Who's going to come out on top in the US elections?

[disruptivehair]

I predict the Dems will take the House and tie the Senate 50/50.

[Valleysboy1978]

whoever's standing against Bush

[disruptivehair]

whoever's standing against Bush

Bush isn't running.

[szlamany]

I'm afraid the Dem's are going to take power...

All they've had to say over the past two months is what the Rep's should not have done - not one single statement of what they would do differently.

It's been a campaign of finger pointing - the worst I've ever seen.

[disruptivehair]

I'm afraid the Dem's are going to take power...

All they've had to say over the past two months is what the Rep's should not have done - not one single statement of what they would do differently.

It's been a campaign of finger pointing - the worst I've ever seen.

Luckily I've been over here so I've missed most of it. I think the Republicans have done enough damage; it's time to get them out of there. NOW, before we don't have any civil liberties left.

[szlamany]

Luckily I've been over here so I've missed most of it. I think the Republicans have done enough damage; it's time to get them out of there. NOW, before we don't have any civil liberties left.

I honestly don't feel like I've lost a single civil liberty - the Dem's would like to say that we have, but that's a smoke screen - total garbage.

I don't expect any changes to occur regardless of who's elected and who controls congress.

CT is a generally Democratic state - but our largest industry is military (Electric Boat, Sikorsky, jet engine plants). Lieberman (a dem) lost a primary to a total idiot (Lamont) because Lamont accused Lieberman of being too "friendly" with the Rep's. Lieberman is now running independent - and I have to vote for him simply to make sure that Lamont doesn't win! This is a sick, sick election day...

We've been over this before in other threads - Bush and Blair both have an idea that democracy can finally get a strong foothold all over the world. Granted part of that dream is to make sure that the dictatorial countries get with the program (thus fixing oil problems and the stupid nuke tactics of the crazy leaders out their) - but it sure does seem like a nobal goal - doesn't it?

[disruptivehair]

I honestly don't feel like I've lost a single civil liberty - the Dem's would like to say that we have, but that's a smoke screen - total garbage.

Did you hear the DHS wants US citizens to be vetted to enter and leave the country? Right now US citizens have the freedom to enter and leave the country at whim, and the government has to prove they're not allowed to travel in order to prevent them from traveling. What the new rules will apparently demand is that people must PROVE they're allowed to travel. It's an egregious abuse of our civil liberties.

I don't expect any changes to occur regardless of who's elected and who controls congress.

I want the Patriot Act swept off the table. We can defend ourselves with less draconian legislation.

CT is a generally Democratic state - but our largest industry is military (Electric Boat, Sikorsky, jet engine plants). Lieberman (a dem) lost a primary to a total idiot (Lamont) because Lamont accused Lieberman of being too "friendly" with the Rep's. Lieberman is now running independent - and I have to vote for him simply to make sure that Lamont doesn't win! This is a sick, sick election day...

I'm not even touching that race with a 10-ft pole. My mom's family is from CT originally and they talk about it all the time. I have to keep reminding them they haven't actually lived in CT since the 1950s, ergo their opinions don't count. (Nor do mine in this case, which is why I won't express them here.)

We've been over this before in other threads - Bush and Blair both have an idea that democracy can finally get a strong foothold all over the world. Granted part of that dream is to make sure that the dictatorial countries get with the program (thus fixing oil problems and the stupid nuke tactics of the crazy leaders out their) - but it sure does seem like a nobal goal - doesn't it?

Iraq isn't a dream, it's a nightmare. We never should have gone there in the first place. It's humiliating what is happening to us there.

[szlamany]

Did you hear the DHS wants US citizens to be vetted to enter and leave the country? Right now US citizens have the freedom to enter and leave the country at whim, and the government has to prove they're not allowed to travel in order to prevent them from traveling. What the new rules will apparently demand is that people must PROVE they're allowed to travel. It's an egregious abuse of our civil liberties.

It's a silly little passport requirement...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr5.html

See how things like this can be blown out of proportion? Right now we have people at DMV offices selling fake drivers licences (there is a story in the paper every month) - so it would only be reasonable to say that "a driver's licence is not enough to enter the country".

We are in Iraq and must finish Iraq - there is no changing that...

[disruptivehair]

It's a silly little passport requirement...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr5.html

See how things like this can be blown out of proportion? Right now we have people at DMV offices selling fake drivers licences (there is a story in the paper every month) - so it would only be reasonable to say that "a driver's licence is not enough to enter the country".

