Switch Sides?

[ssibal]

I do not like either of the main candidates nor do I like any of the sideshow canditates that I know of, therefore I will not be voting for a president again.

 

[Lurker]

As I posted in a different thread, I would put all other political differences aside and vote for a Democrat if I thought there was the slightest chance in hell that they would be satisfied with just a small tax increase to pay down the debt and not use it as a green light to spend even more.

Interesting point. Some say the roles of the parties have reversed with the Dems now seen as the party of fiscal responsibility while the Repubs are the free spenders. I looked up the budget numbers and decided to look at the deficits as a percentage of GDP (to try and account for inflation and growing economies)

1980 -2.7
1981 -2.6
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1987 -3.2
1988 -3.1
1989 -2.8
1990 -3.9
1991 -4.5
1992 -4.7
1993 -3.9
1994 -2.9
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 -0.3
1998 +0.8
1999 +1.4
2000 +2.4
2001 +1.3
2002 -1.5
2003 -3.5
2004 -4.5

If I look at these numbers, it would appear that under Reagan we saw pretty big deficits. Under Bush Sr about the same. Under Clinton we saw them drop dramatically and turn into surpluses.

I think it can be difficult to tell which party is more responsible fiscally at this point.

But I am getting off topic here.

Lurker

 

[Luke T.]

Interesting point. Some say the roles of the parties have reversed with the Dems now seen as the party of fiscal responsibility while the Repubs are the free spenders. I looked up the budget numbers and decided to look at the deficits as a percentage of GDP (to try and account for inflation and growing economies)

1980 -2.7
1981 -2.6
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1987 -3.2
1988 -3.1
1989 -2.8
1990 -3.9
1991 -4.5
1992 -4.7
1993 -3.9
1994 -2.9
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 -0.3
1998 +0.8
1999 +1.4
2000 +2.4
2001 +1.3
2002 -1.5
2003 -3.5
2004 -4.5

If I look at these numbers, it would appear that under Reagan we saw pretty big deficits. Under Bush Sr about the same. Under Clinton we saw them drop dramatically and turn into surpluses.

I think it can be difficult to tell which party is more responsible fiscally at this point.

But I am getting off topic here.

Lurker

Who was in control of the Congress during those years? That is who controls the purse strings.

 

[Luke T.]

Despite weeks of terrible news for George W. Bush driven by the deteriorating situation in Iraq and damaging testimony before the 9/11 commission, the president has moved slightly ahead of Kerry in the polls.

Source.

 

[Lurker]

Who was in control of the Congress during those years? That is who controls the purse strings.

To an extent, although the president does propose the budget. during the Reagan years, for example, it is not like Congress added so much to each budget that Reagan proposed.

Since you seem interested I will give you the numbers. (YEAR, PROPOSED, ACTUAL)

1982 695 696
1983 758 770
1984 849 859
1985 926 932
1986 974 968
1987 994 995
1988 1024 1041
1989 1094 1100

Total proposed over period: $7314
Actual Budget passed over periord: $7361

for a grand total of 0.6%. So the Democratic Congress changed Reagan's budgets by larding on 0.6%. Not a whole lot, is it, Luke?

Lurker

 

[Kodiak]

Many of us have already made up their mind on who to vote for in the US presidential election. But what would get you to vote for the other side?

What sort of events or scandals would convince you to switch your vote. Anything? Nothing?

Lurker

A fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, narrow constructionist Democrat.






.








.






.





(it'll never happen...)

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Switch Sides?

A fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, narrow constructionist Democrat.

(it'll never happen...)

Ya know... I wouldn't be so sure. I already have found that Democratic presidents score better than Republican ones on the first two, and on the third--many of the conservatives in favor of "narrow construction" are quick to abandon that if a broader interpretation would go in their favor. I'm inclined to call that a tie.

 

[shecky]

If it came out that Kerry had some sort of sexual affair with a pretty, young, intern, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Switch Sides?

...and on the third--many of the conservatives in favor of "narrow construction" are quick to abandon that if a broader interpretation would go in their favor.

Well, I'm one of those narrow construction "across-the-board" conservative libertarians...

 

[rikzilla]

I've been hearing on the morning news shows that folks are saying that there are videos, etc of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality...if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties....then I pledge here and now to hold GWB responsible at the ballot box and will loudly cast my vote for Mr. Kerry.

For those of you who know me,...you'll also know that this would be a drastic step for me. Unlike other posts in this thread this one is dead serious.

