GameTavern
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)
-   Happy Hour (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Won't know who President is Nov. 2 (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9931)

Neo 10-21-2004 11:07 AM
Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Absentee ballots may turn this election into a major headache. Key battleground states such as Ohio and Florida have extended the deadline by which overseas ballots must be received past Nov 2. They want to make sure as many votes are counted as is possible. So far the process has been a complete nightmare as Pentagon computer systems are unable to handle the influx of registrations. Complicated rules and voting regulations have confused many who live overseas. Initially the Pentagon system was only made available to the military which is causing states to reject them. Officers are strongly Republican but the new recruits are more evenly divided between candidates. The millions of civilians living overseas favor Kerry by 58%.

I can already see legal challenges by both sides as to the standards to use in which votes to accept and which to reject. I don't know if it will be possible to declare a winner on Nov 2nd with so many potential votes yet to be counted.

Professor S 10-21-2004 11:41 AM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Absentee ballots may turn this election into a major headache. Key battleground states such as Ohio and Florida have extended the deadline by which overseas ballots must be received past Nov 2. They want to make sure as many votes are counted as is possible. So far the process has been a complete nightmare as Pentagon computer systems are unable to handle the influx of registrations. Complicated rules and voting regulations have confused many who live overseas. Initially the Pentagon system was only made available to the military which is causing states to reject them. Officers are strongly Republican but the new recruits are more evenly divided between candidates. The millions of civilians living overseas favor Kerry by 58%.

I can already see legal challenges by both sides as to the standards to use in which votes to accept and which to reject. I don't know if it will be possible to declare a winner on Nov 2nd with so many potential votes yet to be counted.
I don't see it being decided right away either, ans the controversy surrounding it is going to be even worse because whoever loses is going to look for anything they could call fraud.

Also, could you please post the source for your 58% number, its not that I don't think its accurate but I doubt that it includes the 100,000+ military personnel overseas.

Fox 6 10-21-2004 11:44 AM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Canadian elections are usually decided in a day or two. But we have less people.

Neo 10-21-2004 01:41 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/po...er=rssuserland

Neo 10-21-2004 01:41 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/po...er=rssuserland

Professor S 10-21-2004 02:49 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Good article, but like I thought the 58% did not include the military, it was a civilian pole. As for the assertion that military rank and file are split, I find that highly unlikely. I know several people in the military, and the amount of hatred towards Kerry is palpable. They don't necessarily like Bush, but they HATE Kerry, and I don't use that term lightly.

Neo 10-21-2004 02:55 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
What I don't understand is why so many military people support Bush after he got himself transferred to the Guard. I mean he clearly used his family influence to get him the most cushy ride possible. How can Bush order a soldier to do something he wasn't willing to do himself? Kerry, on the other hand, actually volunteered to go to Vietnam. Do they hate him just because of his anti-war comments?

Professor S 10-21-2004 03:21 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
What I don't understand is why so many military people support Bush after he got himself transferred to the Guard. I mean he clearly used his family influence to get him the most cushy ride possible. How can Bush order a soldier to do something he wasn't willing to do himself? Kerry, on the other hand, actually volunteered to go to Vietnam. Do they hate him just because of his anti-war comments?
His anti-war comments, how he stabbed his fellow soldiers in that back with his damning testimony, and oh yeah... THE $87 BILLION IN FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS HE VOTED AGAINST AND HIS 20+ YEAR RECORD OF VOTING AGAINST MILITARY ADVANCEMENTS AND RESEARCH. Its the same advancements and research that he voted against that keep American troops alive.

Now Kerry says how he will give the troops proper equipment, when his entire voting history contradicts these empty statements. The military are not stupid and they aren't going to accept a poltician at his word. Actions speak louder.

The Germanator 10-21-2004 03:24 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Strangler
His anti-war comments, how he stabbed his fellow soldiers in that back with his damning testimony
It's a Goddamn shame when a man cannot come back from war and speak his OPINION on it. He has every right in the world to say bad things about the Viet Nam war because he was right in the thick of it. The claim of some people that this makes him some kind of traitor is utterly despicable in my opinion.

Neo 10-21-2004 03:49 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
What Kerry did was vote against the continued financing of a badly planned war. Republicans just like to point out that part of it included money for body armor, armor which they should have had BEFORE being sent into harm's way.