No, that is so NOT what I was talking about. I know about that requirement and it doesn't really bother me. THIS does:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=2006_register

We are in Iraq and must finish Iraq - there is no changing that...

Why? We didn't finish Vietnam.

[NotLKH]

Under
current regulations, air carriers must
transmit to the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), passenger
manifest information for aircraft en
route to the United States no later than
15 minutes after the departure of the
aircraft.


[THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS] that
such information be provided to the
government before departure of the
aircraft.


This proposed rule provides air
carriers a choice between transmitting
complete manifests no later than 60-
minutes prior to departure of the aircraft
or transmitting manifest information on
passengers as each passenger checks in
for the flight, up to but no later than 15
minutes prior to departure. The rule
also proposes to amend the definition of
‘‘departure’’ for aircraft to mean the
moment the aircraft is pushed back from
the gate. For vessel departures from the
United States, the rule proposes
transmission of passenger and crew
manifests no later than 60 minutes prior
to departure of the vessel.

So, let me get this straight.
Said Manifests are being provided, but the change is the time as to when they are provided.

How does this affect your current access to travel?

[szlamany]

No, that is so NOT what I was talking about. I know about that requirement and it doesn't really bother me. THIS does:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=2006_register

Why? That's a silly change on when a manifest is sent of who's on the plane. Changed from 15 minutes after departure to prior to departure.

Why would that bother you?

I think having the extra time to scramble the fighter jets makes sense!

Maybe that's because I grew up in NYC and the loss of the towers changed all the rules for me. Homeland security became a requirement - 3000 dead people made that so.

[disruptivehair]

Why? That's a silly change on when a manifest is sent of who's on the plane. Changed from 15 minutes after departure to prior to departure.

Why would that bother you?

I think having the extra time to scramble the fighter jets makes sense!

Maybe that's because I grew up in NYC and the loss of the towers changed all the rules for me. Homeland security became a requirement - 3000 dead people made that so.

Please do not imply that I don't care about 9/11. I really REALLY hate it when conservatives do that. It's on par with Democrats comparing Bush to Hitler...an instant argument loser.

I am NOT against securing the USA. I'm not against intercepting al Qaeda communications. I'm in favor of securing the border and sending illegals home. I'm in favor of detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. What I am NOT in favor of is giving up my own civil liberties, and that is what the Bush administration is asking Americans to do...piece by piece, inch by inch, so slowly you don't even notice it until it's too late to do anything about it.

[szlamany]

... What I am NOT in favor of is giving up my own civil liberties, and that is what the Bush administration is asking Americans to do...piece by piece, inch by inch, so slowly you don't even notice it until it's too late to do anything about it.

Smoke screen...

Isn't true...

Can't back that up...

Sorry

Do you really care if the Fed is listening the phone lines and might pick up a local drug deal and tell the local cops? They aren't even ever going to do that anyway - that's liberal bull...

Last time I looked I wanted the local drug dealers rounded up anyway...

My life - my regular life - hasn't changed one iota due to the Patriot Act.

Being stopped on my way to Disney World by security because my wife had am expired drivers licence wasn't too much to deal with...

[edit] We still got their - my boys pulling Excabilur from the rock (picture upper left)...

[FunkyDexter]

but it sure does seem like a nobal goal - doesn't it?

...but it's the goal of both the left and the right. We'd all like to see worldwide democracy and peace and love to all men (and all that jazz). The disagreement is over the best means to achieve the goal, not over the goal itself.

edit>>

my boys pulling Excabilur from the rock (picture upper left)...

I always assumed that was you as a child.

[disruptivehair]

Smoke screen...

Isn't true...

Can't back that up...

Sorry

Do you really care if the Fed is listening the phone lines and might pick up a local drug deal and tell the local cops? They aren't even ever going to do that anyway - that's liberal bull...

Last time I looked I wanted the local drug dealers rounded up anyway...

My life - my regular life - hasn't changed one iota due to the Patriot Act.

Being stopped on my way to Disney World by security because my wife had am expired drivers licence wasn't too much to deal with...

[edit] We still got their - my boys pulling Excabilur from the rock (picture upper left)...

That isn't the point, but I'd obviously be wasting my time discussing it any further.

Here's to a Democrat House.

[szlamany]

...but it's the goal of both the left and the right. We'd all like to see worldwide democracy and peace and love to all men (and all that jazz). The disagreement is over the best means to achieve the goal, not over the goal itself.

edit>> I always assumed that was you as a child.

But the left is running on the ticket that we should be more concerned about non-global issues...