I have authored numerous threads supporting the WOT and even one advocating torture in very narrowly defined emergency circumstances, but the idea that young American goons are doing this to whoever ends up in their clutches over there is just obscene. If this is what passes for CIA/NSA/CID interrogation "policy" then we need to clean house and quick.

After 9/11 I thought that even if the US turned a bit repressive, it would be better than being at the mercy of terrorists who could kill us with impugnity and hide behind our laws. It's not. Those people who died in the towers may have been murdered by stupid and ignorant terrorists, but they died as honorable and innocent humans. If this president has allowed a policy to exist that has had the effect of turning our honorable troops into a good facsimile of those stupid and ignorant terrorists then I will make it a priority to not only vote against him, but will also hit the streets in protest to help defeat him in November.

You heard it here first.

-z

PS: As of now there is no evidence of anything other than the wrongdoing of a few individuals....I await the outcome of the investigations.

 

[corplinx]

The problem with the GOP is that even gays are represented (the log cabin republicans) but not nonbelievers. If only the "foxhole republicans" would organize then maybe we can try to steer the agenda more toward secular items like western economics and american hedgemony.

 

[subgenius]

I've been hearing on the morning news shows that folks are saying that there are videos, etc of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality...if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties....then I pledge here and now to hold GWB responsible at the ballot box and will loudly cast my vote for Mr. Kerry.

For those of you who know me,...you'll also know that this would be a drastic step for me. Unlike other posts in this thread this one is dead serious.

I have authored numerous threads supporting the WOT and even one advocating torture in very narrowly defined emergency circumstances, but the idea that young American goons are doing this to whoever ends up in their clutches over there is just obscene. If this is what passes for CIA/NSA/CID interrogation "policy" then we need to clean house and quick.

After 9/11 I thought that even if the US turned a bit repressive, it would be better than being at the mercy of terrorists who could kill us with impugnity and hide behind our laws. It's not. Those people who died in the towers may have been murdered by stupid and ignorant terrorists, but they died as honorable and innocent humans. If this president has allowed a policy to exist that has had the effect of turning our honorable troops into a good facsimile of those stupid and ignorant terrorists then I will make it a priority to not only vote against him, but will also hit the streets in protest to help defeat him in November.

You heard it here first.

-z

PS: As of now there is no evidence of anything other than the wrongdoing of a few individuals....I await the outcome of the investigations.

I completely respect the sincerity and force of this statement.

What I would like to know is whether:
"if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties...."
Do both of these conditions have to be met, and why?
How general does the policy have to be?
What is the standard of proof?

Rik, believe it or not, these questions are asked with love and respect.

 

[aerosolben]

Re: Re: Switch Sides?

A fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, narrow constructionist Democrat.

So if a fiscally moderate, socially libertarian, narrow (or at least moderate) constructionist Democrat went up against a heavy spending, socially authoritarian, activist Republican...

you'd vote for the Republican?

Maybe you should settle for 2 out of 3.

 

[subgenius]

for those who can't vote for Bush and can't vote for Kerry how about staying home that day?

 

[Dorian Gray]

I am not a Democrat, although some might consider me liberal. To get me to switch to the other side, maybe a guy who looks a lot like a woman could...... oh wait a minute.
To get me to switch, just have John McCain run in 2004.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I am strongly tempted to waste my vote on a Libertarian candidate this year.

If Lieberman were running instead of Kerry, I might be convinced to vote for Lieberman.

 

[davefoc]

I've already switched sides and I think it is very unlikely that anything will change my mind before the election.

John Kerry will be the third Democrat that I have voted for in my life. I voter for Carter because I was pissed at Ford for pardoning Nixon and I voted for Jerry Brown for governor of CA because I liked his counterculture independence.

Dave's rant follows:

On the econonmy Bush is anything but a fiscal conservative.
I believe agricultural subsidies are at all time highs.
He pushed through a budget busting, pro drug company drug bill and lied about its consequences.
He pushed through protective tariffs for steel mills and only backed down after Europe threatened a trade war.
We are now running some of the largest deficits in years, only some of which can be attributed to 9/11 and the Iraq war.

