AOL Presidential Straw Poll

[Toad]

Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, in 7 of those polls, Bush has a lead at 4 % or higher. What margin of error are you going by?

[/b]


Nuke, go to this page, it has more data on each poll.

Pollingreport doesn't do polls, it just collects the results from all the major ones and puts them in one place for easy reference.

PollingReport Complete Trial Heat Trends

That breaks down each poll listed in the table, including MoE.

[Toad]

Originally posted by NUKE
Hey Toad, will you answer two questions?

How would you characterise John Kerry as a person, a leader and decision maker?

Same for Bush.

By decision maker, I mean decisive....not "wobbly"

Sure. I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He is more of a Flip-flopper than most. As a life-long politician, one that really hasn't accomplished much of anything in his 20 years in the Senate, I'd characterize him as a parasite. Something on the order of an ambulance chasing lawyer.

A leader? He was a low ranking Junior Officer in VN. There are conflicting statements on the quality of his leadership. Clearly, in the Senate he has been a follower, not a leader.

Decision maker? Who knows? What actual decisions has he made that could have had potentially disaterous results for himself, his comrades or his country? He decided to marry bucketloads of money... I suppose that was a good decision because it's probably easy to avoid her after they got married.

Bush is a I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He's a bit less of a flip-flopper than Kerry, particuarly in matters that touch even peripherally on his sense of religion/god. For example, I doubt Bush is going to flip on stem cell or abortion just to win. In his favor, he hasn't been a life-long politician but there's no doubt he's a politician.

As a leader, Bush in his short time in office has shown the determination to take the reins and lead. And this is not leadership at the Junior Officer level. JO's don't get much chance to lead in anything important. I think the Prescription bill passed for Seniors sort of suxxors... it's not much. BUT he is the first President to get one passed. It will be a base to build upon where before there was nothing. He did a good job after 9/11 rallying the country and the world to a greater state of "threat awareness". Stuff like that makes me think Bush is better at leading than Kerry on the things that Bush feels deeply in his heart. On other stuff, he's no different than Kerry.

Decison maker? He's decisive alright. However, the BIGGEST decision of his Presidential term was to invade Iraq. Had he found the WMD, he'd be  seen as "right" by most rational folks. But he didn't. He's shown a remarkable inability to admit this and apologize. He led the US to invade a soverign nation (and yeah I supported it with the caveat that they had to be proven right at sometime about the WMD), remove its government and rebuild its society. Now, the buck stops in the Oval Office. This turned out to be a clusterfork of the highest magnitude and it's the biggest decison he's made so far. One that cost 1100+ US mothers their sons/daughters.

Did I answer all your questions?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by SaburoS
In due time. I expect my questions to be answered first since I asked first. You keep evading and responding with not answers but questions.
For the 5th time now:

What figure will you finally say is too high?

sorry, went to bed. I didn't mean to evade a question.

In a crisis like we found ourselves in after 911, I'd say almost no limit to deficit spending if that's what it takes to put cash into securing America.

Right now, we are not at record deficit levels , as some people love to claim. The economy is in good shape .

[lazs2]

saburu... neither of us can quntify the debt so far as 9/11 but jobs were lost and the economy slowed.. Bush unquestionably pulled us out of a recession in record time..

now... the debt... we are in a war.   we are suffering the effects of a terror war and a real war.   These will get paid for eventually... they allways do.

what doesn't get paid is liberal socialist programs... they just get bigger and more expensive and pass on from adminestration to adminestration and no one has the courage to jerk the tit out of the peoples mouth...so... wars=expensive but get paid for... liberal socialism=debt that never ends and simply grows forever.

lazs

[myelo]

Originally posted by Halo
Myelo, theoretically true, but the validity of polls is notoriously hard to establish.  Do you have some examples of particularly good small scientific polls that have high successful rates of predicting various outcomes?

Sorry, I don’t. I don’t know much about the various political polls and frankly I’m not really interested in them.

