***Voter Registration Deadlines are coming up, each state has their own deadlines as listed in the link below. ***
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
utd
whats your gut feel, what will be the outcome, keeping in mind all that is going on, or will ppl forget rationality and vote based on party lines
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Well, we've got four weeks to go and if you would have asked me this question 3 weeks go I would have said the momentum had swung back to the Republican side but now there is no question the momentum is on the Democrats side, but with 4 weeks a lot can still happen.
That said the latest poll via NewsWeek shows something that should make the GOP incredibly worried, for the first time since 2001 Democrats are 'more trusted to fight the war on terror' than Republicans. Now that's only 1 poll but if that belief is wide spread then honestly what are the Republicans going to run on? If this poll is widespread then their campaign of fear that so many run on is going to actually hurt them come election day. The same poll shows that 8 years after Clinton's misconduct with Lewinsky the Democrats are seen as having better moral values than the Republicans, if widespread the Republican base is being chipped away. That leaves the Republicans running on a platform about making tax cuts for the wealthy, is that going to win them elections?
I'm disappointed that it's not Iraq or how the 'war on terror' has been handle that has shaken things up but the Foley cluster bomb. That said I think the Foley bombshell is causing people to examine how the Republican Congress has handle issues as a whole and is going beyond just the sex issue yet it's the sex issue which keeps it alive in the media.
Foley seems to have been a shot of expresso to American voters and it's alerted them to things beyond the scandle, If the election was held today I think the Democrats would take over both houses, I wouldn't have said that 3 weeks ago. I just hope the expresso shot doesn't wear off in 4 weeks.
~~~~~~
I think teeh more telling question about how things are going and how things are goign to go November 7th would be your opinion as you are a former Bush supporter. What's your take on everything?
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
It's a pity that the 'espresso' shot came in the form of Mark Foley's scandal & salacious (sp?) emails. It's always sex! Jack Abramoff/Ralph Reid/Grover Norquist lobbying scandal is a far more insidious problem in US politics but it's off the front pages. I wonder why americans are not yelling and screaming over the Abramoff racket. Do they tacitly approve of such special interest politics?
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Foley screwed the republicans. They'd do very well to not get hammered now.
But an interesting question is who should americans who have Muslim interests in mind vote for. Clearly the anti-war movement is a part of the left, but a fringe part. The american left is like the british left, with some element of muted lip service to Muslim causes.
The democrat position is not an "end" to the "war on terror" but a "different" way to fight it. Assuming democrats come in power, you can be pretty sure that american bombs will continue to fall in Muslim lands, just different ones, maybe. From the democratic strategists I see in the media, it doesnt seem like they look too kindly at Pakistan for example.
So given that Pakistan benefits from the right wingers and the left wingers are traditionally pro-India, and given that both sides would continue the "war on terror", who should Pakistanies support?
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
good point and i think utd said similar thing. I am a little confused myself that Foley is what is shaking the status quo and not the more serious issues includingf mismanagement of war and the whole lobbyist issues.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
as long as you're casting your vote on a Diebold machine, don't expect anyone but a Republican to win when the votes are 'counted'..
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
oh they are still using those pieces of crap rigged machines?
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
just wait for another scandal, or American's capturing a high profile guy, or a bomb blast (terrorist attack) in Europe. Republican's have the Christian right on there side, and no amount of Democrats reality check can say otherwise.
i think it'll be a good race, and the end result will be a narrow republican victory.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Pakistan is better off if Republicans wins
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
The World is better off if Democrats win, but seeing how the people vote, that won't happen, I mean come on they voted for Bush twice...buncha idiots.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
^ actually the world is better off if Republican's win, Since the end of cold war, only USA has been the dominant player, with Republican foreign policy the world is being divided into blocks which in turn will help the world restore the balance of power.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
'still'?? HAVA mandates the conversion of all machines to electronic.. Feds are spending $3.8b of our money to ensure all states comply by next general elections so we'll have no paper trail of our votes..
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Vote for all Republican candidates to really piss off the Dems, who like all liberals the world over are hypocrites...otherwise go for indys...
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Che miaN,
I am curious. In what ways have the Democrats let you down and their hypocrisy hurt your personal life? How come you are not voting in the US elections? :D
PS: you remind me of a poster from the Rag days.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Please read ma post again and do tell me where I state that I won't be voting in the US elections...
BTW, Dems nay meri jaidaad harrap karli hai...that's why I don't like them...
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
BTW, Dems nay meri jaidaad harrap karli hai...that's why I don't like them...
