[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, it's not "us and them", Kerry was just a weak, pitiful candidate. He had no charisma and ran on a platform of ""I'm NOT Bush", instead of talking up his strengths and establishing a dialog with the American people. He came across as cold, unapproachable, elitist pr**k. THAT's why he lost. His choice of that pretty boy weenie didn't help him much either.

However, I do feel a bit sorry for Edwards, at least HE had the stones to let go of his seat while campaigning. That showed more courage than Kerry could ever muster.

Let's see. I make the assertion that this election turned on social/cultural lines rather than politics and your response is that Kerry/Edwards were pr*cks and weenies.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes. Kerry ran a very weak campaign. But the polls would indcate he was a clear winner with voters who valued political issues higher than social/cultural issues.

Bush won because more Americans felt he was their kind of guy than Kerry. I'm saying that's not exactly the best kind of "mandate" for leadership on critical issues.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Let's see. I make the assertion that this election turned on social/cultural lines rather than politics and your response is that Kerry/Edwards were pr*cks and weenies.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes. Kerry ran a very weak campaign. But the polls would indcate he was a clear winner with voters who valued political issues higher than social/cultural issues.

Bush won because more Americans felt he was their kind of guy than Kerry. I'm saying that's not exactly the best kind of "mandate" for leadership on critical issues.

You don't get it. And what's more, neither did Kerry. That's the reason why he's going to be living in Mass. instead of the White House.

Polls, yeah, very accurate. They helped the Dems tremendously. *shakes head*

[mo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Fixed.

I see the discrepancy, and it's my fault. 3.6, not 36 -- I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and i didn't type my period. But my point still stands that 3.6 MILLION people is a mandate any way you slice it.

Maury

Oh, I dunno. Consider: Clinton won by nearly six million votes in 1992 -- in an election with a smaller overall turnout of 104 million -- thus making six million an even bigger margin, relatively. But when his proposal for government-sponsored health care came up, for example, his opponents didn't say, "Hey, give it up, he's got a mandate, he campaigned on this." They said, "The details of this will be unpopular, and we can beat it."

Likewise, Clinton won by eight million in 1996, with only 96 million turnout, and those who disagreed with that decision didn't exactly roll over and play dead.

It does depend on how you slice it, and how events leave you open to be sliced up yourself. If things go disastrously wrong in one area or another, that 3.6 million won't look so big. If things go well, it will look bigger. (Lyndon Johnson got an enormous mandate in 1964; by all accounts, he didn't enjoy the next four years very much.)

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Let's see. I make the assertion that this election turned on social/cultural lines rather than politics and your response is that Kerry/Edwards were pr*cks and weenies.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes. Kerry ran a very weak campaign. But the polls would indcate he was a clear winner with voters who valued political issues higher than social/cultural issues.

Bush won because more Americans felt he was their kind of guy than Kerry. I'm saying that's not exactly the best kind of "mandate" for leadership on critical issues.

Man, you get to posting the DNC Rapid Response emails fast TF!

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mo:
Oh, I dunno. Consider: Clinton won by nearly six million votes in 1992 -- in an election with a smaller overall turnout of 104 million -- thus making six million an even bigger margin, relatively. But when his proposal for government-sponsored health care came up, for example, his opponents didn't say, "Hey, give it up, he's got a mandate, he campaigned on this." They said, "The details of this will be unpopular, and we can beat it."

Likewise, Clinton won by eight million in 1996, with only 96 million turnout, and those who disagreed with that decision didn't exactly roll over and play dead.

It does depend on how you slice it, and how events leave you open to be sliced up yourself. If things go disastrously wrong in one area or another, that 3.6 million won't look so big. If things go well, it will look bigger. (Lyndon Johnson got an enormous mandate in 1964; by all accounts, he didn't enjoy the next four years very much.)

What in the living crap are you talking about, man? The margin of the winner has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any policies will be in place -- or to what we were discussing. Please stick to the facts, avoid hyperbole, and slow down the spin.

Maury

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
[But my point still stands that 3.6 MILLION people is a mandate any way you slice it.

Maury [/B]

But only for those who voted for Bush. Let us not forget the nearly 50% of voters who didn't.

Oops, sorry, I used a percentage again. Bad Gorn!

