US Presidential Election Poll

[Curiosity]

I remember one of the debates Bush had with Kerry, they showed several times, a bulge
in the back of his jacket,(Bush), and explained it was some kind of a electronic device, which
was obviously helping him, he was getting feed back from someone.

Talloola - It may have been the tracking device the President wears in case of emergency.
The person in that office has to be in immediate touch with handlers when in public.

or...

It may have been the broadcast networks device for picking up the audio for the discussion. Some of the live
programs on television show humps in the backs of contestants - which I guess has something to do with sound
pick up.

 

[lone wolf]

McCain.

I don't trust cults of personality.

And Obama will be bad for Canada-US relations.

But I wish whomever wins the very best.....they have an impossible job ahead of them.

So ... which is which? Tokenism is tokenism and that's Canadian politics.

 

[Zzarchov]

Just how is McCain different from Bush?............................................ He's a bit taller...:roll:

They have pretty substantial differences, its a nice "tar everyone with one brush" due to the nature of their 2 party system, but lets be clear here, Obama is a lot more like bush than McCain is.

Perhaps not in politics they espouse publically, but both are reformed cocaine users who are coming to power on popularism (people may not remember now that he's been exposed, but Bush had an undefeatable folsky charisma that masked his poor policy).

Obama comes across as an honest hardworking visionary. Hence my growing distrust of him. Im a cynic you see, and hardworking honest visionaries intent soley on the betterment of the world don't tend to make it very far in politics. And Obama hasn't gotten where he is by popular support, it helps, but to get to where he is still took considerable political manuevering with the old corrupt washington elite. So why are they out to help someone out to destroy them?

Too good to be true syndrome I guess.

McCain is an old cynic with a blunt honesty about how things are going to be, where they are going to be bad, and that kind of borderline despair rings of truth and someone looking to make the best of it, for his own little comission in the form of executive perks.

McCain is certainly no angel, but he's got a solid idea of how to be a caretaker president. He's not going to do great things, he's going to stop the bleeding. For alot of people thats easier to bank in.


Just my 2c, doesn't really concern me as I don't vote anyways.

 

[Zzarchov]

it's amazing that it probably will be a close race, and I can't understand why the american
republican citizens, just toss this fact aside, and accept the 'crimes' of this war, which was
started for 'no' good reason at all. they just don't seem to care about that, and they
still cling to that silly call by the republicans that McCain would be better on security
for the american people, do they want security, irrespective of how it hurts others?
So, are they actually going to vote for someone who would repeat what bush did, and
it could be in iran, or 'anywhere', that is very scary, that party is very scary.

Why is it hard to believe people will focus on their own security even if it hurts others?

In the very case of Iraq, that is what the Sunni people did, they supported a dictator that was engaging in genocide on their neighbours because he improved their security, and disobeying him to save their neighbours would harm their own security.

Thats how people operate.

As an aside: There were plenty of good, imperative reasons for invading Iraq. Solid moral ones that should shame nations that didn't participate.

The US administration just didn't use any of them, because nobody cares about doing the moral thing, like putting a genocidal dictator on trial like the world collectively swore it would do if it ever happened again, but tell them THEY are in danger from a WMD and hot damn, you can do anything you want.

 

[talloola]

Why is it hard to believe people will focus on their own security even if it hurts others?

In the very case of Iraq, that is what the Sunni people did, they supported a dictator that was engaging in genocide on their neighbours because he improved their security, and disobeying him to save their neighbours would harm their own security.

Thats how people operate.

As an aside: There were plenty of good, imperative reasons for invading Iraq. Solid moral ones that should shame nations that didn't participate.

The US administration just didn't use any of them, because nobody cares about doing the moral thing, like putting a genocidal dictator on trial like the world collectively swore it would do if it ever happened again, but tell them THEY are in danger from a WMD and hot damn, you can do anything you want.

Gimmie a break,:-?

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Why is it hard to believe people will focus on their own security even if it hurts others?

In the very case of Iraq, that is what the Sunni people did, they supported a dictator that was engaging in genocide on their neighbours because he improved their security, and disobeying him to save their neighbours would harm their own security.

Thats how people operate.

As an aside: There were plenty of good, imperative reasons for invading Iraq. Solid moral ones that should shame nations that didn't participate.

