-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
OFFICIAL ELECTION THREAD MEANS ALL ELECTION-RELATED STUFF GOES IN HERE, DUR
- Thread starter Mandark
- Start date
- Status
Heh. My sister went to that too, she was really excited about it.MIMIC said:John Kerry was at my school today (Ohio State University).
I fucking shook hand!!!
More for the fact that she'd never been to any big political thing like that before than that she's a big Kerry supporter.
videogamer
Banned
Clinton is coming to Las Vegas this weekend. Too bad I'm going to be busy canvassing instead. :/
ErasureAcer
Banned
Biden blows. But at least he is better than Holbrooke(the other name floating around for SoS).
Kerry better put some progressive people in his cabinet like Robert Kennedy Jr, Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton.
And I talked to and shook Dennis Kucinich's hand. Even had my picture taken with him(although the moron who took the picture didn't know how to properly work my camera).
Now that's something to be happy about!
Kucinich >>>> Kerry >>>> Edwards
Kerry better put some progressive people in his cabinet like Robert Kennedy Jr, Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton.
And I talked to and shook Dennis Kucinich's hand. Even had my picture taken with him(although the moron who took the picture didn't know how to properly work my camera).
Now that's something to be happy about!
Kucinich >>>> Kerry >>>> Edwards
Pffft. I've shook hands with Ralph Nader, and spoke with him for over 15 minutes back in 2000.
Nader>>>>>>>>>Kucinich>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Edwards.
But yeah, Fightin' Joe Biden as SoS sounds good. I would think that Max Cleland would make a good Secretary of Defense, either him or Sam Nunn(who might be getting up there in years).
Nader>>>>>>>>>Kucinich>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Edwards.
But yeah, Fightin' Joe Biden as SoS sounds good. I would think that Max Cleland would make a good Secretary of Defense, either him or Sam Nunn(who might be getting up there in years).
http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2004/1101041101_400.jpg
The latest Time is pretty good. The cover's a bit overdramatic, but the corresponding story ends on a note of optimism:
The latest Time is pretty good. The cover's a bit overdramatic, but the corresponding story ends on a note of optimism:
boredJonathan
Member
So where is everyone turning to for their election day coverage?
I have the day off, (sad that this made me excited no?), and I'm planning on watching CNN and maybe Fox ocassionally just to see what they are spouting off about. Although from doing some digging around for that old Fareinheight 9/11 thread I found out every news organization gets their poll results from one freaking company so I guess it really doesn't matter too much. It then just becomes a race to be the first to call such and such state. That being said, I still plan on tuning into CNN for the majority of the day, and then catching the Daily Show live thing they are doing.
(And for those with Sirius Sat Radio I suggest tuning into the Young Turks on TalkLeft for some damn good commentary on election day. That's what I will have on in the background with the sound on the TV muted.)
And of course, I'll have GAF in the background so I can hammer this little thread untill it bleeds. I imagine most of the regulars will be here too.
I have the day off, (sad that this made me excited no?), and I'm planning on watching CNN and maybe Fox ocassionally just to see what they are spouting off about. Although from doing some digging around for that old Fareinheight 9/11 thread I found out every news organization gets their poll results from one freaking company so I guess it really doesn't matter too much. It then just becomes a race to be the first to call such and such state. That being said, I still plan on tuning into CNN for the majority of the day, and then catching the Daily Show live thing they are doing.
(And for those with Sirius Sat Radio I suggest tuning into the Young Turks on TalkLeft for some damn good commentary on election day. That's what I will have on in the background with the sound on the TV muted.)
And of course, I'll have GAF in the background so I can hammer this little thread untill it bleeds. I imagine most of the regulars will be here too.
videogamer
Banned
Red Mercury said:
:/ Just join a phone bank or help drive people to the polls. Erm I to leave soon lol
Chesapeake Silt
Member
I hate quoting Drudge, but this is too funny:
:lol
:lol
Outdoor Miner
Member
I don't have cable, so it's GA and ABCnews for me!
evil solrac v3.0
Member
deadlifter said:
why?
evil solrac v3.0 said:
http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp
Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins home football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936.
Status: True.
