Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Kerry Concedes Election To Bush 5687

Posted by timothy
from the now-clean-up-all-these-damn-peanuts dept.
WilliamGeorge points to this MSNBC story "that presidential candidate John Kerry has called George W Bush to concede the election. So it is over, and without a lot of extra fuss and recounts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kerry Concedes Election To Bush

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:40PM (#10711096)
    And let us move back to our normal bickering of Linux vs. BSD.
  • Sad sad day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711109)
    It's a sad sad day for 50% of America.
  • by Ishkibble (581826) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711119) Homepage
    what a shame, kerry would of lead the country in a better direction. it is truly a shame we have to wait another 4 years for some improvement to happen to this country
  • Well, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by brilinux (255400) <kg4qxk&arrl,net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711123) Homepage Journal
    So we saw this coming, I suppose, and while most of us do not like it, it is finished. This is a testament both to Kerry's character as well as America's democratic process. I wish the candidates the best of luck now that it is over, and I hope that America does not go to hell.
  • Good move (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimmyCarter (56088) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711144) Journal
    The last thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. Kerry did the honorable thing considering his slim-none chances of pulling Ohio out.

    Life will go on. It's a sad day for sure, but life will go on. We are all Americans, first and foremost.
  • Congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Brown Eggs (650559) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711153)
    While I am no Bush supporter, I want to congratulate him on his victory. And I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711154)

    ATTN: 51% of voters
    RE: you being gormless, easily duped intellectual dungheaps

    Just wanted to establish that whatever fucked-up shit comes down on all of our heads over the next four years...it's all your fault.

    I am no longer blaming Bush or Cheney or Karl Rove or anybody else in the NeoCon coven. You can't blame them for being evil, hateful warmongering fuckshits any more than you can blame a gun for shooting bullets. But YOU ASSHOLES let them get away with it for four more years.

    A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT.

    Military draft stealing away the lives of an entire generation of young Americans (and then some)? YOUR FAULT.

    Perpetual wars in the Middle East making Orwellian nightmares seem like tinkertoys in the sandbox? YOUR FAULT.

    A ruined economy and ecology, a Constitution left in tatters, a tyranny of wealthy white "Christians" who are anything but? YOUR FAULT.

    The rest of the world abandoning us when we'll need it most (and don't say it won't happen)? YOUR FAULT.

    Future decades upon future decades spent living down Bush's legacy and repairing the damage to the country and the world? YOUR FAULT.

    Making this planet a less prosperous and peaceful place in which to raise my future child? YOUR FUCKING FAULT, YOU FUCKING FUCKING CUNTING FUCKS.

    I hope you're quite pleased. I hope you enjoy the tax cuts and the military dick-waving and the surge of pride you must feel when Bush stands in front of a flag he has never for a moment of his life defended. I wish you all a free copy of "My Pet Goat" and a frosty flagon of the blood if Iraqui innocents. Drink fast, it gets warm so quickly.

    Just remember, when you and I are both up against the wall, the last thing you'll see before we're both shot in the head is my finger raised in accusation against you. And it won't be my index finger.

    Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall.
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JavaLord (680960) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711160) Journal
    More like 48%. Lets count the numbers correctly.

    If you consider non-voters as not caring either way, then it's probably a sad day for 28% of the country.
  • by kuwan (443684) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711161) Homepage
    It's being widely reported by the AP, CNN, Fox News, CSPAN, ABC News, CBS News and others that John Kerry has already called Pres. Bush to concede defeat. Apparently he'll speak to the nation at 1:00 PM EST.

    I personally am glad that Kerry has done this. My opinion of him has gone up and I am glad that he will not try to divide the country further by dragging us through a contested election. Mr. Kerry, thank you for that.

    And congratulations to Pres. Bush.
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711173) Homepage Journal
    It's official, America is a nation of idiots.

    Unemployment and deficit rampantly high combined with a war, so you pretty much voted to get your asses DRAFTED into a war since this is what has happened historically with the combination of those three events. Conveniently enough, security is higher at the borders and at the airports... draft dodgers will have a hell of a time getting out.

