Kerry concedes election?

[personman]

Just a question but does that apply to non citizens? Must admit Ive always assumed that as a non citizen I cant vote, thats right yes?

Correct though there are some initiatives to change that, particularly for illegal immigrants.  (Why someone should enjoy the privileges of citizenship without the responsibilities is beyond me.)

[Ardent]

I love how belligerent some people become when others express views that don't 100% align with their own.

From reading your response, I would say that we probably agree on a lot.

I just don't think adopting a defeatist attitude is the answer, is all.

[Shannow]

Just a question but does that apply to non citizens? Must admit Ive always assumed that as a non citizen I cant vote, thats right yes?

Correct though there are some initiatives to change that, particularly for illegal immigrants.  (Why someone should enjoy the privileges of citizenship without the responsibilities is beyond me.)

WTF why do illegal immigrants get the vote. As a legal immigrant to the US whos had to endure hideously long waits at INS offices, reams of confusing paperwork, hassles at immigration etc nothing PISSES me off more than the way this country bends over backwards for illegals. In Oz we just stick em in detention camps...*cackle*

[Ardent]

WTF why do illegal immigrants get the vote.

Because politicians on BOTH sides of the political fence bend over backwards to appease illegals, especially here in California. For two reasons:

1. The nebuluous "Latino vote". But more important:
2. Big business wants a steady influx of illegals for cheap labor, and are willing to sacrifice our national security to do it.

Neither party is addressing the horrendous problem of illegal immigration, including the al Queda members posing as Mexican immigrants streaming into California, Arizona and Texas.

Business benefits, and the taxpayers get ass-raped. What was that Talking Heads song again?

[toma levine]

Holy crap, don't get me started on California and the illegal immigrant problem.

My best guess on the al-Qaeda-posing-as-migrant-worker thing would be that the CA gov't wants to make them feel at home and give them all kinds of benefits without bothersome responsibilities so that they'll decide to stay here, behave, and not blow up any more of our buildings.

[Sky]

Sheesh, and Edwards is saying that Bush is the campaign of "fear-mongers"?? Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!".....go figure.

While I haven't directed the accusation of fear-mongering against the Bush administration, Cheney makes it hard not to. Making predictions of doom if Kerry is elected is fear-mongering, based on pure speculation.

But I'm not fear-mongering, I'm stating what the sitting president's administration has /already done/, and done with a mind toward being re-elected. Those are chilling facts on their own, I don't have to monger them.

I'll fear monger a bit and say it can only get much more insidious when he doesn't have to worry about a re-election.

Since Bush has been elected, authorities DO have more ability to invade your privacy; people continue to slide further into 'slave labor' with the low minimum wage, and he very much is surrounded by corporate buddies; he HAS continued to exploit the environment in favor of corporate interests; and he HAS gone to war for no rational reason; and he HAS mortgaged our future to do so. It'd be funnier if it wasn't true, in this case.

I'm not some frothing anti-bushite. I don't watch or read mass-media, my mind is not filled with someone else's positions. What I have done, though, is read a lot of the accounts of what has actually happened over the last four years in particular, and in our government in general, and I make my opinion based on those facts. I don't expect you to agree, but do not dismiss me as some clueless political ranter without solid reasons for my position.

[Big Gulp]

As another representative of "the rest of the world" I disagree with your opinion. The US election system is dated and doesn't differentiate enough. It has the drawbacks of every bipolar system and adds problems of its own due to that Electoral College. Its a republican system, no true democracy.

Well, no shit.  It's not a "true democracy" because frankly true democracies stink on ice.  Oh, and if you think parliamentary systems are "true democracies", well you're wrong there too.  They're representative democracies also.

Just because the rest of the world runs on a parliamentary system where the head of government isn't even elected (gee, that doesn't sound very democratic, does it?) doesn't mean that we should go scrapping what is the oldest functional modern "democracy" in the world, and a model that must have served us pretty well, seeing how we went from a provincial backwater to global superpower in 150 years time.

[Shannow]

As another representative of "the rest of the world" I disagree with your opinion. The US election system is dated and doesn't differentiate enough. It has the drawbacks of every bipolar system and adds problems of its own due to that Electoral College. Its a republican system, no true democracy.

Well, no shit.  It's not a "true democracy" because frankly true democracies stink on ice.  Oh, and if you think parliamentary systems are "true democracies", well you're wrong there too.  They're representative democracies also.