Wow, just when you think the RNC couldn't stoop any lower than the "LIBERALS WANNA BAN THE BIBLE" fliers they mailed in swing states, they decide to one-up themselves with this fucking garbage:
Fucking outrageous. BC04 must be feeling the heat and I hope they're slaughtered in the polls on November 2nd.
Fucking outrageous. BC04 must be feeling the heat and I hope they're slaughtered in the polls on November 2nd.
siamesedreamer
Banned
I'm a registered REP in Georgia and I'm voting for Bush and Johnny Isakson. I'm trying to be objective about all the things going on and here are my thoughts.
A Bush Win:
I think a Bush win would be disastrous for REPs long term. He is so polarizing that I think the 2006 midterms would be a DEM revolution tilting both houses back to the DEMs (if not put them back in the majority). I also think a Bush win could lead to 12-16 years of a DEM White House. I can't stand Rumsfeld (Bush needs to fire him immediately) and Bush completely dropped the ball by listening to Rummy when he went into Iraq without enough troops (as it turns out to be true now). I think all the problems in Iraq go back to that very thing - too little troops from the outset. That being said, 4 years is a long time in politics and my dreary forcast for a DEM revolution could turn out to be completely wrong.
I think Bush has stronger convictions than Kerry and as a result is better suited to run the country in this time of terrorism. The economy (through the tax cuts) has been roaring back to life in the last 18 months or so. There's been 1.9 million new jobs created since 8/03. I would like to see the neo-con dream of a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east given 4 more years to see it through (as I think Kerry probably will cut and run - though not at first). I desperately would like to see Bush's idea of privatizing Social Security for young workers (that's probably the biggest reason why Bush gets my vote).
A Kerry Win:
For all intents and purposes, this is the far left's last chance for a major power grab as I don't think Hillary has a prayer in 2008 should Kerry lose. Kerry would essentially be powerless through 2006 as both houses are controlled by the REPs. That's a comforting thought. I think he loves his country and would do everything possible to protect it. I also think there's a tiny chance that he could get other countries involved in Iraq.
But, there are so many things that he has shown me that makes it fundamentally impossible for me to vote for him. First, he wants to saddle my generation (I'm 27) with debt from another major government entitlement program in the form of government subsidized healthcare for millions and millions of Americans. My generation is already on the hook for trillions and trillions of dollars due to baby boomers in the form of SS and Medicare beginning in 2009. It would be fiscally disastrous and irresponsable to put this burden on us. This also relates to Kerry wanting to completely ignore the impending SS crunch that is a reality for me and my generation. It is outrageous for him to ignore it and not want to change a progam that is a dinosaur and is on life support.
Second, the Supreme Court only has one member under the retirement age. There's a good chance that who ever is elected Tuesday will get to nominate a new SC justice. It is absolutely frightening who Kerry could chose to sit on the bench (yeah, I know the Senate has to approve it). What I consider to be a pretty good make up of the SC could suddenly end up looking like San Francisco's 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals under a Kerry presidency (good forbid he gets re-elected). Had the DEMs nominated a more moderate candidate, this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue for me.
I think it an absolute farce that Kerry's running mate could be VP or in a disastrous scenario POTUS. This guy has 4 years as a junior senator from NC on his resume and that's it. He very likely would not have even been re-elected had he not decided to run for president. He doesn't deserve to be where he's at right now. I would have been much more comfortable with a Wesley Clark in the VP spot. His credentials far exceed anything Edwards has ever done.
There are many, many more issues that I could name, but they are petty and would only ignite stupid resonses from other posters.
Anyway, I hope we actually know who has won Tuesday night. Sadly, I don't think that will happen.
A Bush Win:
I think a Bush win would be disastrous for REPs long term. He is so polarizing that I think the 2006 midterms would be a DEM revolution tilting both houses back to the DEMs (if not put them back in the majority). I also think a Bush win could lead to 12-16 years of a DEM White House. I can't stand Rumsfeld (Bush needs to fire him immediately) and Bush completely dropped the ball by listening to Rummy when he went into Iraq without enough troops (as it turns out to be true now). I think all the problems in Iraq go back to that very thing - too little troops from the outset. That being said, 4 years is a long time in politics and my dreary forcast for a DEM revolution could turn out to be completely wrong.