    I call upon the world to harass american tourists anywhere they go. If they want a xenophobe isolationist nation, then let them stay at home in their rotting cesspool of shit.

    Four more years against the rest of the world. Thanks assholes.
  • Congratulations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aggrajag (716041) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711177)
    I just hope for all of the American people that Dubya doesn't do anything that will make rest of the world hate you even more.

    This is a sad day.
  • In Spite of. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711180)
    So despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, CBS, the NY Times, China, Osama Bin Laden, and Slashdot to swing the election the Kerry, it didn't work.

    Congratulations.

  • Re:The horror... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by r1ckt3r (302503) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711181) Homepage
    In the South and Midwest, I'm surrounded by them.
  • by raider_red (156642) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:42PM (#10711193) Journal
    I'm glad not to be stuck with seeing Kerry on the news for four years, but I'd have liked to have at least one house in Congress controlled by the opposition. That way, we might be able to get a better check on spending for the next term.
  • by spookymonster (238226) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711221)
    From the bottom of our collective hearts:

    We're sorry.

    I'm sure future historians will mark this day as the offical turning point of the fall and decline of the American empire. We had a good run; good luck to the next guy.
  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711226)
    There will be bitching and moaning enough, without the prospect of another election decided in the Courts. It's good for the country that the election didn't get into the hands of either the Democrat or Republican lawyers.

    Have to give it to Kerry - he was honourable enough not to try to drag this out. As I hope Bush would have been if it had gone the other way.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by btlzu2 (99039) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711232) Homepage Journal
    Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

    It's not true, but if you believe it you must leave. Good bye and good riddance. I'm SO SICK of hearing people threatening to leave whether jokingly or not. It's damn immature and pig-headed.
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711245) Homepage
    wal-mart nation? surly you mean Born-again nation.

    if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason.

    so, now that Bush thinks God wants him to be president and he things God is telling him how to govern, we are in deep shit during his Legacy term.
  • took the high road (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ubergrendle (531719) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711254) Journal
    Looks like Kerry took the high road and decided to avoid a long drawn out affair. New Mexico and Iowa don't mean anything at this point, with Ohio representing the presidency.

    I've seen reports of anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 provisional votes, plus absentee ballots, plus recounts where necessary, still all hanging in the balance. Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle. I'm assuming that his concession is a statement that he will not lead the Democrats down that road for the good of the country.

    Ohio still has the responsibility of counting those ballots, though.
  • Re:Well, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kfergos (813170) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711255) Homepage Journal
    I absolutely agree. I'm glad that Kerry had the strength and honor to concede - whether or not that seems fair or not - rather than drag this out like Gore did in 2000. Now our best hope is to pray that GWB leaves some environment for us to clean up and doesn't alienate the entire world in the next 4 years.
  • Now maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BJZQ8 (644168) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711258) Homepage Journal
    Now maybe Bush can get around to doing some of the things that he thought might not get him re-elected during the first term...lets see. Iran, North Korea, ummm...who else? Also...anybody else see what oil prices are doing? [bloomberg.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711287)
    The country deserves further division. We just put a stamp on the last four years, and I personally want to distance myself from it. The more division the more it appears that America is rational despite this outcome.
  • I for one... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IronChefMorimoto (691038) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711290)
    ...want to welcome our new Republican legislative and executive overlords. I look forward to mandatory Sunday School for at least the next 2 years. My parents (Baptists) will be proud.

    Seriously, though -- I was torn between Bush and Kerry this election, and I yearned for a viable third-party candidate with which to speak using my vote.

    I'll be honest -- I voted for Bush, but I was ready to select some Democratic and Libertarian representatives in state government and Congress. To each his own, I say.