Lamont (the Lieberman threat) is running on that...

I'm sick of this - the Fed exists to protect us on an international front.

The states exist to do the local stuff...

Bush didn't go into Iraq by the power of him alone - the whole Congress and military world did that as a step together. The democrats want to use the lack of visible success as a platform to win seats in government - what a bunch of losers who don't have a creative idea amongst themselves! Thank God we still have Clinton and Kerry making stupid statements and exposing the dem's for what they don't have...

@dh - I really don't get your point - what civil liberties have you really lost?

[NotLKH]

You didn't make a point.

Can you describe how the proposed rule change that you are concerned about affects your personal civil liberties, in relation to the current state of manifest submission?

Basic civil liberties include freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. There are also the rights to due process, to a fair trial and to privacy.

[crptcblade]

Do you really care if the Fed is listening the phone lines and might pick up a local drug deal and tell the local cops? They aren't even ever going to do that anyway - that's liberal bull...

The fact that a good deal of people don't care doesn't give them the right to do something blatantly illegal.

And didn't we recently witness the death of that pesky habeas corpus thingy?

Edit: Bear in mind that I feel that no matter who wins, the majority of us will end up being screwed, therefore I don't vote.

[szlamany]

The fact that a good deal of people don't care doesn't give them the right to do something blatantly illegal.

And didn't we recently witness the death of that pesky habeas corpus thingy?

Elaborate please - I don't understand what you mean...

[NotLKH]

That isn't the point, but I'd obviously be wasting my time discussing it any further.

Hmmm, truly a display of the "Cut and Run" philosophy.

[disruptivehair]

Hmmm, truly a display of the "Cut and Run" philosophy.

Not really, I'd just rather not waste my time on a lost cause.

By the way, I'm not a "cut and run"er. I'm a "we never should have gone in there in the first place and now aren't you sorry you did and what about those WMDs we kept hearing about and oh by the way where's Osama shouldn't we have been looking for him still because he definitely deserves to die"er.

[crptcblade]

Elaborate please - I don't understand what you mean...

No. I went through the trouble of coming up with an opinion while being ignorant of the topic, so you should have to do the same.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's a silly little passport requirement...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr5.html

See how things like this can be blown out of proportion? Right now we have people at DMV offices selling fake drivers licences (there is a story in the paper every month) - so it would only be reasonable to say that "a driver's licence is not enough to enter the country".

We are in Iraq and must finish Iraq - there is no changing that...

Not just in the DMV!

When I was in college in PA, there was a guy who had a large size connecticut drivers liscense. Basically, you put your head in the right place, and a picture was taken. Instant drivers liscence. CN was used because they had crappy liscenses. I don't actually know whether anybody used it or not, since the drinking age in OH was still 19 (and we were on the border), so beer was pretty darn simple to get, even for most freshmen.

Kind of funny how things don't change. I wonder why it's CN, though?

As for Iraq, is there a viable victory condition anymore? I realize that there is terrific potential for Iraq to end with highly unfavorable terms, but is there any realistic solution that would create favorable terms. and what would it take?

Some of the republicans are complaining that the dems are not suggesting any solutions for Iraq. They're right, but ARE there any solutions? The only one that seems to be favorable would be if the Iraqis suddenly decided to stop killing each other and got behind their "democracy". That seems to be what Bush is hoping for, but the hope appears reminiscent to that old FarSide cartoon where the scientists are discussing a formula with the little cloud on it and the caption "...and then a miracle happens..."

I haven't heard anybody on either side suggest a roadmap that has the potential to lead to a peaceful, united, non-islamic fundamentalist, Iraq which is not overwhelmingly dependent upon either a miracle or willful self-deception.

[Cander]

Perosnally I don't care. Both parties can go blow me as far as I am concerned. This year has been the worst in trash the other guy campaigning. My phone has been constantly ringing with pre-recorded 'Don't vote for so and so' messages. My TV is crowded with them as well. I have hardly heard a single word on why I should vote for someone, only why I shouldn't vote for someone.

Disgusting.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Elaborate please - I don't understand what you mean...

It is easy to say that you haven't lost a liberty if they go away slowly. You aren't going to wake up one day under house arrest...unless you have broken a law. Our history is littered with laws that trampled on people with little regard for right or wrong. Law enforcement (I'm one of them, technically, by the way, but I can only enforce fish laws) will always be able to claim that they are operating within the law. That has been used to justify illegal search and seisure (or even seizures), illegal traffic stops, etc. The good people who are always on the right side of the law breathe a sigh of relief that law enforcement is out there protecting them, which is true....up to a point. The FBI has gone after some people who were not particularly bad for this country, such as MLK and John Lennon (maybe thought his name was Lenin). Basically, they were allowed to do this because these people were thought to be "subversive". But subversive to a conservative is a pretty broad group.