[Mithras]

So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.


The ground plan. We had targeted voters in each of hundreds of precincts. We'd work in teams of four, going to the precinct, knocking on doors, making sure our voters knew where their polling place was, encouraging them to remember to vote.


We put together 200,000 door hangers, specific to each precinct, listing the polling place and who to call if they had questions or needed a ride.


A typical house I visited. We did a lot of work in middle-class and lower-middle class white suburbs, with people who were industrial workers, or ex-industrial workers. We had Spanish-speaking and black volunteers who targeted precincts dominated by those communities.

The Cleveland area has been hit very hard economically, and these people were looking for someone who would fight for affordable health care and education.


The big rally Monday night, with The Boss saying a few eloquent words.


Our guy. He was an imperfect candidate but truly believed in making a difference for normal people, I think.


Folks in the crowd.



Labor representing.


Crowd was huge.


The payoff: our last voter in one of my target precincts, who hustled over to the polls just before the doors closed.

We lost this round, but we're not going to give up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.

Good for you.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Fixed.

I see the discrepancy, and it's my fault. 3.6, not 36 -- I'm running on 3 hours of sleep and i didn't type my period. But my point still stands that 3.6 MILLION people is a mandate any way you slice it.

Maury

Ah, OK. If I had bothered to do the math myself, I might have caught your mistake since (now after doing it) 36 million != 3% of 290 million. But as I said in my original reply to you, 3+ million is a LOT of people so in that respect we agree. While I don't think it's a landslide, I think that is quite enough to make it a fair victory and the results show what the people want.

[mo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What in the living crap are you talking about, man? The margin of the winner has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any policies will be in place -- or to what we were discussing. Please stick to the facts, avoid hyperbole, and slow down the spin.

Maury

Perhaps you mean to use a different word than "mandate." If you mean to say that the election broke decisively for Bush, that might make your point clearer.

The margin of the winner can have a great deal to do with what happens next, traditionally. Often, the phrase "a mandate for change" is thrown around when someone scores a substantial victory. As in 1936, voters giving Roosevelt a strong mandate to continue the New Deal through a landslide vote. When Reagan won by a landslide in 1984, it provided a strong argument that what was derisively called "Reaganomics" actually had broad approval and people wanted to stick with it. (Although some people claimed voters liked Reagan himself more than his policies.) A big electoral stick scares your opponents and makes a persuasive case for doing things your way. That is what a mandate is. That is what the "living crap" I am talking about. This is not exactly a controversial point I am making here; in political science terms, this is a freshman question.

What facts were incorrect in the post to which you were referring? What part of that made your head "spin"? (It's so tiresome that so many people reflexively call anything they disagree with "spin" nowadays.)

Calm down, already. Consider the possibility that it might also be fun to actually discuss politics (in the political lounge) instead of sniping at each other. Don't you get enough of that on TV chat shows?

[mo]

Originally posted by Mithras:
So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.

(snipped pix)

Great post. There's nothing like working on a campaign, is there?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Man, you get to posting the DNC Rapid Response emails fast TF!

Maury

Swing and a miss. I'm not even a Democrat and I think the leadership of the DNC should get malaria. Not die, just sweat and hurt for a while.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.

The Cleveland area has been hit very hard economically, and these people were looking for someone who would fight for affordable health care and education.

We lost this round, but we're not going to give up.

Excuse me if I disagree, Mithras. You DID win. You 'fought' and worked for what you believed. You put your ass on the line. You supported your candidate. You promoted DEMOCRACY!

I am proud of your contribution and I thank you for it.

You won. WE WON.

God Bless you and all your Fuzzy Friends. God Bless AMERICA.

BTW, I was born & raised in Cleveland.

[aberdeenwriter]

mandate

2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>

[Troll]

I think it was a good example of democracy in action although I think America has made a very bad choice in electing Bush.

Still, it was your choice to make and you made it.

I agree with those who quoted Joseph de Maistre's statement that "Every people gets the government it deserves," although I think only half of America deserves George Bush.

I need to process this shocking news a bit before I'll be able to respond coherently.

[Voch]

More Ohio stuff to chew on. I'm still in shock over my home state.

According to a report on our local Channel 8 News, Kerry bested Gore's 2000 vote count in 14 crucial Democratic Ohio counties by a whopping 330,000 votes (I assume the most populous counties like Cuyahoga [Cleveland] and Franklin [Columbus], but likely not Hamilton [Cincinnatti]). That should have been enough to win the state had it not been for the large suburban (not even rural...SUBURBAN) turnout that voted on...what else...moral issues I even remember Bush vising a new shopping center in Westlake (a western suburb of Cleveland that's still in Cuyahoga County but it's on the border with more outer-lying suburbs) the day before the election.

Cleveland has become fairly sprawled. I got sick of the sprawl and moved back to the city for convenience. My commute is "opposite" to my company's suburban office...I really wish they were downtown...I hate driving 30 minutes to get to anything in the suburbs.

I guess this is the new voting force in Ohio.

Voch

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Voch:
More Ohio stuff to chew on. I'm still in shock over my home state.

According to a report on our local Channel 8 News, Kerry bested Gore's 2000 vote count in 14 crucial Democratic Ohio counties by a whopping 330,000 votes (I assume the most populous counties like Cuyahoga [Cleveland] and Franklin [Columbus], but likely not Hamilton [Cincinnatti]). That should have been enough to win the state had it not been for the large suburban (not even rural...SUBURBAN) turnout that voted on...what else...moral issues I even remember Bush vising a new shopping center in Westlake (a western suburb of Cleveland that's still in Cuyahoga County but it's on the border with more outer-lying suburbs) the day before the election.

Cleveland has become fairly sprawled. I got sick of the sprawl and moved back to the city for convenience. My commute is "opposite" to my company's suburban office...I really wish they were downtown...I hate driving 30 minutes to get to anything in the suburbs.

I guess this is the new voting force in Ohio.

Voch

That's the new NATIONAL trend, my friend. Not to mention the Hispanic vote in the western states--again breaking mostly on religious/ideologica lines.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mithras:
So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.

*snip*

We lost this round, but we're not going to give up.

Despite our political differences, I salute you sir. Very noble of you, and I'm proud to call you an American.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He was elected to the Senate pretty handily.

Oh wait . . .

That made me laugh out loud.

[Voch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That's the new NATIONAL trend, my friend. Not to mention the Hispanic vote in the western states--again breaking mostly on religious/ideologica lines.

Sounds eerily like "we" vs. "they." The minute it becomes that is it a new internal war, above and beyond a class struggle and the "haves" and "have-nots"? I'm worried 'bout stuff like this. I'm fairly well off and may have to choose sides soon.

Voch

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Nicko:
One thing is for sure, Osama is:

1. laughing
2. getting more recruits
3. perhaps planning more attacks....or just having fun with his mini-cam
4. is very much alive.

He truly does get the last laugh.

Let's be clear, Nicko.

I assume you understand what "last" means.

Not next to last, not latest, not next laugh...but LAST laugh.

For Osama to get the LAST laugh would mean the US would have to be destroyed. Not hurt, not bankrupt, not at war, but eliminated from existence.

And it would have to happen during HIS lifetime.

Are you really predicting the US will be totally eliminated during OBL's lifetime?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mithras:
So I spent the past five days in Ohio, fighting for every vote, and I wanted to share something about that. We brought out a lot of voters, but we didn't win. I certainly don't regret doing everything I could to make it happen.

<sniP>.

Very inspiring post.

You have my respect.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
I need to process this shocking news a bit before I'll be able to respond coherently.

Why is it so shocking? Some of us have been telling you for years now that it was going to happen.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Please don't speak for me. I find plenty of value in other cultures. The US barely has a place worth vacationing.

http://honeymoons.about.com/cs/10top...tiontravel.htm

TOP 25 US VACATION SPOTS

In order of popularity, here are the 25 most popular domestic USA tourism destinations for couples based on pages served on Honeymoons/Romantic Getaways:

1. Hawaii
2. New York/Niagara Falls
3. Florida
4. California
5. Las Vegas
6. Pennsylvania/Poconos
7. Colorado
8. Georgia
9. Virginia
10. Wine Country (California)
11. Gulf Coast (Southern States)
12. Massachusetts
13. Texas
14. Illinois
15. South Carolina
16. North Carolina
17. Delaware
18. Wisconsin
19. Connecticut
20. Louisiana
21. Maine
22. New Jersey
23. Michigan
24. Tennessee
25. Washington

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by mo:
Perhaps you mean to use a different word than "mandate." If you mean to say that the election broke decisively for Bush, that might make your point clearer.

The margin of the winner can have a great deal to do with what happens next, traditionally. Often, the phrase "a mandate for change" is thrown around when someone scores a substantial victory. As in 1936, voters giving Roosevelt a strong mandate to continue the New Deal through a landslide vote. When Reagan won by a landslide in 1984, it provided a strong argument that what was derisively called "Reaganomics" actually had broad approval and people wanted to stick with it. (Although some people claimed voters liked Reagan himself more than his policies.) A big electoral stick scares your opponents and makes a persuasive case for doing things your way. That is what a mandate is. That is what the "living crap" I am talking about. This is not exactly a controversial point I am making here; in political science terms, this is a freshman question.

Well, then you can't use Clinton as an example. In his case he won by a large number of votes but quite far from scoring the majority of votes made in either election. The third party candidate siphoned off a substantial percentage from both parties and Clinton was elected by plurality but not by a statistical majority.

In fact in Political Science terms mandate usually implies a statistical majority, being +50%. In some of the examples used thusfar and labeled as a mandate the president failed to reach that number and term is erroneously misused.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Voch:
More Ohio stuff to chew on. I'm still in shock over my home state.

That should have been enough to win the state had it not been for the large suburban (not even rural...SUBURBAN) turnout that voted on...what else...moral issues
Voch

Thanks for your post. It is sad and upsetting that these voters could be inspired by the hate amendments. Over the long haul I have no doubt that the tolerant view will prevail, but I do mean the long haul.

I was so inspired by the dozens and dozens of decent folk I met in Cuyahoga County. Despite the large numbers in the conservative Christian community, I'm not interested in winning by appealing to their worst instincts. As BRussell suggested elsewhere, perhaps a moderate libertarian message, inclusive but not radical, can win the decent-minded of the suburbanites into our camp.

It's going to take some retooling, but I'm not despairing at all.

[Voch]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Thanks for your post. It is sad and upsetting that these voters could be inspired by the hate amendments. Over the long haul I have no doubt that the tolerant view will prevail, but I do mean the long haul.

I was so inspired by the dozens and dozens of decent folk I met in Cuyahoga County. Despite the large numbers in the conservative Christian community, I'm not interested in winning by appealing to their worst instincts. As BRussell suggested elsewhere, perhaps a moderate libertarian message, inclusive but not radical, can win the decent-minded of the suburbanites into our camp.

It's going to take some retooling, but I'm not despairing at all.

I'm not necessarily hoping for people to come to "our camp" per se. Not even appeasement to the other party (which would seem unnecessary since all the branches of government are dominated by the Republican party). I guess I need to see some compromise and comradery in the government like we had shortly after 9/11 (*without* having to go through that ever again).

My sole optimism lies in the two similar interviews I saw with Senator McCain. He implied that second-term presidents like to work on their legacy a bit more than first-term presidents (I guess first-termers want to work on their agenda). This is an opportunity for Mr. Bush to become a little more centrist because he has no election to go through again in four years and hopefully won't have the utter shock of another attack on our country that I think may have sparked some of the morality push in this country.

Voch

[ironknee]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Thanks for your post. It is sad and upsetting that these voters could be inspired by the hate amendments. Over the long haul I have no doubt that the tolerant view will prevail, but I do mean the long haul.

I was so inspired by the dozens and dozens of decent folk I met in Cuyahoga County. Despite the large numbers in the conservative Christian community, I'm not interested in winning by appealing to their worst instincts. As BRussell suggested elsewhere, perhaps a moderate libertarian message, inclusive but not radical, can win the decent-minded of the suburbanites into our camp.

It's going to take some retooling, but I'm not despairing at all.

thank you! your work is appreciated__

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No. The problem is that this election seems to have been about voting for "your kind" vs "my kind" rather than about real politics.

The fact that this "us vs them" mentally is even stronger today than before the election does not bode well for the next 4 years.

Seriously. How does this help?

I agree completely; well said. The level of vitriol has been amazing -- and all it does is entrench people.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
Saying that I'll be "helping bin Laden et al to carry out an attack on us" is not a personal attack? Please explain.

