DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Balta1701]

Seriously?

Presidential contenders aren't the only ones targeting Iowa.

 

Terrorists are, too, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said during a brief news conference here Thursday.

 

In fact, the Democratic candidate said he would put Iowa in the top 10 of all states when it comes to homeland security risk and the federal funds that go with it.

 

That could come as a surprise to folks who assume that much larger, more densely populated states deserve the lion's share of anti-terrorism dollars.

 

But at a gathering with Des Moines-area police and firefighters, Richardson said he was presented a "compelling" argument that Iowa isn't receiving its fair share.

 

"It's not just Northeast cities. It's not just West Coast, but the heartland also, America's food supply and the transportation corridors" that are at risk, Richardson told reporters.

 

"So I'd put (Iowa) in the top 10, and I'd treat it like that."

 

Asked what Iowa has that states such as Nebraska, Indiana and others do not have, Richardson said: "It's not just because of the primary, if that's what you're hinting at."

I assume Indiana still remains number one, with its gigantic list of 8591 targets the DHS identified within that state.

[longshot7]

I say let the terrorists have Iowa. We don't need it.

[longshot7]

Ummm, if it weren't for shenanigans in Illinois and Texas, Nixon would have won the Electoral College in 1960.

Less than 150,000 popular votes effectively decided the electoral college in 1960, 1976, 2000 and 2004.

 

Another reason to get rid of it.

[kapkomet]

Not against you, longshot, or NSS - or anyone personally... but the shortsightedness on getting rid of the electoral college is amazing to me. Most of you do realize that there is no senate (from a historical perspective) without the electoral college?

[NorthSideSox72]

Not against you, longshot, or NSS - or anyone personally... but the shortsightedness on getting rid of the electoral college is amazing to me. Most of you do realize that there is no senate (from a historical perspective) without the electoral college?

No one is suggesting getting rid of the Senate, or history - just the electoral college for the purpose of Presidential elections (sorry of that was not clear). Its purpose was quite good at the time, but is useless today (again, in regards to the national election).

 

[kapkomet]

No one is suggesting getting rid of the Senate, or history - just the electoral college for the purpose of Presidential elections (sorry of that was not clear). Its purpose was quite good at the time, but is useless today (again, in regards to the national election).

I know we've debated this ad naseum around here... but I still think it's so short sighted to just do away with the electoral college and go to a popular vote national election.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I know we've debated this ad naseum around here... but I still think it's so short sighted to just do away with the electoral college and go to a popular vote national election.

Ok, let's narrow it to your statement then - why, exactly, is it short-sighted? Putting history aside, looking at the future, why is it needed, and what future problem is caused by it?

 

[Balta1701]

Ok, let's narrow it to your statement then - why, exactly, is it short-sighted? Putting history aside, looking at the future, why is it needed, and what future problem is caused by it?

It certainly makes it much more likely that an election will fall within the margin of error of voting machines. It's really hard to lose 500,000 votes nationwide, and that's in a very, very close election. But it's an awful lot easier to screw up 10,000 or more votes on a state level, and it's much more likely when there are 50 different chances for it to happen every cycle. That's at least one argument I can give about future problems; it makes Florida 00 vastly more likely. Florida 00 losing 20,000-30,000 votes doesn't matter in a national election decided by a few hundred thousand.

[NorthSideSox72]

It certainly makes it much more likely that an election will fall within the margin of error of voting machines. It's really hard to lose 500,000 votes nationwide, and that's in a very, very close election. But it's an awful lot easier to screw up 10,000 or more votes on a state level, and it's much more likely when there are 50 different chances for it to happen every cycle. That's at least one argument I can give about future problems; it makes Florida 00 vastly more likely. Florida 00 losing 20,000-30,000 votes doesn't matter in a national election decided by a few hundred thousand.

I realize you are a scientist, but I think you are bending the rules of statistics here. In fact, statistics indicates the opposite here - the larger the pool, the further the margin of error shrinks. Therefore, any result is more likely to be accurate. That's a basic tenet of survey or vote stats.

 

Also, as you say yourself, its a lot easier to lose 10k votes than 500k, and since using the electoral college exagerrates the effect of a few specific districts in a few specific states, those errors are in fact magnified. Therefore, again, the electoral college method means that any election result is LESS likely to be accurate than a true national vote.