Just because the rest of the world runs on a parliamentary system where the head of government isn't even elected (gee, that doesn't sound very democratic, does it?) doesn't mean that we should go scrapping what is the oldest functional modern "democracy" in the world, and a model that must have served us pretty well, seeing how we went from a provincial backwater to global superpower in 150 years time.

Welll possibly an arguement could be made that the US would be ever greater if it was under a parliementary system. Im not engaging in a 'my political system is better than your political system' dick waving contest, Im just saying there are advantages to both.

And dont automatically assume that because the President is directly elected that its a good thing. Theres nothing as stupid as the masses.:)

[Fabricated]

I'm not an American and I don't live in America.

But as most of you are, I thought it worth posting this.

The media over here is suggesting that Kerry's announcement that 'iraq was a mistake' is intended to make the campaign about iraq.

What? Is he nuts or something? People vote on the basis of a decision that got made years ago and can't be changed now? And in a situation where opposing it tells you nothing about what you want to do from here? Only way I could imagine it being useful is if Kerry is about to advocate cut and run as a strategy, but I can't seriously imagine the American electorate would go for that, would they? And surely anything other than cut and run is going to look indistinguishable from Bush policy going forward? The rest of the world seems to be anticipating that Kerry would provide exactly the same policies, but coming from someone that the French don't have to disagree with on a reflex simply due to 'chattering class' snobbery. Is there even a detectable difference in policy from your perspective?

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Am I missing something?

Given the current options I don't really care much who wins the US presidency, and frankly if it were my country I'd hope they both lose. But does this look just as suicidal from your side of the atlantic?

Here's basically how American elections work:

The first candidate to come up with a solid slogan and method of attack on the other candidate wins, as long as they NEVER stop beating the public over the head with it.

You have noticed that regardless of the subject at hand the Bush campaign calls Kerry a "flip flopper" right?

That's how you win. Seriously.

[Dark Vengeance]

I really dont think the Democrats can raise a candle to the Bush teams fear mongering.

Take a little tour around the internet, and read some of the truly laughable theories being tossed about. Let's also establish that not every "Kerry supporter" is a Democratic elected official or even affiliated with the party.....this is how tripe like Michael Moore and 527 groups can seemingly make any baseless accusations they wish with almost total impunity....and they're relatively mild compared to some of the shit that's out there.

But just consider for a second what calling the Bush campaign "fear mongers" does....isn't the intended effect to make people afraid of the Bush campaign? Isn't it just a step or two removed from trying to call the administration terrorists themselves?

Oh wait...that's right...anti-Bush activists have already taken to calling him a terrorist.


And lest we think this is merely crude humor, with no serious intent:

Which of course leads us into a realm of all sorts of batfuck  crazy conspiracy theorists....enough for me to safely conclude that some of the rabid ABB crowd are nothing shy of FUCKING INSANE.

I mean there was that whole invading a whole other nation because they have WMDs they are about to use against us thing....whoops!

History lesson....and for this one I will do my imitation of the late Chris Farley, from the Chris Farley Show skits:

[chrisfarley]

Ya remember how the UN put all those sanctions in place against Saddam after the Gulf War, including the part about WMDs? That was awesome, man.

Remember how Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq under the Clinton administration (which even Kerry criticized)? It was pretty cool.

Remember how the UN kept passing resolution after resolution about this issue? Yeah, me too.

Did you see Die Hard?

Remember how UN resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance and/or material breach? Yeah I liked that one too, it was cool.

Remember how various sources of intelligence from around the world believed that Saddam had WMDs or at least WMD programs? AWESOME, man.

And do you remember how the Russians warned us that they had reason to believe Iraq was plotting an unconventional attack against the US or their interests abroad, thus painting them as an imminent threat? That was cool too.

Do you remember Beatlemania?

Remember when we found Saddam to be in material breach of 1441, and the French said that they would not approve the use of force under any circumstances, thus acting as a veto against any UN-approved use of force? Yeah, that was awesome.

Do you remember when we discovered the widespread corruption in the oil-for-food program, including UN officials, and how it clearly constituted a direct conflict of interest for France???

Ya remember how David Kay made multiple statements before members of Congress about our actual findings? That was cool.

[/chrisfarley]

In summary, nearly every government on the entire goddamn planet believed he had WMDs, including the countries that vehemently opposed the war. We had reason to believe he was a threat, and we acted proactively, based on the information that was available at the time, to protect our national security and interests abroad.