What you don't 'state' and what you are not able to do are two different things.
Regarding your 'jaidaad', Dems don't take from the poor, republicans do.
Chalo ghussa cho'ore doh, shabaash. :D
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
Ok Miss Cleo, I will keep that in mind, the next time I don't state what I am not able to do...
And Speaking of Dems when you have Dems like Liebermann, doing the bidding for big business and AIPAC/Likud as well as such stalwarts as Clinton and Schumer...and rest of the lot who had no problem rubber stamping an illegal war and passing draconian laws such as the Patriot Act suspending Habeas Corpus, I'd rather vote for somebody who atleast I'd be contend to know at face value is not so fond of people of my background...
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
CheGuvera you are way off base on your assessment of Democrats. Democrats know the war on terror won't be won with bombs and Democrats aren't the ones sucking away liberties but in fact have opposed Bush's tactics. The Bush admin's entire 'make it up as we go' in respect to EOW's is unacceptable. The Republicans 'our way or the highway' approach has shown to be a failure and once the Democrats are in control the Bush team will be held accountable, right now you have a Republican controlled congress that protects them and won't allow that to happen. As far as congress doing the bidding for big business I agree with you and one of the first things a Democratic controlled Congress will do is overhaul the relationship lobbies have with Congress. It's been 12 years, Congress is corrupt and has been left unchecked far to long. It's time to bring accountability and personal responsibility, and if you don't like what they do then vote Republican in 2008.
Re: U.S. Elections: November 7th, 2006
The Democrats and the War on Civil Liberties
By JOSHUA FRANK
I'm still wondering where all the damn outrage is, and I'm not talking about the Foley scandal. On September 29, the Senate voted 100-0 in favor of the pork-swollen Pentagon Budget, which earmarked $70 billion for our ongoing military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no debate over the appropriations and not one Democrat voted against the egregious spending. On the same day, the Senate also overwhelmingly approved the dismantling of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". Twelve Democrats sided with the Republicans to allow the US government to detain people arbitrarily and indefinitely
We shouldn't be all that surprised the Democrats didn't filibuster the awful bill, which also expanded the definition of "enemy combatant" to include anybody who "has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Whatever that's supposed to mean. No, the Democrats have long been on the frontlines of the federal government's assault on our civil liberties.
In fact, what we are seeing today is just a logical continuation of a foundation laid during the Clinton era. Before the now well-known Patriot Act there was The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which was signed into law following the Oklahoma City bombing. "The act was wide-ranging, dealing with everything from the making of plastic explosives to trading in nuclear materials," writes Georgetown law professor David Cole and James X. Dempsey in Terrorism and the Constitution.
"Members of Congress immediately felt tremendous pressure to pass antiterrorism legislation," Cole and Dempsey recall. "It did not matter that the proposals in the President's initial bill were directed largely against international terrorism, while the Oklahoma bombing was the work of homegrown discontents Eager to get the bill on the President's desk by the April 19 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Senate adopted the conference report on April 17 in a 91-8 vote. The next day, the House also adopted the report by a vote of 293-133. On April 24, President Clinton signed The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996."
"To make the death penalty effective," explains civil liberties expert Elaine Cassel in The War on Civil Liberties, "meant making it harder to appeal convictions of capital offenses." Clinton's law, says Cassel, also "[made] it a crime to support even the lawful activities of an organization labeled as terrorist [authorized] the FBI to investigate the crime of 'material support' for terrorism based solely on activities protected under the First Amendment [freezes] assets of any US citizen or domestic organization believed to be an agent of a terrorist group, without specifying an 'agent' [expanded] the powers of the secret court [repealed] the law that barred the FBI from opening investigations based solely on activities protected under the First Amendment [and allowed] the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now called the US Citizenship and Immigration Services) to deport citizens (mostly Muslims) upon the order of INS officials."
Of course, these are but a few of the ways in which the Clinton administration infringed upon civil liberties. Speaking of the legacy of these breaches in the guarantee of civil liberties, Clinton himself admitted to making "a number of ill-advised changes in our immigration laws, having nothing to do with fighting terrorism."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
In the wake of September 11, it wasn't surprising that Clinton's successor George W. Bush legislated additional infringements upon civil liberties in the name of patriotism and national security. And yes, the Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Patriot Act in both of its awful versions. But it wasn't the Patriot Act that allowed the federal government to make those sweeping detentions across the country immediately following 9/11 -- it was Clinton's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty bill.
So, who is honestly supposed to believe that ushering the Democrats back into office in November will bring any sort of legitimate change -- in Iraq, or back at home?