the outcome of the election
#21
I know several people, including my father(vietnam vet), who simply detest Kerry over that whole Vietnam thing. Many vets just wouldn't vote for him after that.
Reply
#22
Fragbait,Nov 3 2004, 02:03 PM Wrote:Hi,

I cannot affirm that. Do you know which survey? Here's a link for you: bbc news on european survey

Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]59034[/snapback][/right]
Bleh! I wasn't paying attention.

I meant to say "Kerry".

" about 90% of our population would have voted for Kerry" was what I meant. I don't know what I was thinking. :)
Ask me about Norwegian humour Smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs9SE2sDTw
Reply
#23
Ghostiger,Nov 3 2004, 03:24 PM Wrote:-I think Bush is more honest and direct, which I like.
[right][snapback]59037[/snapback][/right]

Hmmm... Bush Administration (Powell, Rice) in early 2001: "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant means in the area of WMDs, nor is he able to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Same administration starting late 2001: He *HAS* WMDs, he's a threat to the US (not only his neigbors!), he was directly involved in 9/11"

Quote:-Bush may not be the smartest, but I think he better realizes the gravity of the "War on Terror".

3 words: My. Pet. Goat.

And: sending only 11.000 troops to Afghanistan full 2 months after the man they supposedly were after got ample warning that someone was coming for him.

Also, not asking a single question from the Bin Ladin relatives inside the US during the attacks...

Would you care to elaborate HOW people come to these convictions? I ´still completely fail to understand.

OTOH, folks here elected Helmut Kohl 4 times, which is almost as mysterious :P

With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince...
With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D. ...
and still keep the frog you started with.
Reply
#24
I voted for Bush. That vote was never really in question; the only question was whether I would bother to walk to the poll and wait for hours to vote. I think the biggest factor that motivated me to vote would be the social issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, etc. The Supreme Court is likely to have some changes in the next four years, and I do not want a social liberal like Kerry to be in charge of those changes. We had a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio, which was added initiative to vote.
Reply
#25
Ghostiger,Nov 3 2004, 11:48 AM Wrote:Thats why we vote.

[right][snapback]59053[/snapback][/right]

Indeed. That is the point I was making. :P

The starter of this thread asked why people voted the way they did. I wanted to demonstrate that the reasons why people vote as they do are as individual as the people themselves.

Quote:These are matters of opinion in the end. Fortunetly for me, more people agree with me than you.

Yes. You will get to keep your toy. Lucky you.

And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#26
Wow. I simply don't have the words to describe how I feel. I woke up today, hop online to see what happened with the election, and almost cried when I saw the results.

I've deleted three sentences now as I'm trying to write this. I just can't seem to make the words come out correctly.

How could we elect Bush again? I just don't get it. I fear for our planet but so many Americans (and I guess people in general) can't see past their own petty views.

Global warming is a reality. It's coming, and it's not coming 200 years from now. Bush environmental policy was WRITTEN by damm lobbyist... almost verbatim.

The EPA has been gutted. It's just so sad.

While we have been off galavanting (well, I guess those soldiers in Irag and Afg. wouldn't think they are galavanting) in Irag supposedly looking for WMD, the WMDs have been EVERY OTHER PLACE except for where we have focused our attention.

What a sad, pathetic country we are, "Eleven states ban gay marriage".

On behalf of myself, I would like to apologize to every woman in the world who just got screwed over by what we did.

Sigh.... deep breath. Ok, I understand though, Kerry did absolutely nothing to make himself stand out. The country was waiting for a different direction and no one offered it to them.

To the Bush supporters, I'm sure you're not really as bad as I think you are. :)

Touchy issues for me, hope I didn't step on anyones toes.

Smithy
Reply
#27
Ghostiger,Nov 3 2004, 12:04 PM Wrote:Nice - "I have the feeling that if I was to go on a tiger hunt with these two men, Kerry would try to talk to the tiger, whereas Bush would shoot himself in the foot. On the whole, I would rather have the man who would at least try to shoot the tiger be in charge."
Thats an an analogy I agree with.
[right][snapback]59048[/snapback][/right]

It would be fine if he only shot himself in the foot, but as it stands, he's more likely to be holding an M4 and be shooting uncontrollably in all directions, hitting not only himself, but the tiger, Kerry, the guy holding the camera, the reporter, all the woodland nymphs, some dude a few miles down the road...

"Yay! We did it!"
"Who are you?"
"Um, uh... just ... a guy." *flee*
Reply
#28
"What they do expect is that the federal goverment fulfills its mandate to provide for the common defense."

Hi, are you suggesting that the Iraq war was our government fufilling its mandate to provide for the common defense?

