Kerry 1, Bush 0

[Whiskers]

Though Kerry wasn't clear as he needed to be about "the global test", I feel he was able to convey a seriousness about bringing troops home. I'd like to know more about his plan for Iraq. As a veteran who hasn't seen action, I know what the "hurry up and wait" game is all about.

Bush seemed to avoid characteristic fumbles in speech, but his message was all paternalistic sentiment and was unable to convey any sense of a plan, unless, of course, he was saying hurry up and wait in the desert. Of it all, WMD is his major weakness; instead of having more, everyone else has more.

Of the two, Kerry seemed to be the most confident and had strong arguments. The only advantage Bush had in the debate was his flip-flop thing which really did turn against him, and he was forced to describe that the lives of American soldiers were the price of his inflexibility.

Bush had no real answers for Kerry's condemming questions, and so, I give this debate to Kerry.

[A_Non_Ymous]

Instant polls (as they're called) apparently are agreeing with you, Berry.

Unfortunately, it's unclear to me that there's a direct connection between
who wins these debates and for whom the swing-voters are going to vote.
(They're the people who'll decide the election, it appears.)

LSN

[Foozle]

Bush pulled a Nixon...

He flinched. He smirked. He rolled his eyes. He was constantly moving his chimp lips into a kind of pouting expression. I'll have to watch again, but I think there were times he was sort of holding the podium too tightly. He shifted from foot to foot.

In short, any poker player could see this guy's "tells" - and so could anyone with half a brain. Bush is at the table and he's betting it all with your money. The trouble is everyone can tell he's bluffing.

I think it means he just lost the election with his nervously chattering lying chimp display.

But...

There's a petition floating around to have UN oversight on the election results next month, so maybe anything can yet happen in this strange post technological world we find ourselves in. Rather than cheating being harder, it is apparently easier than ever before to game the system - any system! And all the major players have promised to deliver for the GOP, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's the only reason I won't call Bush out of the election. I truly believe the vote is imperiled. Maybe it always was and it is only the internet that allows us to compare notes and discover that fact more easily. In 2000, we simply weren't prepared to accept the truth and force the issue more boldly. I have the sense that any close election will be recounted this time, and not just be overruled by the Supreme Court. If something as undemocratic like that were to ever happen again, I fear that there might be blood in the streets that very night.

The vote HAS to matter. We cannot bequeath a rigged system to our children. The final check in the system of "checks and balances" had better be real or people are going to get VERY angry.

[L'Etranger]

Concerned question here: isn't a supervision of the elections by the UN going to provoke a tidal wave of pro-Bush feelings? I mean it is an embarassment if one of the world's oldest democracy's functioning needs to be controlled by those "swarthy foreigners" ...

[Foozle]

If it were more widely understood what happened in the 2000 election we might have had a revolution already. Rather than talk about swarthy foreigners, I'll ask you this: What is the world's perception of the status of democracy in america? Does Europe think the 2000 election was rigged?

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." - Misleader G.W. Bush in debate with Senator John Kerry

[L'Etranger]

There's much uncertainty here in Europe about this. We trust your constitution and its institutions. We know, too, how much big money interests can interfere and exert a considerable influence via the Media and possibly bribery, without actually thinking they - these interest groups ..., would dare manipulate the actual counting of votes! All unregularities we heard of were in Florida, a key state in the Bush-Gore elections.
However, it was widely seen as highly suspicious that in a state where George Bush's brother has the say, portions of the voters were obviously bamboozled by complicated, new, voting mechanisms and by election helpers who either couldn't find voters on their lists or weren't helpful to explain how things worked etc. The impression is that the people who seem thus hindered to vote the way they wanted to would in all probability have voted for Al Gore and would have made a difference!
The ruling by the Supreme Court, finally, did not entirely convince that the elections weren't manipulated. Iit seemed to many that it was a political and desperate decision aiming to prevent an earthquake, or even a revolution, that would have followed the realisation that someone actually dared to do this to the most sacred institution ...! The elections in the United States of America becoming doubious would shatter all ideals and trust worldwide, and internally, too.

[Kitsune]

One thing to keep in mind here is the area's where minority voters were "disenfranchised" were in area's where the Democrats were in controll at the local level. Keep in mind also that Gore's people were attempting to invalidate many absantee ballots, these tend to come from millitary personel who tend to vote Republican. Also keep in mind that the recount, which was initially only slated for areas where Gore was more likely to pick up votes, was ordered by the Florida Supream court. When the Supeam COurt of the US overturned their ruling, the did not invalidate it, they just sent it back to the lower court for explinations. Instead of an explination the court ordered a complete recount, without explaining what part of the Florida constitution alowed the Florida Supream Court to order a recount. I'm stating this, because the version of events that people often remember is usually one sided.