I think Bush has stronger convictions than Kerry and as a result is better suited to run the country in this time of terrorism. The economy (through the tax cuts) has been roaring back to life in the last 18 months or so. There's been 1.9 million new jobs created since 8/03. I would like to see the neo-con dream of a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east given 4 more years to see it through (as I think Kerry probably will cut and run - though not at first). I desperately would like to see Bush's idea of privatizing Social Security for young workers (that's probably the biggest reason why Bush gets my vote).
A Kerry Win:
For all intents and purposes, this is the far left's last chance for a major power grab as I don't think Hillary has a prayer in 2008 should Kerry lose. Kerry would essentially be powerless through 2006 as both houses are controlled by the REPs. That's a comforting thought. I think he loves his country and would do everything possible to protect it. I also think there's a tiny chance that he could get other countries involved in Iraq.
But, there are so many things that he has shown me that makes it fundamentally impossible for me to vote for him. First, he wants to saddle my generation (I'm 27) with debt from another major government entitlement program in the form of government subsidized healthcare for millions and millions of Americans. My generation is already on the hook for trillions and trillions of dollars due to baby boomers in the form of SS and Medicare beginning in 2009. It would be fiscally disastrous and irresponsable to put this burden on us. This also relates to Kerry wanting to completely ignore the impending SS crunch that is a reality for me and my generation. It is outrageous for him to ignore it and not want to change a progam that is a dinosaur and is on life support.
Second, the Supreme Court only has one member under the retirement age. There's a good chance that who ever is elected Tuesday will get to nominate a new SC justice. It is absolutely frightening who Kerry could chose to sit on the bench (yeah, I know the Senate has to approve it). What I consider to be a pretty good make up of the SC could suddenly end up looking like San Francisco's 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals under a Kerry presidency (good forbid he gets re-elected). Had the DEMs nominated a more moderate candidate, this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue for me.
I think it an absolute farce that Kerry's running mate could be VP or in a disastrous scenario POTUS. This guy has 4 years as a junior senator from NC on his resume and that's it. He very likely would not have even been re-elected had he not decided to run for president. He doesn't deserve to be where he's at right now. I would have been much more comfortable with a Wesley Clark in the VP spot. His credentials far exceed anything Edwards has ever done.
There are many, many more issues that I could name, but they are petty and would only ignite stupid resonses from other posters.
Anyway, I hope we actually know who has won Tuesday night. Sadly, I don't think that will happen.
siamesedreamer said:
Um? Hello? McFly? You already are saddled with a huge debt thanks to Dubya and his complete inability to veto one spending bill in four years. This, of course, wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't slash taxes for people who, honestly, didn't really need it.
You know it's a strange election year when the *Democrat* is promising to be more fiscally responsible.
Holy fuck.
On a serious note, though, what does "conviction" have to do with anything? And what the hell does that word MEAN, anyway? Does it mean that you refuse to change your mind, regardless of the evidence presented? Does it mean that you are hoping for a theocratic state?
(Mad as hell, not going to take it anymore...fuck yeah. Keep counting to 20. Breathe. Holy FUCK.)
Since I can't resist the obvious pun: You're damn right Bush is going to have a stronger conviction. Wait until the Halliburton shit sorts itself out.siamesedreamer said:
On a serious note, though, what does "conviction" have to do with anything? And what the hell does that word MEAN, anyway? Does it mean that you refuse to change your mind, regardless of the evidence presented? Does it mean that you are hoping for a theocratic state?
"Far left?" Holy fuck, he says again. Despite the oft-repeated and thoroughly debunked talking point about Kerry being the "most liberal Senator," he is, in fact, firmly in the middle of the Democratic spectrum, and I daresay closer to moderate American views than the neocon-influenced crap that the Republicans have been spewing lately.
Have you seen the national debt and budget deficit numbers under BUSH? I think Kerry could give away free money in the center of every town in America and still not fuck up the bottom line as badly as Bush has.
Just because YOU prefer an ultra-conservative Supreme Court doesn't mean that it's a good idea. There is no more reason to fear Kerry's possible choices than Bush's possible choices...and, given the wonky religious ideas that Bush (and Bush's associates, such as John Ashcroft) adhere to, I'm far LESS worried about a Kerry-selected SC than a Bush-selected one.