But something I do know about is statistical sampling. And the basic goal of statistical sampling is random selection, where every member of the population being studied has an equal chance of being sampled. In nonrandom sampling, as the AOL poll, you can’t reduce bias by increasing sample size.

And that was my point. A poorly designed poll that’s really big is just that – a really big, poorly designed poll.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Actually when I scanned the article, I didn't even notice that part. I linked it because I agree with the gist of the argument on the Social Security portion (that is after all why I linked it). I don't look as Bush as have "stolen" any kind of election, or of his "trying" to be dictator. The only ones I blame are those Gore supporters that didn't vote. They are the ones that need to look in the mirror and say "If I wasn't such an idiot by not voting, Bush might not have been elected."
I don't blame Bush or his supporters for his winning the 2000 election. If you check my previous posts, you'll see I've never accused the Republicans of stealing that election. BTW, you'll also note that I don't blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush or his administration either.
Now you want to address the Social Security issue? I say that the Bush Administration has squandered the Social Security surplus on programs that should be paid by Federal Income taxes. We are in a sense paying for the tax cuts through the back door.
You have something to add to counter my claim?

My primary issue was the credibility of the site your source came from. Which you gotta admit smacks of radicalism.
Just kinda surprised me to see it comming from you.

But overall I dont see how Bush has been a whole lot different in raiding the SS then anyone else.
SS IMO has been being squandered for quite some time

And does this not also require the approval of congress, a certain percentage of them most assuredly had to be Democrats.
And overall with reguard to taxes I dont see how Gore would have or could have done anything much differently.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by NUKE
sorry, went to bed. I didn't mean to evade a question.

In a crisis like we found ourselves in after 911, I'd say almost no limit to deficit spending if that's what it takes to put cash into securing America.

Right now, we are not at record deficit levels , as some people love to claim. The economy is in good shape .

Actually its duel answer.
 We got hit with a double whammy.
a recession then 911

It wasnt the recession alone nor was it 911 alone but both together or to be more accurate one immediatly followed by the other that more or less forced the measures taken to be taken.

Had only one or the other took place and not both. few of the numbers everyone likes to throw out here would be the same. Certainly the bad numbers wouldnt be as high

[SaburoS]

Nuke,

For the 6th time now:

What figure will you finally say is too high?

I asked a simple, direct question. Quit dancing

[NUKE]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Nuke,

For the 6th time now:

What figure will you finally say is too high?

I asked a simple, direct question. Quit dancing

I say that no figure is too high.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
Sure. I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He is more of a Flip-flopper than most. As a life-long politician, one that really hasn't accomplished much of anything in his 20 years in the Senate, I'd characterize him as a parasite. Something on the order of an ambulance chasing lawyer.

A leader? He was a low ranking Junior Officer in VN. There are conflicting statements on the quality of his leadership. Clearly, in the Senate he has been a follower, not a leader.

Decision maker? Who knows? What actual decisions has he made that could have had potentially disaterous results for himself, his comrades or his country? He decided to marry bucketloads of money... I suppose that was a good decision because it's probably easy to avoid her after they got married.

Bush is a I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He's a bit less of a flip-flopper than Kerry, particuarly in matters that touch even peripherally on his sense of religion/god. For example, I doubt Bush is going to flip on stem cell or abortion just to win. In his favor, he hasn't been a life-long politician but there's no doubt he's a politician.

As a leader, Bush in his short time in office has shown the determination to take the reins and lead. And this is not leadership at the Junior Officer level. JO's don't get much chance to lead in anything important. I think the Prescription bill passed for Seniors sort of suxxors... it's not much. BUT he is the first President to get one passed. It will be a base to build upon where before there was nothing. He did a good job after 9/11 rallying the country and the world to a greater state of "threat awareness". Stuff like that makes me think Bush is better at leading than Kerry on the things that Bush feels deeply in his heart. On other stuff, he's no different than Kerry.