[Jerico]

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." - Misleader G.W. Bush in debate with Senator John Kerry

If there's such a thing as a Freudian slip, that could be in the dictionary. No better example!

[Jerico]

A recount should never have occured.
Considering all the states in the USA, a fairly big number yes?
Over 50.

Out of all the states, the one state where things got dicked-up was where
Brutha Jeb is in control. Oh yeah! Also that chick who
was in charge of the voting was a Bush cronie as well.

Statistically significant?

Oops! I'm talking about probabability also!

I'm not the best at math and all this, I admit.
So how many states do we currently have?
Is it 52 including Alaska and Hawaii?
Well whatever the right number it is... the
probability of the voting getting so dicked-up
for one entire state such that there should be a recount
is

1 : 52

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right ratio. I suspect that it's actually quite a bit lower than that. I mean the entire state of Florida, considering all the different districts or whatever it has, needs to be recounted?

I'd say one state out of 52 is very much high-balling the guestimate.

1:52 chance = 1/52 = 0.019 = 1.9%

There is a 1.9% chance that a state will screw up it's vote counting process on election day. That's a small probablility I'd say even if it's probably a high probability for this case.

Is it by chance alone that lead to the Florida blunder? Hmmm...

Has there ever been a recount before? How many elections in the history of USA has there been? Do the ratio for that one!

If I'm thinking all wrong, please tell me. I want to be logical in the right way!
Who knows? I might change my mind and decide to vote for Bush if I can figure it out!!

[Whiskers]

I honestly believe that Jeb Bush didn't have the wherewithal to manipulate the voting system. I accept the possibility that the government instituted a reorganization of the ballots to confuse the less alert (I know that not everyone reads their mortgage contracts as an example), but the people reorganizing the ballot would have had to "take a chance" that it would have the outcome they wanted. Of all the government employees I've known, and I hate to perpetuate a stereotype and can accept that it is not true in all cases, none would give a rat's ass if we were voting with cocktail napkins.

I don't believe that the debate has a great deal of importance in relation to, say, the orphaned bastards in the field or the prisoners or the un-named dead or our new disabled veterans or the poor children left to develop a life without a parent (men and women are getting taken out, let's not forget (furthermore, the compassion of women not to be tarnished by the incarceration of a duty bound female enlisted caught by the unsolvable puzzle of women under the contractual control of men), leaving behind a solitary parent not only possibly filling the roll of mother and father but having obligation to crown and country, a remote responsibility), but I do believe that Kerry has it right to question on our behalf the folly of sacrificing the futures of children for a war that was ill advised by our oldest friends (I can accept financial reasoning; for christsakes, this administration is plowing more money (read "value") into human death and sand (that's cities for the rest of the "Old World") than has been invested into job generating infrastructure projects), but I'll be watching that fucker for signs that he doesn't give a crap about the futures of my fellow country men in the field. As a veteran of the United States of America Army, I find it contemptible for any politician to strand humans "in action" risking their lives and the lives of other non-combatants.

As I've said elsewhere, I wrote my congress people and senators and instructed them not to vote (I'm drunk right now, so please forgive my lack of detail) to give President Bush the power he requested. The American people were sold out lock-stock-and-barrel to this war and I hold all those who voted for this travesty in contempt, including Kerry. I will vote for him, and if he is unable to extricate my fellow countrypeople and eliminate this conflict, I will vote for a Democratic contender in the primaries to eliminate Kerry.

To those who would vote for Bush: I implore you to consider the plight of your fellow American citizens who, while we are stateside, healthy and available to the current economic growth and benefits thereof, need to be rescued from the machine of war (resembling a corporate just-in-time employment mechanism). I'm not talking about redemption, I'm not asking you to kiss anyone's ass, I'm asking you to close your eye for 5 minutes and envision the imminent death that your country people envision for themselves in the boardroom, err, field of battle. We get laid off, they get terminated.

Please consider voting Democrat. The Bush Administration guarantees more war. The Kerry Administration promises a plan for getting out. I'll vote for the promise and take action if it doesn't come to pass rather than let the men and women of the American Armed Forces spend more time in the field and lengthen the opportunity of someone you know being pulled into nothing more than an American (not Republican) Campaign of Aggression. If we do not get rid of this administration, our country is doomed to long-term global isolation and the retardation of our economy by the conscientious global community.

I want to critize our allies in all this, but find I haven't got a leg to stand on.

[McTalbayne]

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." - Misleader G.W. Bush in debate with Senator John Kerry

If there's such a thing as a Freudian slip, that could be in the dictionary. No better example!

Hahaha. Now THATS funny!