Hey, buddy, you're 27, and you're running your mouth in this thread like you pretend to have a clue. If you think YOUR ideas ought to be taken with any degree of seriousness, then John Edwards sure as hell can run this country. How many years have YOU served in government again?
Oooh...even pettier and more wrong than the ones you already said? Oh, please, DO share with the class!
(Mad as hell, not going to take it anymore...fuck yeah. Keep counting to 20. Breathe. Holy FUCK.)
boredJonathan
Member
siamesedreamer said:
While I agree that a Bush win this Tuesday would only serve to polarize this country even further. This country is already heavily divided, and I hope that whoever gets elected wins by a decent margin, with both the popular and the electoral vote or 2008 will be extremely ugly.
But the main point I want to make is that I completely agree with you all all issues you've brought up, (Rumsfeld needs to go, not enough troups) but I think that all of the problems with Iraq go back to the failure of intelligence. Or to put it more in terms with how I am thinking of it, it comes down to the fact that this Preident wanted to go to war with Iraq and found the reports that supported that action while ignoring all the evidence to the opposite. That is far away my biggest problem with the Iraq war. Adding in all of the other problems, such as not enough planning for troops, and the post war conditions just make this a president I can not vote for.
siamesedreamer said:
As for stronger convictions bit, I'll give you that. My problem is that Bush does not seem capable of admitting his mistakes, and then doing something about them. He'll say things didn't go the way they had planned, but then not change anything about his current actions. In terms of the economy, I'm not horribly well versed on it, but I was under the impression that it wasn't really doing all that great. More of a 'the stock market isn't doing too bad, but nothing else is really catching that momentum', feel free to point me in the direction of something that would enlighten me.
The jobs thing is more just horrible spin then anything else. Bush has lost jobs. He has yet to create any new jobs above what he had when going into office. As I am sure you have heard, that would make him the first president in a very long time to have a negative net loss of jobs while in office. His job creation policy is just now starting to chip away at the huge losses he has accrued, and unfortunately the jobs that are now being created are not near the quality of the jobs that were lost.
The neo-con idea for the middle east scares the shit out of me. Seriously. Look at the way the middle east neo-con plan has played out so far. Horribly. World domination is not something that I think is good for America and I definately do no think it's good for the world at large. We need to have a bit more restraint that just going in and trying to over throw different regimes. As for having a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east.. well I don't think we'll see it in another 4 years, and I doubt that even if we did, no matter under which President, it will have absolutely no legitmacy in that region. IN the long run it would be a great thing to have, but unfortunately coupled with the way that Iraqi in general was handled I think we have a very long wait to see anything good come out of that region in terms of democratic ideals.
In regards to Bush's privatizing social security.. wasn't this something he campaigned on in 2000? What the hell is he waiting for? Beyond the fact that I don't think it's the greatest idea, (the system we have now can work with some tweaking, and if we still had that surplus that Bush went through to make the largest deficit.), I wonder why alot of Bush's platforms are the excat same as the ones he ran on in 2000. I guess the war takes up most of his time...
siamesedreamer said:
I wouldn't put Kerry at the far left, but I can see how you might have that idea thanks to the unfortunately often cited Republican study that puts him 'more left' than Ted Kenedy. As for the comment about Hillary Clinton, I really don't think that having a woman run for President, much less the wife of the guy who actually balanced the budget, would be that bad of an idea nor do I see how if Kerry lost this election would have any effect on who would run in 2008. Anyways... I agree with you, for different reasons, that having Kerry as preisdent and the House/Senate as Republican would be good. It's a nice balance. It goes back to the idea of checks and balances that our government was founded on. I'd probably like to see the Senate go democratic instead of Republican.. but if it stays, I'm not going to be horribly upset. I think that this country opperates best when one side does not controll all aspects of the government. Just look at the Clinton era. This country got a helluvalot taken care of in those 8 years and thing were looking good before we lost this check and balance system.