Personally, I think going to war in Iraq did everything but help to defend us.

Smithy
Reply
#29
smithy,Nov 3 2004, 10:09 AM Wrote:How could we elect Bush again?  I just don't get it.  I fear for our planet but so many Americans (and I guess people in general) can't see past their own petty views.
[right][snapback]59063[/snapback][/right]
Note the bold and try applying it to yourself. Not to flame, just to (hopefully) instigate some self reflection.
Reply
#30
smithy,Nov 3 2004, 08:09 PM Wrote:Touchy issues for me, hope I didn't step on anyones toes.

Touchy for a whole lot of people methinks.

Especially the ban vs gay marriages rubs me the wrong way, given that America is supposedly the land of the free where you are equally an American no matter your race/skin color/personal beliefs/whatever. I guess sexual orientation just didn't make the cut. I think it will some day though, I believe people will become more tolerant of the idea of gay couples getting married over time.

No offense to any Americans intended, I just don't appreciate the current politics of your country (or at least parts of it). Especially since the gay marriage ban seems to find its roots in religion, which I personally believe should be kept as far away from politics as humanly possible. You simply should not legislate based on religious grounds.

But I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully comprehend the concept of religion as it is in America.


ManaCraft
Reply
#31
Sir_Die_alot,Nov 3 2004, 01:30 PM Wrote:Note the bold and try applying it to yourself. Not to flame, just to (hopefully) instigate some self reflection.
[right][snapback]59066[/snapback][/right]


Well, of course I don't think my views are petty. :)

As I told my girlfriend last night, "If I had gone to vote today and the two choices I had for President were George W. Bush and "Random US citizen over 35", I would have taken the random citizen.

I supported Bush when he was first running for office. He has failed miserably on all counts so I thought someone else should have won.

Oops, guess I flip-flopped. :o

Smithy
Reply
#32
BruceGod,Nov 3 2004, 10:53 AM Wrote:3) I have the feeling that if I was to go on a tiger hunt with these two men, Kerry would try to talk to the tiger, whereas Bush would shoot himself in the foot. On the whole, I would rather have the man who would at least try to shoot the tiger be in charge.

[right][snapback]59047[/snapback][/right]

Shoot first, ask questions later. As long as we're left standing, who cares what happens to the rest of 'em...

There's a problem with your analogy. People aren't tigers. Even the terrorists, who I'm sure we'd all love to paint as unthinking, savage beasts out only to hurt us (they hate our freedoms, right?), are just a little more complex than that. You can't finish the war on terror by simply shooting everyone.

The question has been asked repeatedly but never answered: the Bush administration is in favor of attacking any and all countries which harbor Al-Qaeda -- does it worry anyone else that there are 60 or so countries on this list so far?

So now we have 4 more years of W. Four more years of the rich getting richer while the poor kids in america get sent to fight and die for oil in the middle east. Four more years of the constitution being trampled in the name of national security. Look at the Patriot act -- now imagine what Bush is going to do when he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected.

I'm really glad I live in Canada.

gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
Reply
#33
Fragbait,Nov 3 2004, 07:18 AM Wrote:Hi,

Seeing that the lounge doesn't have exactly such a thread yet, I thought it was time to start one. We could have all discussion over the result of the vote at this neat place.

As time goes by, George W. Bush seems to emerge victorious from this presidential election. Indeed about 250000 provisional ballots must still be counted, but John Kerry needs a major trend reversal to preserve his chances.
(see www.cnn.com)

My question to all that voted for Bush would be:

Why did you vote for him? What reasons influenced your decision? I'm really interested. Here in Europe (more precisely: Germany), most of us can hardly comprehend that choice. Please let us not turn this into flame bait, and try to restrict yourself to a short statement of 5 to 10 lines.

I'm not cagey about my own opinion: I would have chosen Kerry. Likewise would have 2/3 - 3/4 of all Europeans, as surveys show.

Thanks, Fragbait
[right][snapback]59026[/snapback][/right]

Silly, silly, Americans. John Kerry was right for the job, but the job wasn't right for him.

John Kerry would have tried to change things, but nothing would have been different. The enconomy would not have improved simply because he'd pull out of the war. Justfiable war = fixes economies. The problem is that the Iraq war is not a justifiable war.

The Trickle-down effect; taxing the rich would not have paid off of the national debt, but rather, tax cuts to the rich would theoretically stimulate the creation of jobs, leading to more spending (what Bush is doing). Honestly, I don't think it matters one way or the other, since things will only be getting worse for everyone. Either Bush or Kerry, it doesn't matter regarding the economy, one policy or the other would have done just about the same thing. So in that respect, I don't care who is elected. What does bother me about Bush getting re-elected is that things like the cure for parkinsons and paralysis will be delayed for 4 years at least, and maybe not ever found, because of Bush's stance on stem cell research. The only comfort I take in that is natural selection; medicine and science go against natural selection, allowing the sick and weak to live on and have children, when they really shouldn't.