Depending on which subgroup you belong to, environmentalists, hindus, atheists, jews, minorities or any stripe, and women, are all subversives out to disrupt the American way of life. History has shown conclusively that if you create a tool designed to go after one type of threat, it will be used by somebody to go after other things that they perceive to be a threat. A prime example of that is RICO, which was intended to be a tool used to end the mob. The mob is still there, but RICO is being used for all kinds of non-organized crime types of investigations.

Similarly, if you say that warrantless wire-taps, or plane boarding control is ok, because it is being used against terrorists, what will prevent it from being used against others. After all, one of the reasons that the laws governing wire taps was put in place was because of egregious and politically motivated abuses in the past. Why should we expect that it will not be used in the same way already?

As for flight manifests, if you have more than a few friends, you probably know somebody who's name is on the "Do Not Fly" list for some reason. Most likely it is because they have the same name as somebody else. Most of these people just accept that they will need a few extra hours to get through security because they are going to have to prove who they are not.

Of course, there is that pre-screening pass that is being kicked around, but it doesn't take much foresight to realize where that can lead: "Carry this special travel ID, or expect to spend hours in security." Of course, it would have to be a biometric ID to be ultimately useable.

Oh, and is it essential? Is the world in such a state that you have to live in fear? Do you have to give up privacy in exchange for safety? Well, only if you live in one of a few countries, the rest of the world doesn't worry about it so much.

[SurfDemon]

I don't think that imposing democracy on countries is a noble cause. Infact, I think it's pointless. These countries aren't ready for democracy, they will have a nice fair election, their religous leaders will tell them to vote for the local iman, he will get in because he has the most votes and implement a fundamental muslim government. Bang goes all those lives lost making it a democracy.

You can't have democracy without freedom of thought.

These people are more concerned with getting running water, electricity and food on the table. As long as they are struggling to survive, I doubt if they give a hoot who is leading the country.

[SurfDemon]

Maybe that's because I grew up in NYC and the loss of the towers changed all the rules for me. Homeland security became a requirement - 3000 dead people made that so.

Surely, a better approach would have to been to stamp out the terrorists when you had the chance?

And maybe the government should ban smoking, that kills way more than 3,000 every week.

It has been stated by many people on this forum before, but it looks like the terrorists have succeeded in their goals. They have terrorised the ordinary US citizen, and caused such a backlash that they don't actually have to do anything more, the fear of an attack is enough to force the US down a path of isolation. This in turn only encourages investors to take their business elsewhere.

[space_monkey]

I don't know who is going to win but i can bet you that there will be a lot of whining tomorrow from the losers and a lot of back patting from the winners.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't know who is going to win but i can bet you that there will be a lot of whining tomorrow from the losers and a lot of back patting from the winners.

I thought of a flippant response to this, then I realized it wasn't so flippant:

I don't know who is going to win, but I can bet you that there will be a lot of whining tomorrow from the winners, and a lot of back patting from the losers.

Actually, I think there will be some of both. The winners will whine about not winning more, and the losers will find a "good message" in whatever they do win. Wednesday begins the run to 2008.

[szlamany]

I'm hoping the democrats shot themselves in the foot with all the campaigning on smoke and mirrors...

They deserve it...

That would prove the populace to be more intelligent then the politicians...

At least I can dream

[space_monkey]

I thought of a flippant response to this, then I realized it wasn't so flippant:

I don't know who is going to win, but I can bet you that there will be a lot of whining tomorrow from the winners, and a lot of back patting from the losers.

Actually, I think there will be some of both. The winners will whine about not winning more, and the losers will find a "good message" in whatever they do win. Wednesday begins the run to 2008.

very true

[SurfDemon]

Yeah, unfortunately I don't think it's a case of the Democrats winning, but of the Republicans losing. Why can't this world produce one decent politician..... in any country? I wouldn't trust any of them with them with bank card, house or car..... (sorry rant over).

[space_monkey]

Politicians have gotten so stale lately (at least this is how it seems to me). Its the same old [removed] and the same old rhetoric, year in and year out. When will a politician inspire us again, give us hope or lead us in a new direction. I dunno maybe people have gotten that out of the recent presidents or maybe i'm just getting old and cranky at the age of 23 lol.