As for loving his country and protecting it, I agree whole heartedly. In return, I also think Bush loves this country as well.. but the ideas on 'how' to protect is are where I think Kerry is more on mark. Again, agreed on the issue of Kerry being able to get more support from other countries. If not man power, then at least money, in exchange for cutting loose some of this no-bid Halliburton contracts.
siamesedream said:
The reason we need to change the way SS is being handled is because the money that was put aside for helping cover that huge gap has been taken away by Bush via his tax cuts and other economic actions. The reason Bush keeps harping on needed to change it is because his current policy on those issues just does not allow for the system to sustain itself and he can't find the money to cover it since he spent it all. (and then some)
AS for healthcare, I don't see what is horrible wrong about offering choices. But again, this is unfortunately an area that I know very little about. And again, if you'd care to point me in a direction I'd be happy to discuss further.
siamesedreamer said:
I unfortunately can't comment so much on this, as I don't think Kerry is on the far left side and not a moderate. I find it far more frightening to think what kind of people someone who has appointed evangelical Christens into his office, would get appointed to the SC. Your comment on San Franciso Superme Court makes me wonder how much you know on the issues though. What makes you think Kerry would appoint some radical judge? (As opposed to Bush who basically said that he would appoint somone who would fight to abolish abortion and would side with the far rights idea of equal and deny gay rights.)
siamesedreamer said:
It's much better to just skip the senate and go from being governor for a few years to being Preident isn't it? While I agree that Edwards doesn't have much experience, it's a little unfounded to bash him for having so little elected time under his belt considering who is in office. That being said, the committees that Edwards is on has me hopeful that if something should happen he would not be completely lost.
siamesedreamer said:
I hope nothing I said came off as a stupid response, as I honestly did not mean any of the above in an ill mannered way. Just saw you points and figured they offered a good way of me explaining why I will be voting for Kerry.
And yeah.. I have a feeling that Tuesday will be a long night. I hope that we will have a clear answer, but with the way things have been playing out in the swing states.. I have a very bad feeling about it. I think if the turnout of newly registered voters is as high as they have been hoping then we have a chance of things just being clear cut, other wise I think we will be in for another long haul.
boredJonathan
Member
-jinx- said:
Or... what he said.
videogamer
Banned
First night impression at Las Vegas tonight: OMG people smoke a lot here. I'm in an internet cafe covering my mouth with my sweater. And I need Excel and Word DARN IT.
And there was a guy who looked exactly like miyuru
And there was a guy who looked exactly like miyuru
As you know I am not american which makes every comment I made a bit "offtopic". But there is one thing I have always thought:
When EVERYBODY says EVERYTHING but good things about a person, there is a strong possibility they are trying to bias you against that person. And that's something that European media has been doing for a long time. Well, I ask to myself: Hasn't he done something GOOD ?
That said my vote would go to Kerry because Heinz still does the best Ketchup.
When EVERYBODY says EVERYTHING but good things about a person, there is a strong possibility they are trying to bias you against that person. And that's something that European media has been doing for a long time. Well, I ask to myself: Hasn't he done something GOOD ?
That said my vote would go to Kerry because Heinz still does the best Ketchup.
CrimsonSkies
Member
I'll probably watch Fox News until the networks start covering it. I'll be flipping between Fox and ABC as the results come in.
Something JMS (the creator and writer of Babylon 5 and writer on quite a lot of shows you've probably seen -- also, to some of you, the man who ruined Gwen in Spider-Man ) wrote this on the b5 newsgroup recently, and I thought it was quite interesting in that it reflects a lot of my external view of the american political system, and I think it might reflect what some other people have tried to say but maybe hadn't come up with the way to say it.
) wrote this on the b5 newsgroup recently, and I thought it was quite interesting in that it reflects a lot of my external view of the american political system, and I think it might reflect what some other people have tried to say but maybe hadn't come up with the way to say it.JMS said:
Outdoor Miner
Member
Indeed.
I mostly agree with Straczynski, though he probably shouldn't invoke the founding fathers (the Republican-Federalist partisanship was as fierce as anything we see today). DeLay and company have definitely, objectively sought to replace a policy debate process with partisan steamrolling.
Part of the problem is that the constitution gives such general guidelines for the way the legislature is meant to work, that a lot of the process is a result of trust. So there aren't legal barriers for a lot of things that have happened, though they'd have been out of the question a decade ago.
short responses for siamesedreamer:
* The economy has not been "roaring back to life." Employment is barely keeping up with growth in the workforce, wages are stagnating, and even GDP growth is very weak for a recovery.