Decison maker? He's decisive alright. However, the BIGGEST decision of his Presidential term was to invade Iraq. Had he found the WMD, he'd be  seen as "right" by most rational folks. But he didn't. He's shown a remarkable inability to admit this and apologize. He led the US to invade a soverign nation (and yeah I supported it with the caveat that they had to be proven right at sometime about the WMD), remove its government and rebuild its society. Now, the buck stops in the Oval Office. This turned out to be a clusterfork of the highest magnitude and it's the biggest decison he's made so far. One that cost 1100+ US mothers their sons/daughters.

Did I answer all your questions?

Toad, you did answer my questions.

I the only thing I don't agree with you on is the Iraq war.

[Gunslinger]

what's funny is this site flip flops more than kerry

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by NUKE
I say that no figure is too high.

Thanks! 'Bout time you gave a straight answer!!

Now my responses to yours:


1)

Fact: 911 caused the loss of almost 2 million jobs, caused the government to bail out the airline industry at a cost in the billions, caused the US to go to war ( in a recession inherited from Clinton) and caused a stock market decline.

Under Bush, we have come out of the recession, dethroned the Taliban, captured Saddam and eleminated Osama as a threat.

Plus, unemployment and inflation are VERY low. NOTHING could be better. Are you saying that Kerry would have done something better to change all of this?

1a)First, it would have been Gore, not Kerry had someone other than Bush been President. I'm not clairvoyant, but I'd bet the farm that Gore (or Kerry) for that matter would not have gone to war with Iraq under the same circumstances as Bush's.

Bush has proven to me what type of leader he is. I'm not in favor of how he's "leading."

2)

Fact: 911 caused the loss of almost 2 million jobs, caused the government to bail out the airline industry at a cost in the billions, caused the US to go to war ( in a recession inherited from Clinton) and caused a stock market decline.

Under Bush, we have come out of the recession, dethroned the Taliban, captured Saddam and eleminated Osama as a threat.

Plus, unemployment and inflation are VERY low. NOTHING could be better. Are you saying that Kerry would have done something better to change all of this?

2a) I'll disagree about the 9/11 attacks "caused" us to invade Iraq. Bush had been chomping at the bit to invade Iraq and believed any and all reports that gave him a reason to go in. Heck, he couldn't even wait the 3-6 months that the UN was asking for to finish their inspections. It was almost as if the Bush administration couldn't wait because they didn't want their main reason for invasion proven wrong.

What get's my goat is that he isn't even taking responsibility as CIC of accepting that he made the wrong decision. Gawd, it's like Clinton with his claims on "NOT having sexual relations with that woman!" Their credibility with me is ZERO. Leadership? No way.
Because Bush keeps saying he knows how to lead, doesn't make it so. He hasn't been doing a good job of leading in my book.
Saddam was never a threat to us, we were the threat to him. Heck, even with our support, he couldn't defeat a weakened Iran in his war which he started.

Heck, Al Quaida considered Saddam as one of their enemies as he was suppressing a 60% majority of his muslim population. We have now set the stage of having another Iran type Islamic Fundamentalist government running Iraq in the long term.

The Taliban were busy fighting their own civil war against the Northern Alliance. They were no threat to us.
The Taliban were busy in their own civil war with the Northern Alliance.

Eliminated Osama as a threat? He's dead? IMHO, Al Quaida just isn't the big boogey man of a threat we want to make them to be.
Now if we keep invading/occupying muslim sovereign nations and keep causing innocent civillian casualties, we just might create a self-fulfilling prophesy by filling the ranks of Al Quaida into a force to be reckoned with.

We, the USA are the single most strongest nation on earth. Funny how some of us tremble in fear of some small countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, N Korea, etc.,) or of a relatively small group (Al Quaida).