Kerry has since been quoted as saying that EVEN GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war.

But yeah, look at it with the benefit of hindsight, and refer to it as "fear mongering", and insist that it can only get worse.....yknow, because that's the strategy to help Kerry win, right?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[personman]

In summary, nearly every government on the entire goddamn planet believed he had WMDs, including the countries that vehemently opposed the war. We had reason to believe he was a threat, and we acted proactively, based on the information that was available at the time, to protect our national security and interests abroad.

This might be a compelling argument if those same Every Governments were equally enthusiastic about the war effort.

[Dark Vengeance]

This might be a compelling argument if those same Every Governments were equally enthusiastic about the war effort.

Which begs the question....why in the living hell should we expect the rest of the world to care about US national security and interests abroad anywhere near as much as we do?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Boogaleeboo]

This might be a compelling argument if those same Every Governments were equally enthusiastic about the war effort.

They were, except the ones getting massive kickbacks from Iraq and/or selling them weapons. Or half a world way that really don't give a shit what happens in the Middle East.

This isn't even contested. It's not like the governments involved are saying weapons weren't sold, or that some of their people weren't getting oil kickbacks. They just pretend it doesn't matter. Because people are stupid, and act based on emotion.

And if people don't like Bush, who cares what's actually happening around them?

[Shannow]

I really dont think the Democrats can raise a candle to the Bush teams fear mongering.

Take a little tour around the internet, and read some of the truly laughable theories being tossed about.

Been there done that, and if you believe one side is any worse than the other then believe me I feel sorry for you.

In summary, nearly every government on the entire goddamn planet believed he had WMDs, including the countries that vehemently opposed the war.

Was that possibly because of the intelligence that even Bush's own Secretary of State admitted was faulty?

Kerry has since been quoted as saying that EVEN GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war.

When'd he say that? Seriously give me a link and I'll despair even more for the future of this country.

But yeah, look at it with the benefit of hindsight, and refer to it as "fear mongering", and insist that it can only get worse.....yknow, because that's the strategy to help Kerry win, right?

<snip> not going to bother I know its not going to make a difference.

[Dark Vengeance]

When'd he say that? Seriously give me a link and I'll despair even more for the future of this country.

Well, CNN is a fairly credible news source...will their story do?

I'll even use a pretty graphic, lifted from a pro-Kerry site that illustrates the quote specifically:



Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[HaemishM]

I think Kerry's main problem with Iraq isn't that we went in, it's that we went with afwul intelligence, false justifications, and once we got there, it seems as if the administration had fuckall idea about what to do there in the event that the Iraqis don't fall down at our feet worshipping our freedom pie.

[personman]

Which begs the question....why in the living hell should we expect the rest of the world to care about US national security and interests abroad anywhere near as much as we do?

Except of course there was no threat to our national security.  Except of course while "they" agreed there may have been WMD there was next to zero consensus that it was really time to put bombs on target.

And Boog... "enthusiasm" means they actually get involved.  Sure there's no lack of people willing to egg us on in secret or blow smoke in public.  I'd be content if we had even half the support we enjoyed during GW1.  Hell, even 10%.

I'm glad the sonufabitch is gone.  What we have now though is worse.  The country will be in civil war by this time next year.

Not that that itself is bad.  But it's shame we couldn't have had a coordinated program of statehood instead of another Yugoslavia.

I think Kerry's main problem with Iraq isn't that we went in, it's that we went with afwul intelligence, false justifications, and once we got there, it seems as if the administration had fuckall idea about what to do there in the event that the Iraqis don't fall down at our feet worshipping our freedom pie.

Agreed.  My needling DV's latest repetition of Karl's talking points aside, this is my real issue and it's why I'll take Kerry over Bush.  That as well as the destructive rollbacks of the progressive accomplishments of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.

I already know how badly Bush can screw things up.  I'm not impressed that he moderated himself in time for the election.  Had the GOP put a Republican on the block that individual would probably have my vote.

EDIT: added response to Haemish

[eldaec]

how about not fabricating any more evidence to justify invading countries which pose no immediate threat to US national security?

Sure, but how many people who aren't already anti-Bush (quite possibly because of iraq) are going to get turned on by that message?

That's probably the fundamental reason I'm amazed to see him want to talk about iraq at all, it looks like a waste of air.

Anti-war arguments have all been said, they have surely influenced everyone they ever will, and new iraq policy just draws attention back to the flip flop thing.