* Privatizing social security requires a trillion dollars or two in transitional funds. Where will this come from?
* Bush has already created a huge new entitlement, increased discretionary spending, increased military spending, and run up huge deficits. He is not the candidate of fiscal responsibility.
* The death of social security has been greatly exagerrated. Deserves a post of its own, and will get one, post-election.
* Kerry is not very liberal. It's telling that everyone who accuses him of this phrases it like liberalism is some intrinsic property that's just oozing out of him, and has no relation to the things he's done.
* Wesley Clark has never held political office, and Bush only had 6 years as a governor. The experience factor (sometimes modified as "executive branch experience") is a straw man 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time to boot.
efralope:
* I've had to explain to other mods and admins why you're not banned on grounds of stupidity. You're making me look really bad. When iapetus says something, read it, figure out what it means, then respond to it. Don't create some weird, alternate-universe meaning so you can score points easier.
ErasureAcer:
* Name one single thing Al Sharpton has EVER done to show that he would be a capable of running a cabinet-level agency.
* When you choose who you want in Kerry's cabinet, do you think of actual hard-thinking progressives who have expertise in a particular area, or do you just think of people who ran protest campaigns for president from the left?
Raoul Duke::
* Nader has the same stance on sex and violence in media that Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman do, which I don't like. He speaks Buchanan code-speak on immigration, which I don't like. He doesn't talk seriously about Iraq, which I definitely don't like.
Part of the problem is that the constitution gives such general guidelines for the way the legislature is meant to work, that a lot of the process is a result of trust. So there aren't legal barriers for a lot of things that have happened, though they'd have been out of the question a decade ago.
short responses for siamesedreamer:
* The economy has not been "roaring back to life." Employment is barely keeping up with growth in the workforce, wages are stagnating, and even GDP growth is very weak for a recovery.
* Privatizing social security requires a trillion dollars or two in transitional funds. Where will this come from?
* Bush has already created a huge new entitlement, increased discretionary spending, increased military spending, and run up huge deficits. He is not the candidate of fiscal responsibility.
* The death of social security has been greatly exagerrated. Deserves a post of its own, and will get one, post-election.
* Kerry is not very liberal. It's telling that everyone who accuses him of this phrases it like liberalism is some intrinsic property that's just oozing out of him, and has no relation to the things he's done.
* Wesley Clark has never held political office, and Bush only had 6 years as a governor. The experience factor (sometimes modified as "executive branch experience") is a straw man 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time to boot.
efralope:
* I've had to explain to other mods and admins why you're not banned on grounds of stupidity. You're making me look really bad. When iapetus says something, read it, figure out what it means, then respond to it. Don't create some weird, alternate-universe meaning so you can score points easier.
ErasureAcer:
* Name one single thing Al Sharpton has EVER done to show that he would be a capable of running a cabinet-level agency.
* When you choose who you want in Kerry's cabinet, do you think of actual hard-thinking progressives who have expertise in a particular area, or do you just think of people who ran protest campaigns for president from the left?
Raoul Duke::
* Nader has the same stance on sex and violence in media that Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman do, which I don't like. He speaks Buchanan code-speak on immigration, which I don't like. He doesn't talk seriously about Iraq, which I definitely don't like.
McLesterolBeast
Member
I will not post polls, I will not post polls, I will not post polls...
videogamer
Banned
Would love to. Keep feeling like I need to throw up.MIMIC said:Put on a gas mask, set off a carbon monoxide bomb and teach those bastards a lesson.
Today, we met up at the ACT staging grounds. It was this really tent with lots of vans to drive the teams around. There were literally hundreds of people. The pictures I took don't give it justice. Lots of unhappy yet motivated people here. We quickly got into line and were organized into different teams of 7. There was 1 driver and 3 teams of 2 that spread over a precint. My team was "Wisconson", but I would have loved to be team "Susan Sarandon (sp?)", "earth" or "MGM Grand". I could brag that I was "inside Susan Saraondon"
Oh well, my teamates were AWESOME. There were some hardcore liberals there. 1. Mike: works in water purification/desalination. Socal
2. Sanjay ?: mechanical engineer. self-admitted "texas-refugee" San Fran
3. Kristin: Spent lots of time as a lab tech at UCSF, but now soul-searching in San Louis Obispo. The hardcore liberal of the group. Met horrifying guy. Was a guy with boxer shorts that were worn so much that they were practically sheer. Living at home with mom. Of course, he wasn't voting for Kerry.
