USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[haku]

Apparently Eminem is not a big fan of Bush either, he's about to release an anti Bush song.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by haku

Apparently Eminem is not a big fan of Bush either, he's about to release an anti Bush song.

Good. Hopefully it'll change some minds, too.

Kerry has good support among collage students and women. Here are the latest polls from AP: http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/1...oll/index.html

The findings:

The 10-point lead that Kerry held over President Bush in a March survey has grown to 13 percent.

While Bush's support among students has remained consistent, many undecided voters have moved into the Kerry camp.

In swing states, Kerry's lead is even higher, about 16 percent. Swing-state students also are saying they are more likely to vote than students in non-swing states.

Women are far more likely to support Kerry. The race is about even among males.

Students are divided in the way they rank the candidates' personal attributes. Bush, for example, scores higher on "takes a clear stand on issues." Kerry ranks higher on "understands the problems of people like you."

More students believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. And support for the war is slipping.

David King, associate director of Harvard's Institute of Politics, said the intensity of feeling among students is significant.

"The energy level is way up, and cynicism is way down. Students are choosing sides now," King said.

More often than not, the side they choose is Kerry's. About 52 percent of students say they would vote for Kerry today, compared with 39 percent for Bush. (Chart: Voter Preferences)

While 87 percent of college students say they are registered to vote today, King says that number can't be trusted.

"It's self-reported. But it's also true that the [registration] levels appear to be much higher."

[thegurgi]

i learned that 85 percent of my campus is voting for Kerry... i was surprised by this... and wondered, "why wasn't i asked?"... most kids have already voted for Kerry actually, through absentee ballots. You can only vote in the county you are registered... and since so many aren't going to be able to go home on Tuesday and miss class (like they wouldn't want to... hahaha)... they've voted. It seems so great that my peers are actually getting involved unlike 4 years ago.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

The issue at hand is not who is pathetic, but whose ideas for the America are right in general - and that's Kerry's.

And on what do you base this statement? Why are Kerry's ideas better for Americans?

[Kate]

luxxi, I based my opinion on hundereds of news articles, quotes from compaign appearances of both candidates, and the three debates etc. There's no point in listing all of them now, since you don't agree with me anyway.

And on top of that, I have to prepare for my exams.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

luxxi, I based my opinion on hundereds of news articles, quotes from compaign appearances of both candidates, and the three debates etc. There's no point in listing all of them now, since you don't agree with me anyway.

Neither of which indicate why Kerry's ideas are better for Americans. All state what authors and candidates think is better for Americans.

[Kate]

Fine, I'll list Kerry's better ideas later.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Fine, I'll list Kerry's better ideas later.

Excellent. Just don't forget to explain why they are better.

[Kate]

Hey! I just came to realize that President Bush's maths and biology and language skills (as in how many languages he can speak) are worse then mine!! Haha! He has lived over half of his life and he's more stupid scientifically then me.

[coolasfcuk]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Hey! I just came to realize that President Bush's maths and biology and language skills (as in how many languages he can speak) are worse then mine!! Haha! He has lived over half of his life and he's more stupid scientifically then me.

Kate, you are making me laugh with such statements.

this is like 3rd grade 'debate' .... besides ...... what does biology have to do with usa presidency??

and also.... dont let other people shape your oppinions so much .. so far all ive heard you say about these elections is what ive heard/read the critics/journalists/cnn/etc say - I mean word-to-word. give some personal view - its much more fun to read... oh wait, the last one was a personal view... but it is just too humorous.

[Kate]

coolasfcuk, I didn't say it had anything to do with Presidency, I was just making a note of the fact. Lol. It wasn't even part of the debate from my side.

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

dont let other people shape your oppinions so much .. so far all ive heard you say about these elections is what ive heard/read the critics/journalists/cnn/etc say - I mean word-to-word. give some personal view - its much more fun to read... oh wait, the last one was a personal view... but it is just too humorous.

I have my own opinion. Yes, I base my opinion on the debates and stuff, but I don't copy them. Opinions have to be based of things, and not just exist without any logical support. I quote articles, yes, but I indicate that I quote them. Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion!

[spyretto]

Bush or Kerry, Kerry or Bush.
I couldn't care less...but between us, it's gonna be Bush

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

coolasfcuk, I didn't say it had anything to do with Presidency, I was just making a note of the fact. Lol. It wasn't even part of the debate from my side.

I have my own opinion. Yes, I base my opinion on the debates and stuff, but I don't copy them. Opinions have to be based of things, and not just exist without any logical support. I quote articles, yes, but I indicate that I quote them. Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion!

I, for one, could not watch more than 10 minutes from all the debates. It was as forre said it, those two would claim that donkeys fly if it were to help their campaign. I felt my intelligence seriously insulted so I couldn't stand it and turned them off. Sorry

[Kate]

spyretto, well, that's your opinion. I know that some, and maybe even most of the stuff the condidates said during the debates was false, but it was entertaining and I watched all three from the beginning until the end. This way you know exactly where the two of them stand. The I read all kinds of critica reviews, favoring Bush and Kerry alike, and based my opinion on those. I even watched "Feirenhype 9/11", a documentary that points out all the errors in Moore's original "Feirenheit 9/11".

[spyretto]

I'd do all that too...if I got paid enough for it and didn't have to do it for extensive periods of time - in danger of being overcome by manic depression and suicidal tendencies.

Then I'd think that no matter what I think it doesn't concern me; not to mention that my enthusiasm for Kerry would be all in vain ( in light of his rival's imminent re-election...)

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Bush or Kerry, Kerry or Bush.
I couldn't care less...but between us, it's gonna be Bush

You couldn't care less? Is that because you don't actually live on Earth at all, but on Mars or somewhere? Or are you just so exceptionally bored by politics (as indicated by your 'I couldn't watch it more than ten minutes' comment) that you haven't quite realised how much is at stake (like those stupid people who don't vote because they say 'it doesn't affect me')?