 

[Balta1701]

I realize you are a scientist, but I think you are bending the rules of statistics here. In fact, statistics indicates the opposite here - the larger the pool, the further the margin of error shrinks. Therefore, any result is more likely to be accurate. That's a basic tenet of survey or vote stats.

 

Also, as you say yourself, its a lot easier to lose 10k votes than 500k, and since using the electoral college exagerrates the effect of a few specific districts in a few specific states, those errors are in fact magnified. Therefore, again, the electoral college method means that any election result is LESS likely to be accurate than a true national vote.

I think that was exactly my point...that keeping the electoral college around vastly increases the likelihood that an error in counting in 1 state can have a major impact at the national level, so the thing you'd want to do to prevent that is make the pool as large as possible. When you sub-select into 50 groups smaller groups, each with a certian margin of error, it's much more likely that one of those states will simply wind up being wrong than it is the full national vote.

[longshot7]

Not against you, longshot, or NSS - or anyone personally... but the shortsightedness on getting rid of the electoral college is amazing to me. Most of you do realize that there is no senate (from a historical perspective) without the electoral college?

 

Yes, I realize that. But for now, in 2007, I think it hurts more than it helps, and it needs to be abolished.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that was exactly my point...that keeping the electoral college around vastly increases the likelihood that an error in counting in 1 state can have a major impact at the national level, so the thing you'd want to do to prevent that is make the pool as large as possible. When you sub-select into 50 groups smaller groups, each with a certian margin of error, it's much more likely that one of those states will simply wind up being wrong than it is the full national vote.

Oh. So we were agreeing. Nevermind then.

 

[kapkomet]

I think that was exactly my point...that keeping the electoral college around vastly increases the likelihood that an error in counting in 1 state can have a major impact at the national level, so the thing you'd want to do to prevent that is make the pool as large as possible. When you sub-select into 50 groups smaller groups, each with a certian margin of error, it's much more likely that one of those states will simply wind up being wrong than it is the full national vote.

This is going to sound weird, but I think that's exactly what you want in a national election - because now those smaller districts all of a sudden matter. So we agree...

 

Do you see what I mean, though?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama says we should be focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, including possibly putting troops inside Pakistan with or without permission. I tend to agree - we went way off the tracks going into Iraq. You want to really fight Al Qaeda, the military part of that mission needs to go to their base of operation. We left Afghanistan far too early.

 

[BigSqwert]

Obama says we should be focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, including possibly putting troops inside Pakistan with or without permission. I tend to agree - we went way off the tracks going into Iraq. You want to really fight Al Qaeda, the military part of that mission needs to go to their base of operation. We left Afghanistan far too early.

No kidding. If we are the policemen of the world trying to rid all evil dictators then perhaps we should invade North Korea and Iran, heck even China. If we want to actually fight the "war on terror" then we should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[kapkomet]

No kidding. If we are the policemen of the world trying to rid all evil dictators then perhaps we should invade North Korea and Iran, heck even China. If we want to actually fight the "war on terror" then we should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hey, now we agree on something... sorta (on the Pakistan/Afghanistan bit).

 

I know the "snake" can operate without it's head, so to speak (the old Al Queda mantra), but destroying the head is so symbolic... that it needs to be done at any cost.

 

I guess what bothers me is that we were going to chase down the enemies, and we haven't done crap - now again - because of the "political ramifications" of said actions. Political drama be damned. Get over there, take care of the issues, and get back home.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hey, now we agree on something... sorta (on the Pakistan/Afghanistan bit).

 

I know the "snake" can operate without it's head, so to speak (the old Al Queda mantra), but destroying the head is so symbolic... that it needs to be done at any cost.

 

I guess what bothers me is that we were going to chase down the enemies, and we haven't done crap - now again - because of the "political ramifications" of said actions going into Iraq. Political drama be damned. Get over there, take care of the issues, and get back home.

Fixed for ya.

 

 

[kapkomet]

So THAT ALONE is what will cause future attacks... everything that happens, EVER, is because of the Bush Administration's decision to go into Iraq?

 

Come on. That's so lame.

 

The evidence was there - even the Democrats said the same thing. And before you tell me that the evidence was cooked, EVERYONE had access to the same evidence, and I don't care what you tell me - our government doesn't work like that and you know it.

 

Iraq's initial premise was right on. It's what has happened since about 3 months in that has been a travesty - all because everyone's scared of how we'll look conducting a real war.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

So THAT ALONE is what will cause future attacks... everything that happens, EVER, is because of the Bush Administration's decision to go into Iraq?