    And I'm also ready to say "Thank you" to Kerry for being a semi-decent sport and not going nuts like Gore did in 2000. It's the first time I've felt some genuine respect for the man -- the fact that he conceded before lawyering up scores high marks in my mind. Perhaps a sign that, despite his political ambitions, he was willing to accept a less than desirable outcome early on and avoid having America trounced in legal hubbub for the next several weeks.

    My 2 cents.

    IronChefMorimoto
  • Tragic stupidity (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711291)
    I just can not fathom how many people in the States are willing to believe the lies. This is a tragic moment in history, dooming America to four years of decent into a new dark age. It will take a generation or more to repair the damage.
  • by Dr Kool, PhD (173800) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711297) Homepage Journal
    I think the voters made the right decision yesterday. It was a record turnout, more Americans went to the polls in this election than any election before, and they chose George W. Bush to lead them as their next president.

    The reason the Democrats lost this election was that they nominated a complete idiot. Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything. If someone like Howard Dean were nominated then I think we'd have a Democrat president right now. Yes, Dean is more liberal than most of America, but people can respect him because he's principled.

    Anyway, I'm going to party like it's 1776, because a victory for Bush is a victory for America.
  • Re:Good move (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sakusha (441986) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711300)
    The one thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. The GOP dirty tricks can't be exposed any other way. But it's too late now. Bush is intent on establishing a one-party system, Rove has explicitly said his goal is the complete destruction of the Democratic Party.

    Bin Laden says he intends to bankrupt the USA, just like he bankrupted the USSR with their protracted misadventure in Afghanistan. He's succeeding again. We can't afford 4 more years of Bush, but that's what we've got. And Bush is just stupid enough to fall into every trap Bin Laden sets. America is dead.
  • by evilned (146392) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711308) Homepage
    Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC.
  • by jayhawk88 (160512) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:45PM (#10711311)
    Yeah, because Big Business was really on the run during the Clinton years.

    I've said it once and I'll say it again: The quicker we all figure out that both Democrats(Liberals) and Republicans(Conservatives) are both in it to fuck over the common man, the better off we'll all be.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Reducer2001 (197985) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711317) Homepage
    No more privacy! A constant state of fear! More for the haves! Fuck the have-nots! Go to jail for having an abortion! Health care? Don't get sick!
  • Here we go...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acoustix (123925) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711318) Homepage
    ...with all of the conspiracy theories, about how the country will self-destruct, the world as we know it will end...

    Aren't people tired of predicting the end of the world? Call me crazy, but I think we'll still be around 4 years from now with another successful election taking place.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711319)
    One note from looking at the results is that it seems like in vrey few (if any) races were independant votes any kind of factor. I fear that third party candidate vote totals were lower than ever.

    So the next time you feel compelled to vote for a major party, consider this - would a vate for Nader or Badnarik really have been wasted given that Kerry did not win anyway? If anyone really wanted to vote for a third party but instead voted for Kerry they essentially wasted thier vote twice over.
  • Re:Here Lies... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mc6809e (214243) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711327)
    Liberty and Freedom
    1776-2004


    Nah. 1776-1932
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nanoakron (234907) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711331)
    Actually, It's a sad, sad day for 100% of Americans.

    48% already know this.
    The other 52% will learn so over the next 4 years.

    -Nano.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711333)
    If the stores around you look anything like the stores around me, you can start buying your candy canes and other holiday crap and start decorating.
  • Key items to note: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FLOOBYDUST (737287) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711334)
    Despite the alleged "split" in the country.... 1) There were no riots in the street. 2) All candidates who started the election process are still alive today. 3) No cities are on fire and there is no looting 4) We all witnessed a historical election which will set the tone for the next generation and we all traveled to work as if it was a normal day. This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711337)
    Actually, this is a sad day for alot more of America than that..its just that the "moral majority" is too stupid to realize it.

    An interesting take. I believe this puts you in the "people who don't agree with me are idiots" camp -- right next to the evangelicals and "Homophobe!" shouting gays.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711339)
    I just want to know when the process became about picking the president the fastest, as opposed to hearing the "voice" of the people? Whatever that voice may be saying.
  • by GodsMadClown (180543) <wfindl1&yahoo,com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10711347)
    Amen. Brilliant venting. Wish I had points to join in the inevitable mod-fray.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10711348)
    I'm glad not to be stuck with seeing Kerry on the news for four years, but I'd have liked to have at least one house in Congress controlled by the opposition. That way, we might be able to get a better check on spending for the next term.

    Damn right. Democrat-style "tax and spend" is bad, but Bush-style "don't tax and still spend" is worse.

    Ah well, it's not the end of the world. At least, I... wait, what's that light in the sky?
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10711350) Homepage
    it is official, OHIO is a states of idiots. they were hit the hardest of any state with unemployment and many other problems and they ended up voting for bush because he is a "Moral" man...

    oh that and the Democratic precincts had 1 voting machine per polling place.... yeah, that will help keep the Kerry supporters from being heard.
  • by archen (447353) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10711367)
    In capitalist America, civil war signs up you.
  • "Immature" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kmmatthews (779425) <krism@mailsnare.net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711385) Homepage Journal
    Haha, I love it when you tell someone else they're immature AND pig-headed in the same sentence...
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711389) Homepage
    It's damn immature and pig-headed.

    No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.
  • by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711409) Homepage Journal
    There will be much ranting and raving and cries of how stupid the American people are, but there are some very simple things at work here.

    Bush didn't win, Kerry lost.

    Kerry was a TERRIBLE candidate. He took both sides of every issue. He would tell people whatever they wanted to hear. When people can't get a sense of where a candidate stands on anything, the incumbent wins. Really, it's as simple as that. I don't think many people were enthusiastic Bush supporters, but most people couldn't stomach voting for Kerry.

    Instead of asking why the American people voted for Bush, ask yourself why the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Kerry.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711411)
    It's damn immature and pig-headed.


    You mean like denying someone the right to marry simply because of their sex?


    Or is it more like invading a country with the sole justification being they sort of look like those terrorist guys we keep hearing about?

  • Re:Well, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by radiumsoup (741987) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:49PM (#10711425)
    while most of us do not like it

    um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all.

    And, it's a testament to the will of the people, not just Kerry's character.

    I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush - so I am totally prepared to be moderated flamebait. Whatever.
  • by EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:49PM (#10711432) Homepage Journal
    Something that wasn't covered very well on the news was the number of Gay Marriage measures in different states.

    Bush won the vote in many of those states because Christians showed up to vote to ban Gay Marriage.

    Very clever on part of the Republican Strategists. It is doubtful that the "Evangellical Christians" would have voted if the anti-gay measures weren't on the ballot.

    Evangellical Christians only show up when they can vote a fool into power or restrict personal liberties. I left my home town because of those fascists...
  • Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gannoc (210256) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711448)

    I'm not ashamed to be an American, but I'm embarassed for our country.

    Its not even that Bush won.

    Its that it is official: You can lie, mislead, and divide, and sucessfully win an election.

    He's also the first president in many years (perhaps ever?) that won because he openly advocated limiting civil rights of an etnic group, and used it to divide the country.

    When you saw people on CNN saying that their primary concern was "moral values", that was just code for "we REALLY don't like gay people."

    It wasn't really in people's minds until he brought it forward and made it an issue.

    "A vote for Kerry is a vote for buttsex in our schools!"

    Christ.

    It sickens me to think that people who never voted before said "Whoa, nothing else has mattered to me in the last 20 years, but the QUEERS WANT TO GET MARRIED! Jarlene, find me my votin' hat!"

  • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711466)
    Watch lots of our troops get blown up. Watch more of our civil right disappear. Watch the taxes for the rich go down while the deficit goes up and up. Watch our world popularity drop several more notches.

    There's lots of stuff to watch. None of it good, but lots of stuff to watch.