Both lose, eh? From the last line I'll take one more guess and say you're English. Frankly that scares me and I hope I'm wrong about that. Since I don't know I'll just assume that you are English. You say you don't care who wins the US presidency, but I'd like to remind you that quite a large number of British soldiers are in Iraq

I'm British, I don't care who wins because I don't see a significant policy difference. Perhaps I'm also being influenced by not being able to imagine Kerry winning.

Kerry may or may not have planned a better war, he doesn't yet appear to be suggesting anything I can see as different to the Bush plan. If there was a compelling case to push an alternative strategy then I could see what he's up to, but as it is, there doesn't seem to be any alternative strategy.

I'm curious how your country's news was portraying the election before Kerry's latest speech, because the election has been "about Iraq" for over a year now.  

Mostly as an election where Kerry has struggled to take control of the agenda, and where he's overcoming all sorts of natural advantages to do his best to lose, by allowing himself to get caught up in issues that don't give any traction, instead of opening up any kind of front on anything he can say more than 'I'm not Bush' on.  The media here (in admittedly limited coverage) has yet to detect a Kerry policy, and as a result spends any airtime it gives to US news on how Bush has a ranch and Kerry has trouble ordering at Wendy's.

The UK media has viewed it as 'about Iraq' but see that as entirely to Bush's advantage, as Kerry has nothing interesting to say on the subject.

I think Kerry's main problem with Iraq isn't that we went in, it's that we went with afwul intelligence, false justifications, and once we got there, it seems as if the administration had fuckall idea about what to do there in the event that the Iraqis don't fall down at our feet worshipping our freedom pie.

Sure, that's exactly the view of the British Conservatives too. It's not doing them any good to bang on about it either.

Anyone smart enough to cope with the idea of thinking both...

1) Saddam was a criminal guilty of killing tens of millions of people and the cost of his continued rule could be measured in thousands of additional dead children.

AND

2) Going in with no obvious plan for the aftermath was fucking stupid.

... has already decided whether this shifts their vote or not.

Anyone not smart enough to cope with the above statements simultaeneously just gets confused and thinks you are changing your mind.

[plangent]

All of which just leaves me wondering which one of these tools gets my vote in November?  I think it's going to come down to how I feel when I walk into the poll.  Do I prefer a known or unknown evil?

All that aside, God how I love the show!

[daveNYC]

Notice that we're back to talking about past actions in Iraq.  The past is over, talk about the future.  At least Kerry has finally taken a stand (for the moment) on Iraq, and what to do with it.  Now that he has a message, he can focus on communicating it to the target audience.

If he can convince people that what Bush is doing is wrong, as opposed to what Bush did was wrong, he might have a chance.

[Lum]

If you want to let the DPRK get nukes, don't vote for Kerry.

"Let"? You say that like it's future tense.

[Merusk]

Notice that we're back to talking about past actions in Iraq. The past is over, talk about the future.

Ok, the future. One year or two after Bush gets re-elected before we go after Iran?

As to the previous mention of illegals & California. I'm a pretty socially liberal guy, and even *I* think California needs to just go away for the good for the country. Jebuz, when they passed that whole "don't kick illegals out of school' thing back in the 90s my head about exploded.  Knowing they want to let them vote just makes me ill.

[Krakrok]

The "haves" are ruling the world while the "have nots" are kept subordinate with illusions.

If you spent the time you spend playing video games working towards becoming a "have" instead of a "have not" you might sing a different tune.

How different wouldve WWII been if FDR had been the PM of a democrat controlled congress?

We would have just nuked Tokyo and been done with it?

---

I'd say JibJab's "This Land" puts it best.

[Romp]

regarding foreigners and the election, its amazing how much hate there is for Bush outside America.


http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25392

In European countries if they could vote Kerry would win by 50 points.

And in the same light, I totally disagree with the statement that there would be no difference for the rest of the world whether Kerry or Bush was in, there would be a world of difference.

Iraq wouldnt have even been on the agenda if not for the neo-cons.

[gimpyone]

First off, I have an education.  Secondly, like Health Care, education is too expensive and hard to access to those of us not born with a silver spoon in our asses.

If I go to school for a dollar a semester while collecting SSI for my disability, education is not to expensive.  FASFA can help too.  Stop complaining and do something, you don't have an excuse

[Ardent]

As to the previous mention of illegals & California... Knowing they want to let them vote just makes me ill.