[ArnoldSchwarzenegger]

I'm winning!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ross Perot?

[rory]

Please do not imply that I don't care about 9/11. I really REALLY hate it when conservatives do that. It's on par with Democrats comparing Bush to Hitler...an instant argument loser.

I am NOT against securing the USA. I'm not against intercepting al Qaeda communications. I'm in favor of securing the border and sending illegals home. I'm in favor of detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. What I am NOT in favor of is giving up my own civil liberties, and that is what the Bush administration is asking Americans to do...piece by piece, inch by inch, so slowly you don't even notice it until it's too late to do anything about it.

We need a passport to enter your country .. now yall need one to enter our country .. so whats the big deal.

as to who's going to win .. who cares once Fox, CNN, and MSNBC get back to some real news ...

[SurfDemon]

Ross Perot?

I don't know much about him except after reading the book "On the wings of Eagles" he did seem like a decent bloke.

Incidently, the book is an excellent read:
http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Eagles-K.../dp/0451213092

Unfortunately, he didn't get anywhere near elected.... why is that? Is it the best argument yet for the throwing out of democracy as we know it and re-introducing something better?

Maybe each person should get "voter points" which gives their individual votes a bit more credence. Maybe if you have committed a crime you automatically don't get to vote, ever?.... I mean let's face it, who do you want voting for your countries leaders? Bob, the hard working car mechanic or snazza, the drugged up house breaker?

Maybe if you did great service for your country you would get more voter points (extra points for each year served in the forces). Maybe, if you can pass a test on current politics, or the main election points of each political party you would get more "voter points" for being aware as to what you are voting for, rather than just voting blindly for the guy with the prurtiest mouth....

Maybe we also need an outside watchdog, who while not having anything to do with running the country have control over fiscal forecasts, politician pay rises and sacking of politicans who have committed offenses.

At present politicians vote their own payrises in most countries.... that's just insane.

As for fiscal responsibility, where is the responsibility? If my company borrows $5,000,000. I am expected to pay that back at some stage.

With countries, you arrange the loan, spend the money and then hand the debt onto your successor to pay off? What kind of a system is that? There should be penalties if you run your country into debt while you are in power. Now that would be "fiscal responsibility". Maybe your pension gets reduced in line with the amount of debt you accrue?

War? In one of Robert Heinlien's books he came up with an interesting idea. Each time the country wanted to start a war (different from defending itself), a vote was carried out electronically. If the country voted to go to war, then everyone who voted "Yes" were the first to get drafted. Seems only fair. Why should Snazza get to vote for someone else to go out and die on his whim?

Also most countries have elections every 4 or 5 years. With the result that any government is restricted from long term planning and spends the last year in office try to garner votes. Hell, let's make it ten year terms and give them a fair chance to actually accomplish something.

In this day and age of electronic voting, why don't we have more votes on the smaller issues. Obviously design by committe is a big no no for the larger government issues (such as taxes or national security or long terms stuff such as whether to build more aircraft carriers etc. to maintain the fleet), but on social issues that shouldn't actually be the concern of some old guys getting paid by lobbyists....

For example. Gay Marriage (who really cares apart from gays), smoking bans, new logo for New York, whether to cap campaign contributions, etc.

There you go, I've just reformed the worlds governments. Don't thank me now, just remember me when ever you hear the expression "Surdemonocracy"!

[disruptivehair]

We need a passport to enter your country .. now yall need one to enter our country .. so whats the big deal.

That's not what I was objecting to. I don't really care.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, our voting system is a pretty bad one because it doesn't do a very good job of reflecting the will of the people. Having a binary system, one person gets 100% of your vote, but you almost never agree with anybody 100%. A good case in point is Bill Sali who may have won the congressional seat in Idaho. Even his own party hates him, but being the republican candidate in Idaho, the voters had the choice of voting for somebody who can't seem to get along with anybody, or letting a democrat win (and there was a letter in the paper today saying that Limbaugh and Hannity are so left leaning they should be called liberal, so you know where they stand).

There are plenty of better voting systems out there that can capture the ambiguous nature of peoples opinions, but neither party would be very supportive of changing the system we currently have.

[demotivater]

Maybe if you have committed a crime you automatically don't get to vote, ever?

In the US, convicted felons can't vote, ever.

the voters had the choice of voting for somebody who can't seem to get along with anybody, or letting a democrat win

Or standing up and selecting a better candidate for their party in the primaries. Or electing a write in candidate.