Internationally Bush is looking like a disaster
His justification for the Iraq war is now known to be false.
It appears there have been several missteps with the handling of the Iraq occupation.
The use of Haliburton as a prime contractor based on no bid contracts has at least the strong appearance of straight forward corruption and then when Haliburton was got red handed in kick back schemes the original contract looked even worse
Bush's bizarre backing of Sharon in the middle of the Iraq occupation seems to have been done purely for domestic political reasons and American soldiers in Iraq will die because of it.
The grinning idiot, Rumsfeld, is at least partially responsible for the prisoner mistreatment disaster and Bush's only punishment seems to be to leak something to the effect that he's not happy with him.
It is clear that the 9/11 disaster was not prevented by the Bush administration and it happened on their watch and there are signs that more vigilance on their part might have prevented it. Condi Rice's nonsense statement about how she hadn't heard of four planes being used by suicide bombers but maybe she'd heard of one plane being used by suicide bomber before 9/11 isn't very reassuring about what was going on in the white house with regard to terrorism.

More than anything, I think it is time for a change with regard to international relations. A new administration may have a little more credibility with allies and with the Iraqis to help resolve the disaster as soon as possible.

Overall Bush may be the worst president since before 1900. I think electing somebody else has become very important and right now Kerry looks like that somebody else and I can't quite imagine what could happen that would make me change my mind.

Edited to add
I forgot to mention the embarassing and counterproductive and failed scheming in Venezuela. Although the screwups there are so small compared to some of the other screwups maybe nobody will notice.

Edited to add:
I forgot to mention the Bush administrations politicization of science to support their own agenda. See the recent scientific American editorial on this for more details. I'd post a link but I'm not sure they're allowed in rants.

 

[Frank Newgent]

If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality...if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties....then I pledge here and now to hold GWB responsible at the ballot box and will loudly cast my vote for Mr. Kerry.

Achieve vocal mastery by improving breath support, relaxation, confidence, pitch control, diction, and increased range at the polling place.

SEN. JACK REED: Well, I share Sen. Collins conclusion that there's still many questions that are unanswered. There's still a question of really what policy for interrogation applied.

Gen. Sanchez maintained that he never approved the policy which last week the Department of Army presented to us as his policy.

And yet Col. Warren, the jag officer, indicated that a young captain in the facility had promulgated a policy, the one that Gen. Sanchez didn't recognize and it was posted on bulletin boards where apparently it was operational.

So there are still serious questions about how the policy evolved and responsibility for senior leaders to making sure that the right policy, whatever that was, was a policy that was in place in the prison.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/senators_5-19.html

What's an "interrogation policy extract", rik?

"Our doctrine is not right," said General Abizaid. "There are so many things that are out there that aren't right in the way that we operate for this war. This is a doctrinal problem of understanding where you bring, what do the M.P.'s do, what do the military intelligence guys do."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/i...84974bd692bc4a5d&ex=1085630400&partner=GOOGLE

Doctrine, policy...hmmm.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Hanoi John Kerry drops out of the race and Lieberman is back in. You can count on my vote then.

 

[subgenius]

BUSH PRETENDS HE NEVER GAVE SECRET PRISON ORDER

Two weeks ago, President Bush appeared on Arab television claiming that he
wanted to stop the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and implying that he had
nothing to do with the policies that led to them. During his appearance Bush
said, "We want to make sure that if there is a systemic problem -- in other
words, if there's a problem system-wide -- that we stop the practices" (1).
However, a new report appears to show that the President and top
Administration officials may have authorized procedures that led to the
abuses in the first place.

A new investigation by Newsweek "shows that President Bush, along with
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed
off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door
to such methods" of abuse and torture as documented at Abu Ghraib (2). The
secret orders were designed "to sidestep the historical safeguards of the
Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of
war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin
Powell and America's top military lawyers."

The President has repeatedly said he wants to "usher in an era of personal
responsibility" (3). Yet, despite these revelations, the White House has
yet to admit any culpability. When asked whether a crucial Presidential
legal memo (4) attempting to skirt the Geneva Conventions (5) helped to
create the atmosphere that led to the prison abuses, White House spokesman
Scott McClellan said, "Absolutely not" (6).

Sources:
1. President Bush Meets with Al Arabiya Television on Wednesday, 05/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36188.
2. "The Roots of Torture", Newsweek, 05/24/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36189.
3. President Bush Discusses Progress in Education in St. Louis, 01/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36190.
4. "Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings", Newsweek, 05/19/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36191.
5. "Report: White House Memo Backed Abuse", San Francisco Chronicle,
05/17/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36192.
6. Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, 05/17/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36193.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=36194 >