Kerry spoke the truth about American soldier's actions in Vietnam. It's too bad if they can't handle that. It's also known that the war crimes were not committed by everyone, just a select few. Of course every veteran seems to think Kerry was talking about themselves personally.

Here's some of what he said:

Quote:
we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

...In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart....

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doen'st have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

Professor S 10-21-2004 04:09 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
What Kerry did was vote against the continued financing of a badly planned war. Republicans just like to point out that part of it included money for body armor, armor which they should have had BEFORE being sent into harm's way.
So to make things right he decides to exascerbate the situatin by denying them the armor and then blaming the whole thing on Bush. Makes sense to me! Oh, and he voted for the "badly planned" war, just a reminder.

"Hey, I'm now against war now that the poles aren't 80% in favor, so I'll put more lives in jeapardy by denying them the equipment that they need now that the occupation is not going as well as we thought it would." How very compassionate. Thats the type of person I want as President.

As for his comments on Vietnam, I'm not saying those are my opinions, but the opinions of the military people I know. They consider it a fraternity and what he said afterwards hurt them greatly. They also belive that Kerry went to Vietnam, yes by choice, but they believed it was very contrived. They belive he went there for political reasons, and point to the number on cameras that seemed to follow him around as evidence. By the way, Kerry is also an admitted war criminal and his fellow troops don't like that he implicated them for the same crimes. Once again, not my opinion but that is what much of the military (that I know of) feel.

Blackmane 10-21-2004 10:36 PM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
What Kerry did was vote against the continued financing of a badly planned war. Republicans just like to point out that part of it included money for body armor, armor which they should have had BEFORE being sent into harm's way.
But, Kerry is the one mentioning lack of body armor in the debates at least twice, which is essencially a complaint of lack of funding, which he was against. So, if he truly felt like extra funding wasn't nessesary, then why bring that facet of the war up?

Neo 10-22-2004 12:08 AM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmane
But, Kerry is the one mentioning lack of body armor in the debates at least twice, which is essencially a complaint of lack of funding, which he was against. So, if he truly felt like extra funding wasn't nessesary, then why bring that facet of the war up?

ummm.... Because he's an opportunistic flip-flopper?

Typhoid 10-22-2004 12:28 AM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Strangler
His anti-war comments, how he stabbed his fellow soldiers in that back with his damning testimony, and oh yeah... THE $87 BILLION IN FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS HE VOTED AGAINST AND HIS 20+ YEAR RECORD OF VOTING AGAINST MILITARY ADVANCEMENTS AND RESEARCH. Its the same advancements and research that he voted against that keep American troops alive.

Now Kerry says how he will give the troops proper equipment, when his entire voting history contradicts these empty statements. The military are not stupid and they aren't going to accept a poltician at his word. Actions speak louder.


Sure, he voted against them, but he didnt vote against them for this war did he?

Its like saying a Republican (or Democrat) wont vote the otehr way because of their years of voting a certain way regardless of political issues they may agree with.

You do know, that sometimes, past voting records should be taken with a grain of salt.

Obvoiusly his stance on things will change, minds change, people get new ideas. Its what people do. Its a human thing.

Blackmane 10-22-2004 02:47 AM
Re: Won't know who President is Nov. 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoid
Sure, he voted against them, but he didnt vote against them for this war did he?

Its like saying a Republican (or Democrat) wont vote the otehr way because of their years of voting a certain way regardless of political issues they may agree with.

You do know, that sometimes, past voting records should be taken with a grain of salt.

Obvoiusly his stance on things will change, minds change, people get new ideas. Its what people do. Its a human thing.
Of course that is the human way. That is fine.

The problem is, this man is not just another person. He is running for the President of the United States.

So many people look at Kerry's voting record and say "Oh well." Frankly, Kerry's voting record is against a lot of the things he is promising or saying in this election, and it is something that he doesn't bring up much at all because it is very revealing. This is not just restricted to the military.

What are you going to believe? A man's promises or his past actions? Cause frankly, if anything should be taken with a grain of salt, it would be promises that lack a firm backing.

Not to mention that he is an opportunistic flip-flopper. ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern