ABC News poll

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
ABC News poll
80
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:56pm




I keep hearing that polls are showing Kerry the winner, but in this poll at least, more people feel it was a tie or that Bush was the winner than that Kerry won.

Personally I thought Kerry was the better debater, but when people go back and think about his responses they'll find that he's not said anything different, just polished up the act a bit. He still wants to put the UN in charge of our national security, he still claims both that Saddam was a threat yet insists that Bush misled the American people on that very issue, he still has no plans for Iraq that differ from the president's, aside from his boasting that he will get other countries to share the burden, even though they have repeatedly said they won't no matter who is president, he still claims to be better at building alliances even as he disrepsects the very allies who supported us and disrespects our vital ally Prime Minister Allawi. He claims nuclear proliferation is our biggest threat but he wants to dismantle one of OUR nuclear programs, a "bunker buster" bomb that could be crucial to deterring nuclear strikes for the folks who actually LIVE in bunkers (aka terrorists), so I guess he's still back with those who felt a nuclear freeze was the best way to end the Cold War. After all these years he still doens't understand the doctrine of peace through strength.

Bush as usual did not express himself very well, but his positions are better for the country IMO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:35pm
That is why I look at the polls and tend to grin, as most of the polls were so far off in 2000 it was pretty funny.

The one poll that seems to be slightly more accurate is Rasmussen as his is a trending poll, which works on 3 day trends and 7 day trends.

I noticed that the largest lead that Kerry had was about 5 points, and Bush's largest lead to date was about 5 points, so this poll to me truly reflects how close this election will actually be.

I do not believe those like Dick Morris that say when it comes to election day, people will vote with security in their minds first, and then with their wallets, so Bush will win and win big. It may happen (and I may win the MegaBucks lottery without buying a ticket), but I seriously doubt it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:42pm


No, that's not the idea. The idea is deterrence. Osama for example might be a little more hesitant to drop a nuke on us if he knows that we can blast his cave network away with one of our own. Granted lot of terrorists don't seem to mind dying for the cause, but he appears not to be one of them. But I agree with you-deterrence is a small part of the picture. I just don't think running on "I'm going to stop the bunker buster bomb program" is wise given that our main enemies these days tend to reside in bunkers.



I'm not suggesting we go around routinely dropping them, any more than Reagan was suggesting we drop a few on Russia.



I never suggested we drop nuclear bombs on Muslim cities-I'm talking about caves in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, not cities. I never suggested we should drop bombs on anyone without provocation. I just think it's a good idea terrorists know that if they DO attack us with nukes we're coming right after them in their caves with some nukes of their own.

< If that's the magic bullet to bring down a super power then we'd better be rethinking the WOT pretty fast since we're spending more than a BILLION dollars PER WEEK just in Iraq. That doesn't include Afghanistan or security measures at home. What is it costing the terrorists to make car bombs and cut off people's heads? Infinitesimally less. They can keep this up forever. >

I agree with you-we won't win the war on terror by another arms race. I'm not talking about a massive nuclear buildup, I'm talking about a specific weapon designed to blow certain rats out of their holes-but I haven't claimed it is the key to defeating terrorism, only one small part. You're right-there is no "strategic" way to stop terrorists from making car bombs and cutting heads off. That's why we have to go after them where they are and be on the offense against them, just as the president mentioned (repeatedly, LOL) Thursday night.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:45pm
>>No, that's not the idea. The idea is deterrence. Osama for example might be a little more hesitant to drop a nuke on us if he knows that we can blast his cave network away with one of our own. Granted lot of terrorists don't seem to mind dying for the cause, but he appears not to be one of them.<<

We already have bombs that are designed for those caves... the pressure wave will do serious damage.

One country has used nukes. And the world fears we may be the second as well. Not sound leadership.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 10:04am
"You only can be rid of them if you stop creating reasons for them to hate you."

Oh, PLEASE. No offense, truly, but I think you need to take off your rose-colored glasses and do a little reading about Al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups and their *true* motivations. Their objective is world domination by Muslims .... plain and simple. Nothing the U.S. changes about its foreign policy will make a difference or deter them from trying to reach their goal. If it was just the U.S. they hated, we would be their only targets, and we're not (though it may seem we have been the prime target as of late).

Bev

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 11:52am
So your solution is to condemn generation after generation to war. Smart idea. We've done it that way forever. If you believe that it matters not if the rest of the world hates us, think again. For every person that does not hate us you have one less potential terrorist. I've consistently said we have to deal with them, but you have to go further. When there is a forest fire, they take steps to cut off the fuel supply... else you won't get anywhere. Same with this.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 11:54am
Good guys play by the rules.

So if the US should not need to 'pass the global test' on military action, then no other country should either, right? If so, then it's OK for any country to attack any other country as long as it 'feels' threatened, for example because it fears it has weapons of mass destructions?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Either the rules apply to everyone or they apply to no one. Plain and simple.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 11:58am
"The UN which is run by thugs?"

Now that's funny considering that the US is the strongest most powerful member of the UN. Also funny considering that the attack on Irak is constantly justified by people stating that there were all these UN resolutions on Iraq, and therefore the US was justified in 'enforcing it'.

Can't have it both ways...

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:03pm
"Once again, there's a difference between rogue nations having nukes and a country who fights for liberty around the world having them"

What do you call a country that attacks and occuppies a country that never attacked it? What do you call a country that keeps prisoners whithout adhearing to the geneva convention? What do you call a country whose forces abuse prisoners systematically?

If you were an outsider looking in, you would see things very differently. In my eyes, americans are no longer the 'good guys'. Sorry, but true. Most americans are still great. but the current government has soiled the image of americans.

If it was ANY OTHER country that had done what the US had done, you would agree with me. You know you would.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:04pm
"So your solution is to condemn generation after generation to war. Smart idea."

I don't know where you got that idea. I just said that I think it's a little idealistic (or, to be more blunt, naive) to think that if we decide to play nice and give the terrorists what they want, they won't hate us anymore and will leave us alone. It will only make us more vulnerable, because we'll be perceived as pushovers and patsies.

Bev

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:18pm
"I don't believe liberty is just an American desire, I believe it is a universal human desire."

Yes, it is a universal human desire. But not everyone has the same definition or priorities. We canadians for example don't value the same things as do americans. We don't care for the liberty to bear arm nearly as much as for the freedom of speech. Americans think they have freedom of speech, but it's been greatly eroded in the last decades. In the US do you have the 'freedom' to kill anyone you don't like, or to take the law in your own hands? Of course not! because freedom is balanced with human rights, laws, etc.. In many places in the US and Canada people don't have the freedom to color their garage the color they want to or to leave out their garbage before a certain hour! Most of us are willing to give up some freedoms in return for other things. Some of us send our children to schools where they have no freedom as to dress code (they have to wear an uniform), in order to get a better education.

Freedom is not as simple of a concept as you are conveying. Animals in the jungle have the ultimate 'freedom'. I don't think that's what most people want.

Pages