 

Come on. That's so lame.

 

The evidence was there - even the Democrats said the same thing. And before you tell me that the evidence was cooked, EVERYONE had access to the same evidence, and I don't care what you tell me - our government doesn't work like that and you know it.

 

Iraq's initial premise was right on. It's what has happened since about 3 months in that has been a travesty - all because everyone's scared of how we'll look conducting a real war.

The moment Iraq was brought up after 9/11 this administration lost me, regardless of their so-called intel.

[kapkomet]

The moment Iraq was brought up after 9/11 this administration lost me, regardless of their so-called intel.

How many times, DIRECTLY, has this administration said that they understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Yet, the point keeps getting brought up, like it's some badge of rotten lying... the MSM had more to do with that then the adminstration did.

 

Now, they have said that Al Queda operated in Iraq, but on different grounds, then the 9/11 attacks. That is true. And there's a big difference then what you're trying to allude to with your post.

 

[BigSqwert]

How many times, DIRECTLY, has this administration said that they understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Yet, the point keeps getting brought up, like it's some badge of rotten lying... the MSM had more to do with that then the adminstration did.

 

Now, they have said that Al Queda operated in Iraq, but on different grounds, then the 9/11 attacks. That is true. And there's a big difference then what you're trying to allude to with your post.

They NEVER made these claims when making a case for invasion. Iraq and 9/11 were a direct link. At least that's what they wanted us to believe. Every speech Bush and Cheney made up until the invasion mentioned the words 9/11 and Iraq. They kept beating it into our heads that in order to fight the terrorists that attacked us on our soil we needed to get rid of Sadam Hussein.

[kapkomet]

They NEVER made these claims when making a case for invasion. Iraq and 9/11 were a direct link. At least that's what they wanted us to believe. Every speech Bush and Cheney made up until the invasion mentioned the words 9/11 and Iraq. They kept beating it into our heads that in order to fight the terrorists that attacked us on our soil we needed to get rid of Sadam Hussein.

No, they didn't. They may have said the two ideas in the same speech, but they NEVER said that 9/11 and Iraq were directly connected. Now, they did say that Iraq was a part of the larger war on terror. That is TOTALLY different then what you are trying to insinuate and the distinction needs to be crystal clear here.

 

Again, that is more on the MSM. It's called a bait and switch... by both sides.

[BigSqwert]

From an article from March 3, 2004.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm

 

But before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

 

* Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

 

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

* Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

 

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

* The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

 

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

 

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

 

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

 

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.

* Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

 

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

* The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.

 

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation.

 

* Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

Edited August 1, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

And most, if not all, of this link is pure bulls***. Zarqawi WAS affiliated with Al Queda, and he WAS in Iraq... so that part is bunk. I could counterpoint all of this, but that's a worthless endeavor. "could never be confirmed" is my new favorite phrase of the day - again - and I'll be VERY clear here, as my first post was - Al Queda had operations in Iraq. But that is MUCH different then saying Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was responsible for 9/11.

 

HUGE difference. The links were there in terms of operations ... the responsibility for 9/11 was not, and they NEVER said that. That is a clear distinction that must be made.

 

I realize that's semantics - but on this point it needs to be clear. If you're saying that they were linking Al Queda and Iraq - I agree. If you are saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, you're wrong - they never said that.

Edited August 1, 2007 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

And most, if not all, of this link is pure bulls***. Zarqawi WAS affiliated with Al Queda, and he WAS in Iraq... so that part is bunk. I could counterpoint all of this, but that's a worthless endeavor. "could never be confirmed" is my new favorite phrase of the day - again - and I'll be VERY clear here, as my first post was - Al Queda had operations in Iraq. But that is MUCH different then saying Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was responsible for 9/11.

Wow. Seriously dude. Zarqawi's group was actually in the area of Northern Iraq where they were only fighting the Kurds at the time of the invasion...and tha area of Iraq was basically a no-go zone for Saddam's entire armed forces because it was protected by the No Fly zone. And beyond that, MSNBC reported a few years ago that the U.S. had plenty of chances to go after that group before the war, but chose not to do so.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.....

 

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Blaming Saddam for Zarqawi being in Iraq makes about as much sense as blaming the U.S. for 9/11 because the hijackers were in this country before they did it. He was not operating at all in cooperation with the Iraqi government; he was only able to operate at all because of the no-fly zones.