  • Apologies, Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kfergos (813170) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711476) Homepage Journal
    Is there anywhere we can publicly apologize to the rest of the world for our fellow Americans' foolish behavior? I'd sign a mass letter of apology to the world that would have voted Kerry into office with an enormous margin. The clock's ticking: how long until Iran is invaded, the environment completely trashed, our personal liberties destroyed, and our international relations damaged beyond repair?
  • by Baki (72515) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711478)
    He would not have, as could be seen 4 years ago.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711483)
    Yes, because Kerry was really going to make that much of a difference...

    (That's sarcasam, people).
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by koi88 (640490) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711505)

    So true. This is a sad day for billions of people in the whole world who will be affected by this election without any possibility to take part.
    Well, four more years of the rich getting richer, the middle class losing jobs, civilians all over the world and American soldiers getting killed for nothing, more hatred against Americans and less freedom in the US.
    But certainly it will be four very good years for Halliburton.
  • Re:two words (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dante333 (25148) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711525)
    Conservatives voted.
  • by pavon (30274) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711528)
    I agree that conceding is a very gentlemanly thing to do, but comming from one of the states who hasn't even finished processing our ballots I am a little annoyed. At this point, the electoral votes in are 254 to 252, with 32 votes out. Even if the exit polls showed that it was likely that Kerry would not win, it is the votes that determine the election not the polls. It wouldn't have divided the country any more to have given those states time to complete their tallies and then concede. But oh well, splitting hairs I guess. I am glad it is over, and here's to hoping the next 4 years will be better than the last.
  • by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711529)
    Seriously, Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed; it's not my simple-minded view. He does things that no one would tolerate in the person running the company they work for, let alone a powerful country, like completely ignoring all the facts presented to him and making calls based on unfounded instinct.

    So how the hell did he get elected? A combination of:

    1. People, especially people over 50, who blindly vote for "their" party candidate.
    2. A bizarre, misguided group who regard Bush as having high morals. I'm as dumbfounded as anyone here, but just watch how often this comes up in analyses.
    3. A similarly bizarre, misguided group who seem to think that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Bush is keeping them from attacking us again.
    4. Voting for the status quo is safer than a new guy.
    5. Nobody really liked Kerry all that much. The anti-Bush people latched onto him because he's all we had.

    This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see Peter Norvig's Hiring a President [norvig.com].

    A sad day indeed.
  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:52PM (#10711546)
    Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle.

    Only if all of those prrovisionals are for Kerry.
    Not happening.

  • Re:The horror... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djocyko (214429) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:52PM (#10711554)
    I hope the rest of the world remembers that nearly half of the voters did not want Bush back in office. This was no affirmation that 'Americans' agree with Bush. This is proof of what strategic campaigning can do, and it is proof that our country is still rabidly divided.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:52PM (#10711561)
    Only if you want to stick around for four more years of this shit only to vote again with no effect.

    -an Ohioan who voted Kerry and who is now looking to move north
  • by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:53PM (#10711594) Homepage
    Yeah but the Democrats will at least stay out of your business. Perverse enough as that sounds, it's true.

    The Republican party has become the Theocratic party.
  • We're f*cked (Score:1, Insightful)

    by grendel's mom (550034) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#10711608)
    Once again America has elected a nearly illiterate moron. I never thought I would say this, but today, I'm embarrassed to be an America.
  • by SnprBoB86 (576143) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#10711609) Homepage
    Kerry clearly did not want America to spend a month re-tallying votes in Ohio. He conceeded for the good of America!
  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#10711625)
    The Democratic party is over. Gonzo. Bye Bye.

    Americans who do not want Republican leadership need a better alternative, perhaps a new party, one that actually stands for something and has a platform that is not based solely on some inverse of the Republican platform. What was the Democrat platform? I still can't tell. Day One of a Kerry presidency would still see the US in Iraq and in debt and in hock to corporations with no change on the horizon.

  • Re:disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bull999999 (652264) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#10711628) Journal
    I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters [cbsnews.com] which proven record of voting and won.