John Kerry vs. George Bush was not Good vs. Evil as some people would have you imagine. It's one set of political aspirations vs. another set of monetary aspirations. More like, Not As Greedy vs. Extremely Greedy. Why does one want to become the president in the first place? Why does one want to do anything? Money, of course. If you can't live off of what you do, you find something else that you can do that sustains you, and do your other thing on the side. It just so happens that Bush can do everything he wants to do at the highest seat of power in the world; he collects wealth with all the benefits of being able to make the law.

All I can say is THANK GOD/ALLAH/JESUS/JEHOVA/VISHNU/EINSTEIN FOR TERM LIMITS. I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant. They see, "GW Bush, the War President" and it gets them hard. The others see "GW Bush, the Protector of the World" and say, "we're safe because of GW. I'll vote for him". The businessmen see "GW Bush, Our Buddy, Looking Out For Us" and vote for him because, well, he IS one of them and is looking out for them. The religious (ignorant) people see "GW Bush, Crusader For God, Smiter of Pagans" and vote for him that way. The evangelical and fundamental religious types are the worst (best?) when it comes to gathering votes; Bush says, "gays = bad so no marriage for them, life = sacred therefore no stem cell research and no abortion" and they eat it up. What pisses me off is that there are so many of those people in the U.S., it's almost infathomable. All these people following something so ridiculous -- my rational mind can't comprehend such blind faith.

I could wax philosophical for hours, or I could go on a tirade about Religion and how it was used as a form of government in the past and is not completely and outmoded. It's only use now is to pacify the public. After all, a public that realizes the truth behind life, that we are just organisms here to consume and replicate and anything else we add to our existence is merely for show, we would have anarchy. We can't have that now, can we? Enough about that, I've gone way off topic... Where was I?

So yeah, Bush won because of his broader platform and campaigning. He played to the ignorant and religious (those terms are synonymous in my view) and won because of it. You notice, the places that Kerry won were all liberal areas, like New York, California and Nevada. Those places realized that Bush made mistakes and it was time for him to go. Really, though, if you make a huge public mistake, you get fired. That's how it goes. Happens to CEOs all the time. The People didn't fire Bush. Bush either really superbly tricked those ignorant people, or they just really didn't like John Kerry. I like to call Bush Voters, "Violently Ignorant". A vote for Bush validates his impetuous action, his incredibly, superlatively impetuous action.

What really bothers me is that since his actions have been validated, he is free to do it again. What oil rich country is next, hmm? I don't know, but it's probably not Saudi Arabia... Maybe they will invade Alberta!

The next attack on America will be from a militant super-power, not a terrorist group. Ugh, 4 more years of listening to Bush say "New-cue-lar". I just want to slap him in the mouth when he does that little "hyeh hyeh hyeh" laugh...

This president makes me want to move to Australia so when North Korea nukes the hell out the U.S., I won't be bathed in the fallout (I'm awfully close to New York...). Hey mates, put the shrimp on the bar-bee and all that, I'm comin' down there!

My apologies for the long post. I'm a bit miffed and needed to vent. At least I didn't do my religion rant, that one would be at least ten thousand words.
"Yay! We did it!"
"Who are you?"
"Um, uh... just ... a guy." *flee*
Reply
#34
gekko,Nov 3 2004, 08:57 PM Wrote:Look at the Patriot act -- now imagine what Bush is going to do when he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected.

This is one of the things that worries me as well. Fact is that the republican party now has control of the presidency AND the house of representatives AND the senate - which basically means that it's comparatively easy for Bush to get whatever legislation he introduces passed. And worse, the supreme court is apparently also up for grabs, which again favors Bush and his views on key issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

So in short, the next four years will be ... interesting.


ManaCraft
Reply
#35
JustAGuy,Nov 3 2004, 07:12 PM Wrote:So yeah, Bush won because of his broader platform and campaigning. He played to the ignorant and religious (those terms are synonymous in my view) and won because of it.