A quick aside to make something perfectly clear ... we, the citizens and taxpayers in California, DO NOT support this illegals bullshit. However, our politicans on BOTH sides are allowing powerful lobbies up their Hershey Highways to let it happen.

Living in California and enduring this crap is kind of like perpetually feeling like you were bent over a chair by Kobe Bryant.

[Boogaleeboo]

The country will be in civil war by this time next year.

They said that last year too. It'll be in civil war....why? What leads you to believe stability is worse now than it was a year ago?

Kerry keeps up attacking without offering a plan of his own, he's going to lose. Simple as that. The "ABB" crowd isn't good enough to give him a win, and the rest of the nation wants a gameplan. Not "I'm not Bush".

[eldaec]

In European countries if they could vote Kerry would win by 50 points.

It's worth noting that almost every country in Europe likes to percieve itself as 'to the left of the democrats'. As a result, the democrat candidate would probably win almost every US election evar if Europe could vote.

Admittedly they probably would not win by 50 points every time.

[Tebonas]

Well, no shit.  It's not a "true democracy" because frankly true democracies stink on ice.  Oh, and if you think parliamentary systems are "true democracies", well you're wrong there too.  They're representative democracies also.

Not entirely true, but I don't want to discuss things which end up being without real meaning because we are a small country anyway. Which, incidently would likely be your answer when I show you a mixed approach between direct and representative democracy.

 doesn't mean that we should go scrapping what is the oldest functional modern "democracy" in the world, and a model that must have served us pretty well, seeing how we went from a provincial backwater to global superpower in 150 years time.

Which means that Monarchy is the far superiour system because our country was a global super power during its monarchic age and declined once it turned towards democracy. That, our you make connections where there is no direct causality.

Anyway, I don't wan't you to scratch anything, If you are happy with your system, keep at it. I just wanted to point out that the opinion of one British forum poster is not the opinion of the whole "rest of the world". Of course, mine would be neither, and I would never presume to represent anybody but myself.

[SirBruce]

Yes, it's the knd of information that's only very useful in context.  How many Europeans would have voted for Gore, Clinton, Bush 41, etc.

Bruce

[Arcadian Del Sol]

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty

Same here. They recently did this in my home state, so I'm done with elections. Reason: I am living check-to-check, and if I were to be placed on a lengthy jury trial, it would be a financial disaster for me that would take YEARS to recover from. My employer recently decided to no longer pay normal wages to people who serve jury duty - they now pay you nothing. Use your vacation time, I guess.

For your conspiracy theory collection - I see this as a clever way to reserve the right to vote for only the wealthy - the working man who needs every pay of every hard work day, can no longer afford to be on a jury, and thus, can no longer afford to vote.

very clever, Masons. very, very clever.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Which means that Monarchy is the far superiour system because our country was a global super power during its monarchic age and declined once it turned towards democracy.

Carefully avoiding a Godwin invocation, lets just say that this argument holds as much water as a collander - also, nevermind the fact that the United States is presently the Barry Bonds of world superpowers despite its representative democracy, your logic fails to point out that if the measure of a successful governmental system is the scope of its empire, then you lose to every tyranny in history.

[Tebonas]

Weren't you supposed to be a writer and therefore able to grasp what others write as well?

OF COURSE THAT POINT IS BULLSHIT, it is bullshit regarding the Monarchy of pre-WWI Austria, it is bullshit regarding that thing that would invoke Godwins law, and it is bullshit with the US democracy.

That, or you make connections where there is no direct causality.

Thats the part you conveniently left out in your quote. Irony too hard for you?

The political system and the relative power versus other countries are not
as closely tied to one another as Big Gulp believes.

[Daeven]

While I haven't directed the accusation of fear-mongering against the Bush administration, Cheney makes it hard not to. Making predictions of doom if Kerry is elected is fear-mongering, based on pure speculation.

Sky, here was Cheny's actual statement about Kerry that has been mutated into the Talking Point you mention above:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Notice that he didn't say voting for Kerry is a vote for more blown up buildings.

As to our Federal Elections system, the single biggest problem is the Gerrymandering of House districts making them defacto holdings of one party or the other. House elections are a joke for this reason.

[Paelos]

Kerry is defining himself by the incumbant, and has not made it evident he's anything better than a warm body in opposition to the current regime. That doesn't win elections. What's he going to do in office when Bush isn't there to take a stand on something?