Unemployment figures are skewed as the benefits have been cut. The figures are based on those under unemployment and those applying for it. Those unemployed that do not receive and/or do not qualify, are not counted in the figures. I could be wrong about this though as I'm not an "expert" in the field.

Nothing could be better? The Iraq occupation and the runaway deficit are two huge reasons for me why I'm voting for Kerry. It could be a LOT better.

Would Gore (or Kerry) have done it differently? On a hunch, you bet! I'd be feeling a hell of a lot more secure with our standing in this world.

3)

Do you use a credit card?
What would Kerry have done after 911?
 

3a) Apples and oranges.
Yes I do. You see, I have a maximum limit on my credit card. I have to pay a minimum monthly payment or my credit rating goes to hell. There are a lot of things I'd love to have. Perhaps you can show me where I can secure one of those cards that allow me to buy anything I want with no limit , no minimum monthly payments. Heck, I'll buy everything I want. I'll even expand my photography business so I can employ some people. All of our kids/grandkids can pay off my wreckless spending/borrowing, though.
After all, deficit spending is good for the economy, right?

Gore (or Kerry) would have been more responsible with the huge tax breaks that Bush was not. It is the HUGE tax breaks that are mainly responsible for our huge deficit. It's growing at what, $1.2 billion/day?
Bush is masking the tax cuts effects by taking Social Security funds to help pay for necessary gov't programs. It's because deficit spending at the rate we're going is the reason he's touching Social Security.

*****************

Now my questions to you:

I say that no figure is too high.

a)What economic tools can we use in today's America to help pare down the debt?
I'm not talking mearly balancing the budget, year after year, but bringing it to a point where we have no deficit.
You've got "x" amount of government programs and "x" amount of revenue. Since it looks like you want the reduced taxes that Bush has instituted, I guess you're not going to raise taxes.

b)How do you do it?

Do me a favor and not have me ask multiple times just to get a straight answer out of you. Go ahead, slay me with your logic and intellect.

[DREDIOCK]

SaburoS

 Problem is the deficit under Kerry will not be much smaller. If its smaller at all

In fact I have not been able to find a single independant anayisis (That being one that doesnt seem to originate from one camp or the other) that claims that the deficit will go down by very much under Kerry..or Bush either for that matter.

The most common deficit projections I have found place the deficit at around
450 Billion under kerry and 380 billion under Bush

"If Congress enacted all of Bush's proposals, or all of Kerry's, the deficit wouldn't shrink much. Under Bush, it would be $375 billion by 2009, and $447 billion under Kerry", - economic research firm Global Insight  

A large part of the problem is Kerry's so called "Health care plan" which is on of Kerry big promises. One which the more I look at it the more it becomes obvious he has no way of really paying for

"The benefits of Kerry's health care plan to employers could be outweighed by its cost — $653 billion over 10 years, economists said. That plan and his deficit reduction pledge "work against each other" - Jared Bernstein, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Most i've found call it a wash between Bush and Kerry

But some such as The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Indicates Budget Deficit would explode under Kerry. "Even with that generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years."

But I do question the AIEs claim to being "independant"


Actually it wasnt the "huge tax breaks" that ran up the Deficit

According to the Office of Management and Budget, about 75 percent of the increase in discretionary spending over the past three fiscal years was due to our nation's response to 9/11 and the war.The Congressional Joint Economic Committee   found that 73 percent of the downturn in the budget surplus over the last three years was the byproduct of increased government spending and the weak economy. Only 27 percent of the dissipation was caused by the Bush tax cuts

Had there been no tax cuts, the federal government would still have run substantial budget deficits. In fact, by cushioning the economic fallout from the 9/11 attack and strengthening the economy, the tax cuts had the effect of putting a floor under the tax revenue base. Without the Bush tax cuts, the recession would have been longer and deeper, thereby producing an even larger budget deficit.

As the Top fan and president of the Bush fan club  Tom Daschle put it,
 "This is deficit spending once again and it's very disconcerting to many of us. But I don't know that there is an alternative."