You're coming rather too close to starting something that isn't worth starting.
Reply
#36
Skandranon,Nov 3 2004, 03:40 PM Wrote:You're coming rather too close to starting something that isn't worth starting.
[right][snapback]59080[/snapback][/right]

I've been through that discussion a few times, so I have a clear opinion on religion. That opinion really has no place in this thread. I will not edit the original post, but I do agree that discussion on a "purpose of religion" topic isn't something worth investing time in (in this thread, at least. Perhaps a different one -- I could go on for hours about that topic! Although, I do have work to attend to...).
"Yay! We did it!"
"Who are you?"
"Um, uh... just ... a guy." *flee*
Reply
#37
I never liked any of the candidates, so I lose anyways. :)
With great power comes the great need to blame other people.
Guild Wars 2: (ArchonWing.9480) 
Battle.net (ArchonWing.1480)
Reply
#38
gekko,Nov 3 2004, 11:57 AM Wrote:Shoot first, ask questions later.  As long as we're left standing, who cares what happens to the rest of 'em...


I agree. An isolationist hegemony cannot stand. If we continue to act solely in our own interest, proclaiming it’s our right as the most powerful nation to trample on the rights of those less powerful when it suits our national security, how long can it last? How long before the world turns economically or even militarily against us? If this stance continues, where will we be in 30 years, when the superpower is not the US, but China? Are we banking on the prayer that foreign nations have short collective memories? What will the nuclear proliferation threat be in 2010, with and without foreign alliances? The Muslims of the world have noted quite clearly that Pakistan is the only "tay-ror-eest" country that hasn’t been trampled in some way, and treated respectfully … I wonder why.

Will the Saudis still stand beside us if the war continues? If we suffer another mainland terrorist attack, who will weep for us? Who will freely offer us mutual intelligence? Can we continue to treat Canada as our disenfranchised backyard and expect popular alliance? Can we strengthen freedom and democracy in Central America before somebody else with another ideology moves there in our stead? What will happen to the world circa 2100 if Africa at last implodes, a disease-ridden war-torn continent unable to support extended civilization, and millions of violent and desperate refugees move north and west?

The Bush administration keeps telling us that the main issue is the war on terror. I would like to more correctly amend that and say that the main issue is America’s war on the sensibilities of the world. I have never felt less and more patriotic than I have in the last 2 years – less for our administration that represents us to the world, and more for the fact that I do my best to live and breathe American ideals while stomaching what Bush’s regime is doing to the world and our reputation.

I can hear the hard-rights already – “Fine then, leave.” But by whatever infinitesimal measure you wish to use, America would be worse off without me. Am I a saintly citizen? No, by no means. Am I a good one? Yes. I pay my taxes. I advocate the community. I don't own a car, I walk, I pollute very little. I recycle what I can. I work for a non-profit that assists the courts and government agencies in improving justice and human rights. My current project I’m in love with – we are trying to help thousands of orphaned children receive fairer and safer treatment, and to reduce juveniles rapes, murders, and sundered families. I do good work. America would lose all that if I left.

Does the current administration care? Of course not. $ = king. The betterment of humanity is lesser in their minds than the betterment of Haliburton. If I have an economically feasible opportunity and the US continues on the course it’s on, I will expatriate. Vancouver, Ireland, I have not yet decided. But I fear I will not be able to – I have a family to think about. All I can do is live my life as best I can, and speak out against injustice where I see it.

The Bush administration creates injustice.
Reply
#39
Ignorant is not realizing all values are based on nothing but some sort of "faith" oin the end.
Reason is a great tool, but but it serves no purpose without direction.


Ill give anyone room to disagree with my values(although I may not respect them), but people who are take nonsense positions and do it rudely as Justaguy did, deserve scorn and anmity from my perspective.
Reply
#40
I've tried to have a similar discussion with people, and have come to the following conclusion:

Most people are incapable of discussing politics.

I don't care with which side of the coin one's allegiance lies, he'd best have some reason behind his statements other than "your candidate sucks!" or personal attacks upon those that voted for said candidate.

I voted for Bush, seeing him as the more capable of the two candidates and a man that has surrounded himself with a competent cabinet. Bringing that up in public, I of course wouldn't spark much discussion among those that support Bush. But the Kerry supporters WITHOUT FAIL would start flying off the handle at me. Statements like "he's the worst President in history!" or "I'm scared for my life if Bush wins" were heard quite a few times.

I can only suspect that I'd get the same from myriad Bush supporters had I mentioned voting for Kerry. I don't mean to paint Kerry supporters as fanatics, it's just that the bulk of my experiences as of late have been on the business end of uninformed tantrums. I've also spoken with peopl who supported Bush but had ABSOLUTELY nothing to back that up, and that's just sad.

So yes, I've said why I voted for Bush (although it's a rather general explanation, I'll admit), but more importantly I'd like to ask people to cut with the petty attacks and exaggerations.

Aw, what the heck? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

I voted for Bush because Kerry wants to molest my grandmother.
See you in Town,
-Z
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)