Okay, that is an extrapolation; I retract it. I will stick to what you, voodoo, cp3o, and some other non-Americans have been stating.

-- personally insulted all Americans, saying we are "stupid" because we disagree with your political views
-- stated that you'd laugh at Americans suffering
-- stated that any attacks on America would be deserved now
-- said we're going to "walk alone" through the valley of death
-- mocked the deaths of the people who perished in 9/11

Talk about arrogance, vitriol, and bombastic points. I mean really; it's disgusting. This is how you express differing political views, this is how you handle disagreements? Sad, sad, sad.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by moki:
-- personally insulted all Americans, saying we are "stupid" because we disagree with your political views
-- stated that you'd laugh at Americans suffering
-- stated that any attacks on America would be deserved now
-- said we're going to "walk alone" through the valley of death
-- mocked the deaths of the people who perished in 9/11

Talk about arrogance, vitriol, and bombastic points. I mean really; it's disgusting. This is how you express differing political views, this is how you handle disagreements? Sad, sad, sad.

You've obviously not met our peaceful members of the MacNN board. Presidente, this is to be expected from the Logic/LBK duo. They hate America and side with OBL while claiming terrorists to be traitors. The funniest thing might be this Iraq "explanation":

Terrorists=Islam traitors
Traitor=Iraqis siding with coalition
Freedom loving Iraqis=terrorists
Freedom loving Iraqis=traders to Islam
-or-
Insurgent?terrorist
Iraqis siding with US=terrorist

Reminds me of my Geo class last year.

He wishes death to us and is on the side of the PLO. Nuff said.
[All the meanwhile they hope Palestine to win and claim not to be anti-Semites]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
On the downside US voters have proven that they are as out of touch with reality as their president. Bush is exactly what you deserve

On the upside I just won myself a bottle of Johnnie Walker black label!

My condolences and respect to the wise and brave people who tried to vote the Chimp-in-Chief out of office. Too bad there wasn't enough of you that bothered to vote and decided to let other people handle the democracy for you.

With the following with you, you lost the election:

� The incumbent wasn't elected as much as appointed by his father's golf buddies.

� The incumbent has shown to be beyond inept at his job, doing bad things for the US like (but not limited to):

-- undermining relationship with allies
-- letting thousands of jobs go down the drain
-- went to war in Iraq for no benefit to the US
-- failed to 'hunt down' or even 'smoke out' Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11, resulting in the death of 3000+ US Americans
-- has vehemently opposed stem cell research to please heretical 'christians' that form the backbone of his support
-- has created one of the biggest deficits in recent history of the US
-- has sent misleading and inconsistent message to the US citizens about their safety from terrorism
-- has split the US nation in two in a time where the best thing would be to be united

� The incumbent has no discernible leadership abilities, charisma or ability to express himself in a confident and convincing manner.

I could go on.

A big F U to all the people who voted for Kerry just to vote against Bush. I mean that. John Kerry has integrity, bravery, a plan and a vision for American prosperity and future. And you didn't vote for that. What the F do you vote for THEN??

Congratulations to the rightwingers on this forum, even if they are in the minority here that is not the case in the US in general. Four more years - heck I don't understand how you pulled it off. Looking at the last four years Bush had every reason to be sacked by the voters. Except you are in a war. Oh yeah, slipped my mind.

Oh maybe because **newsflash** you AREN'T in a war. Forget it. If you didn't see it before you won't see it now and it sure as heck doesn't matter now. You got what you deserve all right. That's the great thing about democracy.

Glad to see you back, voodoo.

[aberdeenwriter]

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml...ayDate=current

Listen to NPR's "Fresh Air with Terry Gross"

Post Election Analysis & A Look Ahead

Wednesday, November 03, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------

Listen to Political Commentator David Frum

From January 2001 to February 2002 he was a special assistant to President Bush for economic speech-writing. He held the position during the Sept. 11 attacks and he is the man responsible for the oft-repeated Bush term "axis of evil." Frum is the author of the book, The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush.