[NUKE]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Do me a favor and not have me ask multiple times just to get a straight answer out of you. Go ahead, slay me with your logic and intellect.

Do me a favor and don't ask me 15 questions all at once...it makes it hard to figure out what you want answered

By the way, the best way to debate or argue is to state your case, not ask a barage of questions.
That's the funny part. You and I both know that the debt was whiped out during Clinton years.  You are asking a rethorical question.

"Originally posted by SaburoS
No he's not. Apples and oranges.
What was the National Debt during Clinton's term?
What is it now under the Bush Administration?
At what rate are we accruing our present debt, daily?
At what point do you say that the Nat'l debt is too large (give me a figure you find unnacceptable)?
Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush.
Bush has proven to me what type of "leader" he is. I don't agree that his leadership is good for the US. "

The National Debt was close to zero under Clinton, but Clinton had little to do with it. The Republicans controled both the House and Senate.
 Also, by the end of Clinton's term, the economy was in the tank. Bush inherited Clinton's downturn and THEN we were hit with 911 and forced to go to war.

You say Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would not have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush? Well Clinton sure had no problem goining into Somalia, Bosnia and Serbia without the UN.

The National debt does not concern me in the least. What concernes me is that we have our country. The deficit spending was needed because we went to war ( no, I never said 911 caused us to go to Iraq), we had to pay for homeland security and bail out the economy which lost nearly 2 million jobs as a result of 911. If Kerry was faced with the exact same situation, I believe he would had spend as much as was needed as well.

I want to spend WHATEVER is needed for our security and worry about paying back later. The debt is not a national security issue or even a large economic problem for us.

Let me tell you someting that you may not have thought about regarding Iraq. Iraq had kicked out the UN inspecters and the ONLY reason inspecters were allowed back was because Bush put a huge force on Saddam's doorstep. That force is expensive to keep there and they could not stay on standby forever while the UN played games. I'm not saying that just because we had them there, they had to be used...but after a certain point, with Saddam still shrecking us around, then yes, it was go time to finixsh the clown off.

All intelligence Bush recieved was pointing to Saddam and a very real threat. Russia sent word that Iraq was planning an attack. The UN said Iraq had WMD. Even Saddam was not cooperating STILL.

What should Bush do faced with that after what had just happened on 911?? Pull the troops back?

The Iraq war was justified and it was a good call. I can see all the naysayers screaming if Bush had NOT gone into war, then something happened with Iraq.

And why should Bush admit he was wrong when he wasn't wrong? What was he wrong about? Reacting to a threat that everyone in the world said was a threat?

Now Kerry is just a joke. Kerry doesn't even do his current job most of the time. What specifically do you see that you *really* like about him? I honestly cannot think of one thing good about Kerry, his Senate record, or leadership. Leadership?

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by NUKE
Do me a favor and don't ask me 15 questions all at once...it makes it hard to figure out what you want answered

By the way, the best way to debate or argue is to state your case, not ask a barage of questions.

Most of mine were rhetorical....and over several posts. How about we keep this about the other's previous post?
 
These, I wanted your thoughts on:


(2nd time btw)

Now my questions to you:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say that no figure is too high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a)What economic tools can we use in today's America to help pare down the debt?
I'm not talking mearly balancing the budget, year after year, but bringing it to a point where we have no deficit.
You've got "x" amount of government programs and "x" amount of revenue. Since it looks like you want the reduced taxes that Bush has instituted, I guess you're not going to raise taxes.

b)How do you do it?


*********

How about we ask each other a direct question with a related follow-up? This is of course after we answer the other's direct question(s). This will keep our discussions from getting into a rambling mess. LOL, in your comments of my asking too many questions at once, you asked several in a single post as a response
You want me to answer your questions? How about you answer mine as well?
Let's try this format of answer the one direct question w/ its follow up, then ask our own direct question with its follow-up. It'll keep us on track in our discussion.