The US administration just didn't use any of them, because nobody cares about doing the moral thing, like putting a genocidal dictator on trial like the world collectively swore it would do if it ever happened again, but tell them THEY are in danger from a WMD and hot damn, you can do anything you want.

WOW.
I'd suggest invasion of Russia because they are morally corrupt as well.
YAY NUCLEAR WAR
BOOM BOOM.
YAY WE WON...75% OF THE WORLD POPULATION ARE DEAD AND 25% IS NOW BEING RADIATED BY NUCLEAR WASTE.
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I CAN FEEL MY SKIN BURNING.

No, no, not moral reasons thus war--rational thought, constant communication, and diplomatic resolution. Yes, Saddam Hussein was evil and thus should have been removed--which happened-but occupation of Iraq is wrong, tickering with Arabs is wrong, and spending billions for a mistake is wrong.

Bush/McCain's way of politic is power to oppression opponents, resistant to open communication, and deception to avoid real issues (e.g. Off-shore drilling).

 

[earth_as_one]

I'm hoping McCain wins. Although the wife decided not to vote this time round. She voted for G.W. in 2004 (mail in ballot), however she thinks McCain is too liberal on some issues and prefers to sit out this election.

McCain too liberal? How does your wife feel about Hitler?

Let's take a walk down memory lane for the benefit of people with short memories.

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003​

Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC​

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix​

...
Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [/FONT]
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war...

...Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...

...The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...

...Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

10/7/2004
WASHINGTON — When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

03 November 2004
Bush re-elected president of US

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

On Friday, September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far, outnumbering even the death toll of the recent Rwandan genocide.[2] From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[3][4] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

One in five Iraqis have been displaced.
According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.8 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, while 2 million were living in Syria, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States...

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679

12 April 2008

McCain defends Iraq war support

John McCain accused the Democrats of recklessness on Iraq

Republican presidential contender Senator John McCain has defended his support for the US-led war in Iraq, saying it was "necessary and just".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6547233.stm

Let me recap.

UN Weapons inspectors found nothing before the Iraq war which backed Bush's claims about Iraq being a threat.

A few weeks after the chief UN weapon inspector claimed they were making good progress and would resolve all remaining disarmament issues within months, Bush declares war on Iraq based on false claims about Iraq's possession of WMDs.

In October 2004 a CIA report completely discredits Bush's justifications for war and the ensuing carnage.

In November 2004, Americans re-elect the man responsible for starting an unprovoked war of aggression which has resulted in over one million deaths and displaced nearly 5 million people.

Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain describes the Bush's unprovoked war of aggression which has killed more people than the Rwandan genocide as "necessary and just".

 

[earth_as_one]

Why is it hard to believe people will focus on their own security even if it hurts others?

In the very case of Iraq, that is what the Sunni people did, they supported a dictator that was engaging in genocide on their neighbours because he improved their security, and disobeying him to save their neighbours would harm their own security.

Thats how people operate.

As an aside: There were plenty of good, imperative reasons for invading Iraq. Solid moral ones that should shame nations that didn't participate.

The US administration just didn't use any of them, because nobody cares about doing the moral thing, like putting a genocidal dictator on trial like the world collectively swore it would do if it ever happened again, but tell them THEY are in danger from a WMD and hot damn, you can do anything you want.

American perceptions that Iraq was a threat were completely manufactured. So is the perception that Hussein was busy killing Iraqis before the 2003 war.

...The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."


Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:
4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.


http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

Sure Hussein was a tyrant. But from 2000 to 2001, he is accused of executing nearly 300 people. He is not accused of killing anyone from 2002 until the start of the 2003 war. Husseins' actions before the war hardly justify the deaths of over a million Iraqis and the displacement of nearly 5 million more.

McCain supports the decisions which have lead to all this death and destruction. Americans have a moral obligation to stop McCain from continuing Bush's war crimes and crimes against humanity. This election shouldn't be close.

 

[talloola]

American perceptions that Iraq was a threat were completely manufactured. So is the perception that Hussein was busy killing Iraqis before the 2003 war.



Sure Hussein was a tyrant. But from 2000 to 2001, he is accused of executing nearly 300 people. He is not accused of killing anyone from 2002 until the start of the 2003 war. Husseins' actions before the war hardly justify the deaths of over a million Iraqis and the displacement of nearly 5 million more.

McCain supports the decisions which have lead to all this death and destruction. Americans have a moral obligation to stop McCain from continuing Bush's war crimes and crimes against humanity. This election shouldn't be close.