The choice between Bush and Kerry affects us all. It's about the relationship between the United States (the hegemonic power) and the rest of the world - do they want to be respected or just feared? It's about the relationship between the West and Islam - how can we defuse the threat of Islamic fundamentalism? It's about nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea - can we stop it? It's about the environment and whether the Americans are going to do anything about global warming and other issues. If you live on this planet, these questions and the differences between the candidates are going to affect your life in the future. You don't realise it, but they will. You think it's terribly cynical and sophisticated (and a good way to wind up Kate) to not care, but it's faux-sophistication. If you understood, you'd care. Saying you don't care shows that you don't understand and you're not as clever as you think you are.

[spyretto]

No, the real reason is that I understand my opinion don't mean shit - and so does yours - and this is the essence of modern democracy. If we lived in a totalitarian system it might make a difference - that's why they censor everything because they know what's at stake - but under what we call "democracy" the system doesn't give a damn of what you think simply because your pathetic little existence can't make any difference at all. So you can express your pathetic little opinion and the system tolerates you and if you get too agitated the most you can achieve is to be taken for a fool.

Now for the elections in question: those who think that electing either leader will make any difference at all are simply deluded. Not to mention that non-US citizens who have not even the right to excercise the pathetic and insignificant little action we call voting, should not even attempt to get into a serious discussion of the matter simply because it doesn't concern them. For the rest go cast your vote every five or odd years but don't pretend to make any difference. If the system felt threatened by your actions you'd be obliterated, believe me.

I'm under the impression that you know I'm right but don't want to admit it. As for Islamic fundamentalism, nuclear ploriferation and all that jazz, they have little or no relevance with the election procedure. Unless you think that the leader's "social contract" with its people is something more than linguistic imagery. Then you're further deluded.
And finally, if you have the slightest clue of what either leader will do for the Iraq issue by watching those debates I'd like to know, please. According to Bush, Kerry does not have a clear plan for Iraq and according to Kerry Bush does not have a clear plan for Iraq. I'd rather ask Texaco or Shell, they might have a clearer plan for Iraq. Global warming? Gimme a break

I wouldn't want to be part of that parody even if I could.

[Kate]

spyretto, you're being narrow minded, in my opinion.

You have to looks at the bigger picture. If Bush was not elected during the 2000 election, Iraqi war would not have happened, and all subsequent deaths and terrorist attacks would not have happened at today's frequency either.

Kerry said he will train the Iraqi military and get the US out of Iraq, and I think that's what should happen. The only reason people are still dieing out there is because of the U.S. presence. So what if those people will go back to following a dictator? It's their culture, it's the way they are used to live their lives, it's the way their religion functions best - leave them alone.

And what concerns me personally is the scientific development of the United States. Bush has been quietly safficating the scientific world there. Kerry's campagne promises increased funding in the Stem cell research etc, and that's in my personal interest, too, as I view U.S. as a potential career place for myself in the future.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

spyretto, you're being narrow minded, in my opinion.

You have to looks at the bigger picture. If Bush was not elected during the 2000 election, Iraqi war would not have happened, and all subsequent deaths and terrorist attacks would not have happened at today's frequency either.

This is pure speculation. Unless you claim that Bush is the reason for every calamity and every terrorist action prior to and after 9/11. How can you speculate that under Gore the US would not invade Iraq or Afghanistan or it would not retaliate at all? The response of the US after 9/11 was to go against regimes that according to their intelligence harboured terrorism. What makes you think that the Democrats would react in a different way? Or perhaps you think that 9/11 wouldn't even happen under Gore? Lets be realistic...As far as I recall the Democrats voted for a US invasion as well...and unanimously Mr Kerry did too.

Kerry said he will train the Iraqi military and get the US out of Iraq, and I think that's what should happen. The only reason people are still dieing out there is because of the U.S. presence. So what if those people will go back to following a dictator? It's their culture, it's the way they are used to live their lives, it's the way their religion functions best - leave them alone.

This is exactly what Bush said as well. He said it clearly the other day, he doesn't see a long-term presence of the US and coalition forces in Iraq. His aim is to train Iraqui forces as well. So in what respect is his plan any different?
First they have to isolate the terrorist elements there, who are aiming at driving the US out of Iraq prematurely then turn the country into an Al Queda haven. Is it what we want?

And what concerns me personally is the scientific development of the United States. Bush has been quietly safficating the scientific world there. Kerry's campagne promises increased funding in the Stem cell research etc, and that's in my personal interest, too, as I view U.S. as a potential career place for myself in the future.

Now that makes a bit more sense

[Kate]

spyretto, because Bush talked about invading Iraq before he became president. And he obviously benefits from all the oil that he found there - he couldn't wait until Iraq was secure to send people over to get oil. Lol.

The invasion of Afganistan is justified. Bin Laden should be cought cuz he is the head of a huge terrorist group. But invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified.

And who knows, 9/11 might not have happened under Gore! He maybe would have paid a little more attention to the threats that Bush chose to ignore.

Originally Posted by spyretto

This is exactly what Bush said as well. He said it clearly the other day, he doesn't see a long-term presence of the US and coalition forces in Iraq. His aim is to train Iraqui forces as well. So in what respect is his plan any different?
First they have to isolate the terrorist elements there, who are aiming at driving the US out of Iraq prematurely, then turn the country into an Al Queda haven. Is it what we want?

Give me the quote of Bush saying that and a link to the source. I find it hard to believe. Bush clearly indicated during the debates, as far as I remember, that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is important for security and other such blah-blah.