stuff going on to make my vote a statement for a 3rd party. The 2 party system has caused us no end of trouble. Why we would get to the place we where in four years ago where neither candidate was good. Ugh. America is huge. I find it hard to believe that Gore and W represent the best we had to offer. Kerry? He seems compotent. Great? Not yet. We can hope.

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 28
  • 9
  • 17
  • 7
  • 4
  • 1
  • 18
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts