|
Post by Chalupa! on Nov 3, 2004 11:25:09 GMT -8
President Bush has been declared the winner with his win in Ohio. The exit polls had earlier shown Kerry would win the election. Why were the exit polls so wrong?
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by navyceals on Nov 4, 2004 12:59:13 GMT -8
Heheh that is right, thank goodness for Ohio, it would have been a pain without Ohio. As the election was going on I thought that it would probably be a close thing with Ohio, but when I found out what Ohio stood for, lol, well i felt a lot more confident. For instance, 1/4 of Ohio voters said that they were born again christains, which means no stem cell research/no abortions and no gay marriage, sound like someone? (Bush). With that they also noted that Ohio has the most strict ban on same sex marriages, which I found totally interesting as that's exactly what Bush stands for, despite the bashing he takes for it. Looks like your principles won out for you Bush, it's nice to see a strong principled leader, now Canada just has to get some pepole like that.
NavY_Ceals
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Nov 5, 2004 22:57:51 GMT -8
Kerry ran a campaign that was very negative, spending most of his time attacking Bush rather than explaining his views and what he would do as President. When it comes down to the wire, how can you vote for a guy you know little about other than the fact he doesn't like Bush and expect him to run the most powerful Country in the world? Whether you like Bush or not, at least you know where he stands, and his views don't change with the most recent poll. Kerry had major issues and that's why he lost the majority vote (by almost 4 million).
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by navyceals on Nov 6, 2004 21:27:30 GMT -8
True the US did have problems with their election techniques, which seem to be a traditional event, but you can't be comparing that to Australia! I'm just pulling this number outa my head, that Australia probably has somewhere near 30 million residents (as Canada does), which is not comparable to the United States 230 million people, large quantities always screw things up. On that note it sure must be hard to get accurate votes in china/india where the high population and less technology must make it difficult!
NavY_Ceals
|
|
|
Post by nickyno1 on Nov 8, 2004 12:22:24 GMT -8
ugh crap,bush is gonna screw the world.
To me,bush is certainly not the man for the job,seriously,if we look at what he has done with america in the past 4 years(horrible economic policies,bad war tactics,straining global relations etc.ect)it would seem clear that he would most probably not be elected.He's always gonna be the village idiot and now that hes been re-elected ,its would justify his future actions,which if history is anything to follow by,probably another agressive attack which would gove terrorists another reason to strike.
the sad thing is,the idiots who follow bush blindly are really victims of republican propaganda,and u cant really blame them,the fact that propaganda is in play here really destroys the idea of demorcracy,they arent really displayed the facts in a true light but one thats been tainted by the media.
but on the other hand,bush was the one who started the mess in iraq,and with ongoing propsals with syria and talks with iran,electing another president would be disaster for onging peace talks and of course the inevitable adjustment which a president have to make to regroup,plan and take action in iraq.Under bush,the iraq situation would be much easier to handle.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Nov 10, 2004 9:38:44 GMT -8
Hi Nicky! Just had to ask one question: Do you *really* think the terrorists need another reason to strike? What about all the previous times they attacked (like when Clinton was in office). What did Bush do to "give" them a reason then? Sorry, that was three questions! Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by navyceals on Nov 10, 2004 22:42:03 GMT -8
lol yup, the arab nations hate the United States, why? Because they support Israel. As long as the United States continues to help out this small country, to fight off its many large neighbours, terrorists do not need any more reasons to attack. GO UNITED STATES GO.
In case not all of you are aware, the world trade centers had one of the largest grouping of Jews in the world. Too bad we can't all just get along.
NavY_Ceals
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Nov 10, 2004 23:09:20 GMT -8
That was kind of my point Navy. I hear a lot of people say that we are making the terrorists mad, or giving them reason to attack us, but even if we do nothing at this point they will still attack. I'm not sure you can make them want to attack any more then they already do. It's not like Bin Laden says "well, we could blow up a building today, but i'm not that mad". If he has an open shot at us, he takes it. Period.
Just my thoughts.
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by navyceals on Nov 10, 2004 23:25:07 GMT -8
Yup yup, I fully understand that was what you were saying and my statement was kind of just like further proof of yours. Although, i guess i could have recognised that I agreed with you more than "lol, yup." I also hate that people will back out of standing up to the terrorists, for fear of the consequences. Since that just means they can do what they want, and even if that means you get off a little easier, although that option isn't open for the US , your getting off easier would just mean another weaker country will be hit instead. Case in point, I was disgusted when I heard that because the terrorists set off a bomb in spain, they elected a weak government, which then pulled them out of the war and basically hid. What kind of a solution is that??? You can't negotiate with terrorists!!!! (I think that was probably one of the smartest moves ever, the strategy of not negotiating with terrorists. That was the early 1970's lol that really put a lull in hostage takings.) NavY_Ceals
|
|
|
Post by nsanesocrates on Nov 11, 2004 21:31:35 GMT -8
ya... i agree. Besides, they will never quit attacking us, as long as bin-ladens kind still breathes, they will kill the infidels!!! Americans are the infidels in their opinion, they have a commitment most ppl dont even posess for anything in their life, especially america
|
|
|
Post by nickyno1 on Nov 12, 2004 6:17:52 GMT -8
its true that terrorists have been striking long before bush came into presidency,but the thing is,bush's actions ,in iraq specifically,have only massed the ranks of more america haters and terrorists.Im not saying that bush is a horrible president,in fact,his quick response to the sept 11 incident is commendable,im just afraid that his over-agressiveness would just worsen the terrorist problem.simply forcefully exerting millitary might wont eliminate the terrorist threat,it would just make it stronger,because terrorists arise only for the fact beacause they believe they have been done "injustice",and bush's war on iraq have made that certain" injustice" grow in even more people.to truly eliminate a threat,we must attack it at its root,that is,to prevent percived injustice in the first place and not cause it.the "war on terror" is not simply a war which can be waged and won in a matter of years,in fact, it would take decades to do it.
and a question to navy-ceals:why shouldnt we negotiate with terrorists?the way i look at it,its just pride and the need for revenge which stops us from really adressing the situation properly.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Nov 12, 2004 9:16:57 GMT -8
I think you bring up some interesting points Nicky in that it is possible that more people may join the efforts against the US if we make them mad. The only thing that doesn't add up is that before the Iraqi war, I heard many people say what you are saying. They said we would get attacked much more often now. Fact is, we have not been attacked since 9/11 which is a pretty big deal. If you just look at the facts, one would have to think that by going on the offensive, it paid off. It's kinda hard to say someone is handling something wrong, when what they are doing is working. I guess it's like a business man who makes a decision that results in record profits for his company. Then someone says what he did was bad for the business. If we had been attacked over and over then I think your view would hold water and I would have to agree. As far as negotiating with terrorists, I would have to agree with Navy. The reason you don't is because you send the message that Terror works. That empowers other people who want their way to strike out, knowing they will get something. You must send the message that the attacks will have zero effect. Hmmm....maybe thats why they attacked Spain and not us again?
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by navyceals on Nov 13, 2004 15:06:23 GMT -8
Exactly what Chalupa said, Nicki. If you negotiate than the terrorists get what they want and that's a pretty big incentive to do it again. The only way negotiating works is when either: your dealing with trusted individuals, or your dealing with physical objects you can trade. In this case if we negotiated with terrorists we would have to give up something, on the word or hope that the terrorists would live up to their side of the deal. Problems with that?
For one, say the americans agree with one group of terrorists that they'll move all of their equipment out of one region, in trade off so the terrorists promise never to attack the US again. The problem right away with that is no other terrorist groups, other than that one group, would feel they have to live up to that bargain.
Or what if the US moves out, but the terrorists feel that it wasn't enough, so they attack the US again? How can they be punished? Declare war on terrorists again? lol.
There's no easy solution. If the "bad guys" were a country, then compromises could be made, because if either side didn't live up to their side of the deal, they could be punished. But when it's this guerilla type warfare it's not easy to compromise.
Besides if these terrorist groups see the US as Satan, I don't think their going to be too open to compromise.
NavY_Ceals
|
|
|
Post by nsanesocrates on Nov 13, 2004 16:29:07 GMT -8
im sure they see us like we see them. most of the terrorists are only terrorists because its one of the few lines of work. They are willing to die to support whatever family they have. if sum1 is willing to die so they can kill u, they will probably do it. This war might turn out like nam.
|
|
|
Post by serik on Nov 14, 2004 14:05:41 GMT -8
This doesn't touch on your switch to terrorism, but it does fit into this thread. Lucky for me I am taking American Government in school now and my teacher talks about the election a lot (this is a good thing because it stalls him from teaching and thus pushes back the tests!! LOL ;D ;D). He told us that every president of the United States won Ohio. I believe that if someone is to win the presidency, they must win Ohio. Without it, it is hopeless.
|
|