2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.

I am not saying the gay marriage issue WILL work for Bush, I am saying that there is enough of of chance that it MIGHT work, to give it a try.

I suspect Bush & Co will "test drive" the issue, i.e. pound Kerry with it in smaller state that is fairly cheap to buy media in (Iowa would be my pick) and see if the issue has any traction.... if it does, they will expand it to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, MIssori, WEst Virginia, etc,... if not... not...

Yeah, that seems liekly. Somehting I reacted to was that people apparently are more accepting of abortion then of gay marriage, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Gustaf]

Do you think a similar attack on Madrid in America would lose the Republicans the White House? If so, where do you think the effects would be felt hardest, which states and why? Or do you believe that if there was a terror attack on that scale, that the Republicans would be doomed for re-election?

Siege40

A terror attack would help Bush by creating an urge for strong leadership on national security, but hurt him by raising questions about his ability as CIC. Overall, I think it would help him, but that's my opinion.

[Gustaf]

You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.

[Gustaf]

BUSH WILL WIN IN NOV!! AND ALL THE DEMOCARTS NEED TO STOP CRYING OVER IT!!!

John is that you?

[Gustaf]

You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.

This is a bit unrelated - but I though the way spain has reacted to the terrorist event with something like 8 to 11 MILLION people protesting/demonstratind (roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire population!) was pure and total class.

Millions of people getting together to collectively give Bin Laden (or whoever?) the  Middle Finger Salute - well done Spain!

This too is a bit off topic, but back in the late 80s when the communists running El-salvador were silly enough to actually hold semi-fair elections I remember seeing a documentary film.  You had hundreds of poor peasants waiting hours in line to vote while the communists were LITERALLY shelling the polling station with mortars - Turn out in that election was over 95%+

Here, despite every effort to make it as easy as possible to vote, we barely get 50% - Half our politicians think this is some kind of case for the FBI and not a war, and way too few seem to be willing to say that there is some sacrifice and price to be paid for our freedom.

Do we really have the stomach to win this war? -
Sometimes I am afraid we do not..

I agree on the Spain thing. That was very impressive indeed. The picures in the papers this morning of it made you pause and think.

And a good point on turnout as well. I remember the long lines ov voters in the Zimbabwe election as well, where the government closed down polling stations in opposition areas.

[Gustaf]

Protests are nice, but it wont stop terrorists attacks. You stop force with force.

Nonsense. A psycological war is primarily won by psychology, not force. And is essentially a war of minds and hearts. Look at Vietnam.

[Gustaf]

Ok, so you think we can beat Osama and his dogs by protesting them and just arresting a few of them? When they come and kill us we need to go to them and kill three times more of them. We need to obliterate the killers hideouts, hate temples, caves, any other place they hide. The problem w/the military today is they want to "pussyfoot" around and not show some muscle. The U.S. showed muscle in Europe and Asia and we subdued them sure enough.

I don't know what you're talking about in that last sentence. If you're talking about the World Wars, it's not the same thing. And I don't think you won wars by killing a certain amount of people. That's what you did in Vietnam and guess what? Doesn't work. You need to win the psycholgical war, that's the only way you can lose, in all certainity.

[Gustaf]

America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true

It's not you who'll be doing that 'allowing' of Wstern influences, though.

[Gustaf]

Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.

The Koran is about as violent as the Bible, i think. It's all a mtter of interpretation. Look at the inqustion.

[Gustaf]

America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true

It's not you who'll be doing that 'allowing' of Wstern influences, though.

??

The governments of those countries are so far preventing Western influences.

[Gustaf]

We need to care for both Pakistan and India, and control what people think there. That will become the most dangerous place on Earth.

Yeah, you can use the mind control machine that I built. It works like a clock...

[Gustaf]

Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.

The Koran is about as violent as the Bible, i think. It's all a mtter of interpretation. Look at the inqustion.

Do I need to put up all the links about the Islamic beleif system again?\

Christianity is no where near as violent as Islam.

That's mostly due to how we choose to interpret it. Look at the OT, it's pretty violent. The Koran mostly consists of the Bible anyway.

[Gustaf]

Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

[Gustaf]

Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...

[Gustaf]

Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...

statesrights put it here couple of times
check the thread

I can't find it in the last 5 pages or so.

[Gustaf]

OK I will repost some of them again :

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm

thank you

I read the first one. Not to be offenseive, but the site seems a little weird...I now that the Koran can be interpreted to be violent. Now, to point at a few facts:

1. Throughout mediaeval times, most Muslim countries were relatively tolerant, espeically Turkey, a country long renowned for religious tolerance.

2. European Christians throughout most of this time was extremely intolerant, especially in Spain, and persecuted, not only non-Christians, but all who believed in the wrong brand of Christianity relentlessly.

I am not defending Muslim fundamentalism. I am fully aware of the fact that mainstream Islam today preaches violence, etc. But I don't think this is a necessary part of their religion, it's a stage that they will leave when they become more secular, just like we've done in the Western world.

[Gustaf]

Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm

Sounds like Jmfcst's church...I'd rather to go someone unbiased for opinion on a religious document though.

[Gustaf]

I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Of course they can, they're Americans...

[Gustaf]

I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

It depends on your definiton of winning. I maintain that the nuke strategy I proposed in another thread is the best way to win.

[Gustaf]

I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

While I love the implied talk of Genocide, what does this have to do with the 2004 election?

Siege40

Everything. A nuclear sweep by Bush could seal the election for him. He could declare the war on terrorism over.

[Gustaf]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

[Gustaf]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.

[Gustaf]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.

We slaughtered a lot of people on purpose - Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.

Yeah, but they had the object of breaking the enemy's morale. But the only real difference between us and fascists are that they want people to cooperate and stuff.