No, it shouldn't be close at all, and the american people should be outraged, (and
should have been, before bush was elected 'again)', but they aren't, and I find that
so so puzzling, they seem to be wearing blinders, and are easily convinced that the
iraq war was 'somehow' a good thing for the u.s., and I could go on, but I don't want
to disrespect the american citizen, but 'they' certainly 'puzzle' me. Just imagine, that
the canadian government had done what they did, the canadian citizen would be
horrified and outraged, and in no way would we think that was justified, no way,
yet they can sit back and listen to that 'tripe' their government throws at them, and
wave the flag, amazing, just amazing.

 

[Colpy]

Tell me you are joking.

By conservative estimates Saddam murdered at least 300,000 of his own people.

 

[lone wolf]

By conservative estimates, how many perished in the Indian wars (for which some modern regiments still carry battle honours) or in the Civil War?

It's not justification ... just an example that one cannot point fingers and blame unless their own step is completely clean.

 

[talloola]

Tell me you are joking.

By conservative estimates Saddam murdered at least 300,000 of his own people.

Iraq was never a threat to the u.s., and the crimes he committed against his own people
should have been handled through the u.n. in conjunction with other countries, just like they
do concerning other countries who commit crimes against their own, and bush used that
story to cover up his own 'lies', seemed to work just fine, the u.s. people took it hook
line and sinker.

No, I am not joking, it is not a laughing matter.

 

[Zzarchov]

Sure Hussein was a tyrant. But from 2000 to 2001, he is accused of executing nearly 300 people. He is not accused of killing anyone from 2002 until the start of the 2003 war. Husseins' actions before the war hardly justify the deaths of over a million Iraqis and the

Im not talking about the Execution, but all those dead Kurds, ya..it does justify the deaths of all those Iraqi's.

No one forced them to support a genocidal dictator, and to be clear, thats what he was. He should have been overrun back in the 80's, or at least the gulf war 1.

But you don't "let it slide" with genocide, there is no statute of limitations. Even now Nazi war criminals are still being hunted down where they hide.

Most of the people in Iraq aren't angry at the US for the invasion, they are angry at the US for acting as peacekeepers when they WANT to kill each other and they WANT to conquer their neighbours.

There is a reason more attacks are directed at Iraqi's than American's. Think about that, foreign soldiers are driving down the street and your chief target is your fellow citizen, because he's got a different religion.

Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. From that point, I might have just left and let them solve their own problems and waited for the UN to come in (if they ever did)

But Saddam committed open genocide, that doesn't get to fade away. When it happened the whole world should have stormed in there. But no one cares when it isn't them.

Iraqis are suffering but only those that don't want to live in peace with their fellow citizens. The Kurds are doing damn well, and of everyone in Iraq..those are the ones the US has the most to gain from Crushing..but they aren't.

 

[Colpy]

Back to the point, I just watched Obama and Biden on 60 Minutes.

Damn, the Yanks are fortunate.

They have two quality teams running for President and VP........to me, the choice would be easy. I am much more comfortable with the record and the ideology of John McCain and Palin.

But Obama ain't bad.

Here it is the choice between not-so-good, very bad, and much worse.

Blech!

 

[lone wolf]

Back to the point, I just watched Obama and Biden on 60 Minutes.

Damn, the Yanks are fortunate.

They have two quality teams running for President and VP........to me, the choice would be easy. I am much more comfortable with the record and the ideology of John McCain and Palin.

But Obama ain't bad.

Here it is the choice between not-so-good, very bad, and much worse.

Blech!

...and from day to day, it's very hard to tell which is bitch to switch....

 

[Kreskin]

Back to the point, I just watched Obama and Biden on 60 Minutes.

Damn, the Yanks are fortunate.

They have two quality teams running for President and VP........to me, the choice would be easy. I am much more comfortable with the record and the ideology of John McCain and Palin.

But Obama ain't bad.

Here it is the choice between not-so-good, very bad, and much worse.

Blech!

I agree Colpy. The best set of candidates in a long time.

 

[no color]

McCain too liberal? How does your wife feel about Hitler?

Let's take a walk down memory lane for the benefit of people with short memories.

First off, don't you ever use the words Hitler and my wife in the same sentence again ... you don't know di*k about American politics (you ain't even American), stay outta my wife's business!