Listen to 'The New Yorker' Editor Hendrik Hertzberg

Last week The New Yorker endorsed John Kerry for president. Hertzberg frequently contributes to the magazine's Talk of the Town section. He is also the author of Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004. Hertzberg was on the staff of The New Republic magazine for much of the 1980s. He also spent time in the White House from 1979 to 1981 as Jimmy Carter's speechwriter.
Listen to John Powers on Election Coverage

Critic-at-large John Powers talks about last night's election coverage.

[sideus]

Originally posted by Mithras:
It is sad and upsetting that these voters could be inspired by the hate amendments.

No hate about it. I fully agreed with Issue 1. I'm not a hateful person though.

[Troll]

You know, I woke up this morning and I thought, 'How the hell did an alcoholic, drug addict, bible-bashing convicted criminal get elected to be President of the United States not once but TWICE?" I still don't get how this guy couldn't lose!

[sideus]

Originally posted by Troll:
You know, I woke up this morning and I thought, 'How the hell did an alcoholic, drug addict, bible-bashing convicted criminal get elected to be President of the United States not once but TWICE?" I still don't get how this guy couldn't lose!

He was elected, that is how.

[Troll]

Originally posted by sideus:
He was elected, that is how.

I understand how it happened technically. What I don't yet understand is how he managed to persuade people to vote for him.

As a person he seems to represent the antithesis of what America seems to like at the moment - a spoilt rich kid who wasted most of his life taking drugs, drinking, driving under the influence, using his family connections to collect money and wasting it running companies into the ground before using family connections again to get into politics and make president.

As a President, his first four years are a pretty resounding failure. He's ineloquent, unsophisticated, cantankerous, loses his cool. The first President to lose jobs ever, biggest deficit ever, presides over an economy in recession and social security system in crisis, biggest terrorist attack ever, invaded a country with no valid reason leading to the death of 1,500 Americans and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars never mind 100,000 innocent people killed, broke ties with international organisations that America was instrumental in founding, broke ties with most of America's traditional allies, undid decades of good work done to solve the Palestinian problem, endangered the environment. The list goes on.

I can understand that one or two big fans would vote for him, but that 51% of voters would, well that I just simply don't understand. There has to be a reasonable explanation for this. So far I'm tending to the theory that Americans are still terrified and traumatised by all of the terrorist warnings and they somehow got it into their heads that Bush was good at dealing with terrorism. Maybe someone here can explain why the average Joe Schmo overlooked Bush's history and his record as President.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Troll:
Maybe someone here can explain why the average Joe Schmo overlooked Bush's history and his record as President.

All that, and the Democrats still couldn't come up with anyone better than Kerry.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by Troll:
So far I'm tending to the theory that Americans are still terrified and traumatised by all of the terrorist warnings and they somehow got it into their heads that Bush was good at dealing with terrorism.

In locations likely to suffer terrorist attacks, such as NY, DC and CA, Bush didn't win, btw.

You can draw a variety of (conflicting) conclusions from that.

J

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
Okay, that is an extrapolation; I retract it. I will stick to what you, voodoo, cp3o, and some other non-Americans have been stating.

-- personally insulted all Americans, saying we are "stupid" because we disagree with your political views
-- stated that you'd laugh at Americans suffering
-- stated that any attacks on America would be deserved now
-- said we're going to "walk alone" through the valley of death
-- mocked the deaths of the people who perished in 9/11

Talk about arrogance, vitriol, and bombastic points. I mean really; it's disgusting. This is how you express differing political views, this is how you handle disagreements? Sad, sad, sad.

1. Only those who voted for Bush. Unfortunately that was the majority so that reflects heavily on America as a whole.

2. I don't recall saying that. Care to show me where I said that?

3. Yup. I feel sorry for those who will suffer though. Just like I feel Iceland will have earned it if we get attacked.

4. Yup. If you want to continue to fight this war the wrong way and without any input from us then you will have to walk alone.

5. Don't recall saying that. Care to show me where I said that?

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
1. Only those who voted for Bush. Unfortunately that was the majority so that reflects heavily on America as a whole.

Right; "Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" This is some kind of enlightened world view? Seems to me it is stereotyping, pigeonholing, and arrogance all rolled into one. I would not presume to call you "stupid" simply because I believe your views are misguided and your demeanor here insulting.

3. Yup. I feel sorry for those who will suffer though. Just like I feel Iceland will have earned it if we get attacked.

That's a very fatalistic world view. If someone is attacked, they deserved it. Okay, we'll go with that. Using your rationale, Afghanistan / Taliban / al qeada deserved it, and Iraq deserved it as well. Or are you going to start qualifying your broadly-based assertion that "If it happens, it was deserved"?

Ah, right, I forgot. Anyone America attacks never deserves it; the Americans are terrorists, not the beacon of freedom to the world we've been for the past several hundred years. Up is down. Right is left.

5. Don't recall saying that. Care to show me where I said that?

Your pedantic style of debate here isn't working; at once you claim haughtily to have a monopoly on wisdom and knowledge, and on the other hand can't seem to read what I've stated: you, voodoo, cp3o, and some other non-Americans have been stating

[Troll]

Originally posted by Randman:
All that, and the Democrats still couldn't come up with anyone better than Kerry.

Well, is that really the problem? I don't think Kerry was a great candidate, but the Democrats should have been able to oust Bush with Mickey Mouse as their candidate. I don't think it's that. I think there's something else going on here. People seemed to know that Bush was full of faults, but they seemed to be inspired to overlook all of those flaws and vote for him anyway.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Your pedantic style of debate here isn't working

Did you ever explain why you went back on your statement that you would support the impeachment of Bush if WMD weren't found within 6 months of invading Iraq?

Personally, the one good thing I see about Bush being reelected is that he can now be impeached!

[Cody Dawg]

Personally, the one good thing I see about Bush being reelected is that he can now be impeached!

By whom?

The Republicans are in charge of everything.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
Right; "Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" This is some kind of enlightened world view? Seems to me it is stereotyping, pigeonholing, and arrogance all rolled into one. I would not presume to call you "stupid" simply because I believe your views are misguided and your demeanor here insulting.

I would have no problem with people voting for any other Republican. Even if I disagree with their POV at least some of them are intelligent, somewhat honest and several other attributes all of which Bush lacks. Voting for an unintelligent, alcoholic with a criminal record is stupid. No intelligent person would want someone like that in charge of a country and a military.

That's a very fatalistic world view. If someone is attacked, they deserved it. Okay, we'll go with that. Using your rationale, Afghanistan / Taliban / al qeada deserved it, and Iraq deserved it as well. Or are you going to start qualifying your broadly-based assertion that "If it happens, it was deserved"?

Most of the time that is exactly the case. Afghanistan/Taliban/Al Qaida deserved to be attack. I've never complained about that war. I've complained about how it's been handled and how the post war scenario played out but not the war. Iraq did not deserve it because they were under control, SH was a "nice" as he ever been, and the monitors were in place and about to verify his claim that they had no WMD's. Still the US thought it would be a good idea to kill 100k innocent Iraqis. A number SH could only dream of reaching the last few years.

Ah, right, I forgot. Anyone America attacks never deserves it; the Americans are terrorists, not the beacon of freedom to the world we've been for the past several hundred years. Up is down. Right is left.

Yeah, because Chile felt so good under Pinochet, Cubans felt so free and happy under Batista, Iranians felt so free and democratic under the Shah and the list goes on. The US being the Beacon Of The Freedom Of The World� is just a myth.

Your pedantic style of debate here isn't working; at once you claim haughtily to have a monopoly on wisdom and knowledge, and on the other hand can't seem to read what I've stated: you, voodoo, cp3o, and some other non-Americans have been stating

So? You still claimed I would be likely to help Al Qaida. Something that is an accusation worth suing you for libel.

The truth is that the US and Al Qaida deserve each other. Two different sides of the same coin.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Well, is that really the problem? I don't think Kerry was a great candidate, but the Democrats should have been able to oust Bush with Mickey Mouse as their candidate. I don't think it's that. I think there's something else going on here. People seemed to know that Bush was full of faults, but they seemed to be inspired to overlook all of those flaws and vote for him anyway.

Kerry really was a terrible candidate. Even the people who voted for Kerry, the majority of them voted against Bush, not for Kerry. The man was a problem, and also how his campaign was run was a problem.

As has been stated before, you can't simply tell people to vote against one candidate; you have to give them a reason to vote for another. And contrary to what it may seem from the outside, there were many reasons for moderate voters who have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past (such as myself) to choose Bush over Kerry.