4. older dude: going back to grad school. had a "veterans for kerry" tag
5. Laura: getting MPH at UCLA.
6. Michael: web dude from up north.
7. Me the relative baby of the group. Lots of Stanford people there for some reason. I heard that 50 or so UCLA law students are coming up Monday.
--wtf us socal people aren't doing our share and the norcal people have to pick it up
We spent our day visiting homes and apartment complexes. There was a script. We visited a list of Kerry voters and likely Kerry voters to try to motivate them out. I knocked on like 60 doors myself. Maybe 30 were there. The rest we left the doorknob things. ACT gave us a nice box lunch. Croissont sandwiches, Caesar (sp?) salad, chips, cookies, and two water bottles.
Neat story: One of the guys working in the lounge asked us what ACT was. We explained, and he asked, "Are you guys Communists". lol omg Reminds me of that great post up there. Yeah, Freepers suck.
Uh anyways... we're going out! We're going to eat some where and I guess I'll split off to Kinko's to do homework. wee and we're all going to wear our anti-bush shirts that a girl gave us. Mine says "Axis of Evildoers" Others were a lot more nasty. She made them herself.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Mandark said:
Well he is more than qualified to be Press Secretary. Not that that is a cabinet level position(but an important one). Al Sharpton is a communicator, and a very good one I might add...he could run any cabinet dealing with communications. Secretary of State perhaps?
I think. And I do believe Robert Kennedy Jr, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton should be in Kerry's cabinet. Come on...an actual black guy in a Presidential cabinet...and not those wanna be white people(Powell, Rice). Since blacks make up 12% of America...I definitely think they should be represented in a Presidential cabinet. Who is more in touch with Black people than Sharpton? Maybe Jesse Jackson...but really Al is out in the streets everyday(or at least everytime I see some protest).
How many episodes of Chappelle's Show does a white person have to watch before they are qualified to rate the realness of black people?
And let me be the first to say Elaine Chao isn't really Asian. I mean yeah, she's good at math, but she barely knows any karate!
And let me be the first to say Elaine Chao isn't really Asian. I mean yeah, she's good at math, but she barely knows any karate!
ErasureAcer
Banned
Your comments make me out to be a racist. Or that I'm trying to stereotype certain black people. Fact of the matter is...Sharpton is much more in tune with Black Americans than Powell or Rice is. A good 90% of blacks voted for Gore in 2000. Believe another 3-4 voted for Nader. Colin Powell and Condi Rice may have African roots...but they don't know how it is to be a black person in America(poor or middle class), they don't chill with the black community on a daily/weekly basis as Sharpton does. This really has nothing to do with race but more along economic lines...All i'm saying is that someone in Kerry's cabinet should be a black person...they represent 12% of the people and there are qualified people: Jackson, Sharpton, Ford Jr, the Black Caucus of congress, etc..etc...
So who should be in Kerry's cabinet? People in touch with the people...which tend to be progressive liberals who make it to their positions of power by the people and not the corporations/DNC funding them to victory and telling them how to vote. I'm sure there are some black people who fall under that category...if not all of them.
So who should be in Kerry's cabinet? People in touch with the people...which tend to be progressive liberals who make it to their positions of power by the people and not the corporations/DNC funding them to victory and telling them how to vote. I'm sure there are some black people who fall under that category...if not all of them.
To add to Mandark's responses to siamesedreamer:
* Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill, as in spending bills, and pushed three tax cuts for three different situations: budget surplus, terrorist attack, and economic recovery. The politics of Bush are clearly borrow and spend.
* The neocon dream of a transformative Iraq has been failing. Democratic reforms in neighbooring countries have been set back because of the war, and the region as a whole has become more radicalized.
* Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill, as in spending bills, and pushed three tax cuts for three different situations: budget surplus, terrorist attack, and economic recovery. The politics of Bush are clearly borrow and spend.
* The neocon dream of a transformative Iraq has been failing. Democratic reforms in neighbooring countries have been set back because of the war, and the region as a whole has become more radicalized.
- Status