Back to the topic here. They don't call McCain a maverick for nothin. Here's why ...

- in 2000, he called religious leaders "agents of intolerance". Now he's trying to reconcile in an attempt to get their votes.

- in 2005 McCain opposed a Federal Gay marriage ban, contrary to the views of most Americans. Now he's flip flopped pretending to oppose gay marriage.

- In 1999, in the San Francisco Chronicle (8/20/1999), McCain sided with the pro-abortion camp, suggesting that overturning Row vs Wade would lead to illegal abortions. Now he's flipped flopped pretending to be pro-life to try and get the Conservative vote.

- While in congress he passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, where he poses blatant restrictions on political speech in an attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, two well respected conservative radio talk show hosts.

- His views on immigration are also to the left. Actually, further left than even some liberals. He supports amnesty for illegals most of who committed misindeamor crimes by being in the US illegally, some even committed felony crimes by stealing social security numbers and other personaly ID data from US citizens. Supporting amnesty for criminals ... you can't get no further left unless you fall off the scale.


Because of McCain's past views, there are many Republicans (my wife included) who will sit out this election and simply not vote rather than voting for a Democrat in disguise. Although I do applaud him in his patriotism and his heroic service to his country, no one can take that away from him. Summing up, the Republicans will lose the election and all because they picked a leader who's views are not in tune with American conservatives.

 

[Kreskin]

First off, don't you ever use the words Hitler and my wife in the same sentence again ... you don't know di*k about American politics (you ain't even American), stay outta my wife's business!

Back to the topic here. They don't call McCain a maverick for nothin. Here's why ...

- in 2000, he called religious leaders "agents of intolerance". Now he's trying to reconcile in an attempt to get their votes.

- in 2005 McCain opposed a Federal Gay marriage ban, contrary to the views of most Americans. Now he's flip flopped pretending to oppose gay marriage.

- In 1999, in the San Francisco Chronicle (8/20/1999), McCain sided with the pro-abortion camp, suggesting that overturning Row vs Wade would lead to illegal abortions. Now he's flipped flopped pretending to be pro-life to try and get the Conservative vote.

- While in congress he passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, where he poses blatant restrictions on political speech in an attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, two well respected conservative radio talk show hosts.

- His views on immigration are also to the left. Actually, further left than even some liberals. He supports amnesty for illegals most of who committed misindeamor crimes by being in the US illegally, some even committed felony crimes by stealing social security numbers and other personaly ID data from US citizens. Supporting amnesty for criminals ... you can't get no further left unless you fall off the scale.


Because of McCain's past views, there are many Republicans (my wife included) who will sit out this election and simply not vote rather than voting for a Democrat in disguise. Although I do applaud him in his patriotism and his heroic service to his country, no one can take that away from him. Summing up, the Republicans will lose the election and all because they picked a leader who's views are not in tune with American conservatives.

His past views are likely his real personal views and ones I'd support (except I don't follow that illegal immigration stuff down there and have no opinion on it). But he has changed his tune to get the necessary base support and he'll probably win by doing that.

Of course religious leaders are agents of intolerance. And the abortion debate is a no-brainer, if anyone cares to peel away that onion and look the real issues within it.

 

[Colpy]

Because of McCain's past views, there are many Republicans (my wife included) who will sit out this election and simply not vote rather than voting for a Democrat in disguise. Although I do applaud him in his patriotism and his heroic service to his country, no one can take that away from him. Summing up, the Republicans will lose the election and all because they picked a leader who's views are not in tune with American conservatives.

Now that would be silly......to not vote because the Republican candidate is too liberal......and thus allow an ultra-liberal to win.....the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Hopefully the VP nomination of Palin will sway her....not simply because of gender, but because Palin is very much conservative......

 

[lone wolf]

His past views are likely his real personal views and ones I'd support (except I don't follow that illegal immigration stuff down there and have no opinion on it). But he has changed his tune to get the necessary base support and he'll probably win by doing that.

Of course religious leaders are agents of intolerance. And the abortion debate is a no-brainer, if anyone cares to peel away that onion and look the real issues within it.

It's the religious intolerance thing that bothers me. Bush's biggest error in judgement, as far as I can see, was in painting an image that the United States is annointed by a Christian God. Among Muslims who have already felt the American way being imposed upon them, that is tantamount to a challenge. Is it any wonder Islamic extremists have become the voice of the people?