The war in Iraq was what the rest of the world focused on, because it is the primary thing the rest of the world is mad/upset about. But Americans have to consider far more than this single foreign policy issues when voting.

A large part of the republican party is not religious, believes in abortion, believes in gay civil unions, and is socially liberal or libertarian. It may seem extremely odd to people in Europe, but many of these people vehemently oppose big government, and the kind of confiscatory taxes needed for socialized healthcare, pensions, and so on and so forth.

Economic freedom is a freedom as well; I simply could not live in a place where it was considered okay to have a top marginal tax rate of 60% and a VAT of 25%, in addition to massive taxes on gasoline and other goods/services. If you are fine with that, and feel giving that much money to a central bureaucracy is a good thing, then that's fine.

Many here do not; and these are not "the rich" who feel this way either; it is people who value freedom in all its forms, and people who believe that America has lead the world technologically because of the environment here, not in spite of it. It's not just about "greedy people" wanting to keep their money, it's about believing this kind of environment is a breeding ground for innovation and progress.

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Kerry was seen as the antithesis of this philosophy, so while his views may have played well with some in Europe, they do not play well with many people here. Certainly they do with some, but clearly not enough.

Contrary to the simplistic picture that some have attempted to paint regarding people who supported Bush, the dynamic here is actually quite complex. Backing Bush does not by any means translate into backing all of the mans views, and it will not result in a much more socially conservative America. It does not mean that he would be supported broadly in any more military ventures in the world.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by moki:
I didn't look anything up; I'm very aware of all of these things. What exactly has Europe contributed to the world in the last 100 years, exactly? Brownie points are taken away already for World War I and World War II -- if there's anything earth-shaking you'd care to list, anything that's benefitted the world, I'd love to hear it.

...

I hate to rain on your parade and your huge love fest with Logic, but Europe has been the source of many major inventions in the last century. I'm not a European and I know this. (We don't all live in the Escape Velocity universe, you know ). Obvious examples would be:
Radar - UK
Jet engines - Nazi Germany
Ballistic missiles - Nazi Germany
Guided missiles - Nazi Germany
Modern Assault Rifle - Nazi Germany
Manned Rockets - Nazi Germany
X-rays - Germany
Digital computers (Konrad Zuse, although I think the US and the UK don't acknowledge it)
The World Wide Web (aka, the http protocol, html and the first browser) Tim Berners Lee at CERN in Geneva, 1990.

Now, I don't know just how positive one should view the machines of destruction that the Nazis invented, but they certainly furthered the advance of aircraft and aerodynamics, which led to all the advances in civillian and military craft after WWII, and had it not been for the Ex-Nazi, Werner Von Braun, it is doubtful that the US (or the rest of the world, for that matter) would have made it into space or to the moon as quickly as it did.

I know you have a badly hidden dislike of Europe (and please, spare me the denials, it's pretty obvious), as much as Logic has an irrational obsession with the US (and Logic, same to you, please spare me the denials, ok?), and in your relative hatreds, you both end up pissing on one another's feet and not actually saying anything constructive.

The US is a very inventive country, and it certainly had a big advantage on Europe after WWII, but it really isn't the only place on earth where innovation happens. I think that doing business in the US is a lot easier, but, especially today, the weight of legal dangers in the patent war is killing a lot of what used to be good in the US, and this is because it's becoming easier to bring innovations to market outside the US with fear of legal action by lawyers wanting to make easy money.

(You can tell that the issue of software patents, and stories such as the SCO-IBM/Linux story are my personal bogeymen )

[Randman]

Well said moki

Enough with the name calling

[y0y0]

Originally posted by moki:
...
Contrary to the simplistic picture that some have attempted to paint regarding people who supported Bush, the dynamic here is actually quite complex. Backing Bush does not by any means translate into backing all of the mans views, and it will not result in a much more socially conservative America. It does not mean that he would be supported broadly in any more military ventures in the world.

I could have sworn that the 11 states that voted to ban gay marriage painted a different picture.

[Logic]

Originally posted by y0y0:
............as much as Logic has an irrational obsession with the US (and Logic, same to you, please spare me the denials, ok?)..............

NEVA!!!!!!!!!!!!