    So if any of you out there (of legal voting age) who bitched but didn't vote, please stop bitching, as some other foolish candidate in the future may end up running supporting your cause thinking that you may actually vote.
  • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cje (33931) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711641) Homepage
    um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all. .. I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush ..

    I suspect that's what he meant by "us" .. Slashdot readers, not Americans in general.
  • by aacool (700143) <moc.liamg2abmalnamaa> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711663) Journal
    The mood with everyone I see - online & offline is Tired out, knackered and conflicted.

    The talking heads never stop! Make them stop!!

    Ref the Kerry concession,
    There is gracefulness under defeat, and there is a comparison to a similar experience 4 years ago - the Democrats come out stronger and the talking heads are silenced and turned topsy turvy.

    Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.

    I've been trying to update my blog for a while now - very difficult - traffic, etc.

  • OK with me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whitelabrat (469237) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711667)
    Although I think that Kerry wouldn't have made a bad president, I do think that keeping Bush in office will be more effective in the long run. I'm assuming that his administration has long term plans that need to be pushed through the next for years to be fully effective.

    I realize that ./'ers lean a bit to the left, and may be disappointed by the results, but keep in mind that the real change in this country beings with each individual whos convictions drive them to make this country better by getting involved in their local communities.

    God Bless America!
  • by LilMikey (615759) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711677) Homepage
    ...the country will be ready to stand for the things that made it great. Maybe if the gap between rich and poor keeps expanding, the national deficit balloons even higher, the average wage drops even lower, the trade deficit continues to soar, the air and water go to shit, civil rights are further eroded in the name of 'safety', enough troops die for weapons that don't exist and fake ties to terrorism... maybe then this country will open its eyes and make a change.

    Until then, just keep standing on your stump yelling 'Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorim! Patriot! Patriot! Patriot!' and 51% of America will really believe you're a patriot fighting terrorism. This day is sad.
  • by the endless (412967) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711681)
    Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history.

    Good heavens. Surely not... you don't mean... it can't be...

    Yes, folks, a growing population plus a record turnout means a large number of votes. Colour me stunned.

  • by The Grey Clone (770110) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:55PM (#10711684) Homepage
    Maybe because it's actually a 51/48 split?

    Bush got 3 million more votes than Kerry. He was elected, man.
  • My generation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768@comca ... t minus caffeine> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:56PM (#10711719) Journal
    FUCKING SUCKS....

    Seriously, the youth vote was just as bad this year as it was four years ago..... What do we have to do make it a video game to make you stupid fucks vote? Your lives and the direction the country your going to be in charge of one day doesnt mean jack to you? Im sorry but they should just take away voting for 18 year olds and bring it back to 21 year olds.... if you guys cant use your right to vote, you shouldnt have it.

  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:57PM (#10711735)
    Both parties to quote Gore Vidal have simply become two branches of the Property Party. Both parties are primarily interested in feeding the special interest groups that they rely on for funding (yes, this goes for Democrats too).

    The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.

  • two words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frequanaut (135988) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:57PM (#10711742)
    electronic voting
  • by pogle (71293) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#10711768) Homepage
    Legally, what are the implications of the concession?

    What if the vote counting is finished, and Kerry comes out ahead in Electoral votes? Is the concession a legally binding surrender, or what? Could the debate be resumed in the courts at a later time?

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by btlzu2 (99039) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#10711770) Homepage Journal
    Um, it's a bit different to whine and say you're leaving a country because you didn't get your way compared with pointing out how stupid that is.
  • WHAT!!!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#10711781)
    The European Union has the strongest economy in the world. I guess you haven't evaluated the Euro lately.

    Blind eye to terrorism? Do you think terrorism started and ended with 9/11. Where is America as some 50,000+ Sudanese have been murdered in genocide in several months? Saddam can't claim a 1/5th of those numbers in 20 years. Where was America's war on terror when they were funding the Sandonistan Guerrila's or Osama Bin Laden? Or where was America's war on terror when the KKK and the general white population was running wild in America? Where was America when the Native American's were being forcibly removed from their lands (note: the settlers started scalping, and a "redskin" is a reference to scalped skin of an indian). Terror, Terror, don't be hypocritical.

    And the very reason why the U.S. will ultimately fall just like every great civilization is they will forget the globe is a mighty big place, and they have neither a monopoly on wisdom nor morailty.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! (33014) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#10711783) Homepage Journal
    Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy?

    Tell that to the marines.
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:2, Insightful)

    by koi88 (640490) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#10711788)

    this puts you in the "people who don't agree with me are idiots" camp

    Hitler was elected in a regular election. So it must have been the right choice, no?
    BTW, after his election, he made some kind of "state of emergency-laws" to protect the state against Communists (today, he would call them terrorists). These laws basically took away civil rights and gave the state more power. Does this approach sound familiar?
  • by CtAhBeAbNoAy (827653) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:59PM (#10711814)
    WOW - what a difference a day makes. Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America? I understand having passion for your beliefs, but now it is time to join together!!! America is great because of its individuals and its morals.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Izago909 (637084) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <dogsiuat>> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711853)
    Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last

    I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.
  • by rattler14 (459782) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711872)
    So that battle between socialism (nationwide health care, expanded government welfare, progressive income taxes) and facism (patriot act, patriot act II?) will be faught again another day. Each side doing what's "best for america", meanwhile eroding our liberties away.

    And somewhere... my man michael badnarik is crying :)

    T'is a sad day for me indeed. Support instant runoff voting! This 2 party crap has got to go.

    alright, now flame away. But I had to get that off my chest.
  • by gamgee5273 (410326) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711876) Homepage Journal
    While you could have been a little more subtle about it, I think you are quite right. At this point there is no one to blame but those who voted for Dubya. He is no longer an unknown commodity... people knew what they were voting for going into this...

    Thus, I agree: I no longer blame Bush for the situation we're in. I blame the American public.

  • by danheskett (178529) <danheskett@NOSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#10711882)
    Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.
    Bush got more votes than any American in history.

    No matter how you slice it, he won this election. Electorally, popular vote, plurality of states, plurality of precincts, plurality of counties.

    What exactly do you want to change in regards to the rules of the games?
  • by Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#10711888)
    and that, my friend, is why I voted Badnarik.
  • by Eohl (40739) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#10711898)
    Yeah, I'm pretty much saying that fearmongering, warmongering, and war profiteering are not exactly moral. I'm also saying that enforcing your RELIGIOUS morals onto people who may or may not share those tenets of faith is kind of uncool. I'm saying that this world is filled with shades of gray and compassionate, moral people recognize and embrace those with differences, allowing those people to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

    If we legislate anything it should be based on science, not superstition, dogma, and a hatred for what's different.

    To me, that's moral.

  • It's not the exit polls that they're using. Both candidates need less than 20 electoral votes to win. Ohio has 20. Bush is going to win Ohio, it's a near mathmatical certainty based on the COUNTED BALLOTS. Bush wins the election.

    Additionally, Bush has a SIGNIFICANT edge in the popular vote.

    Democracy doesn't mean the best man wins, it just means the majority is responsible for who they pick.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blueskies (525815) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711934) Journal
    I'm lacking the conviction to send my friends over there to die for a lie. Do you also know the number of civilians that died in Iraq because we thought it in their best interest to free them (think orders of magnitude above our own casualties)? It's good we freed them...from this world.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711935)
    For the last four years, I have been able to get up in the morning by telling myself that the 2000 election was stolen through dirty tricks and that most voters didn't understand the issues, and thus that Americans are NOT knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual, theocratic, warmongering, superstitious, bigoted, arrogant, foolhardy, small-minded, antigrammatical Neandretals, but were in fact simply misled, swindled, and outright cheated into voting for a hard-right ideologue in the clothing of a "uniter, not a divider".

    However, as the precinct counts come in, it is clear that Bush has won this election by a huge landslide; the Republican Party by an even larger margin. The American people cannot be fooled about what the man in the White House stands for after four years of his rule; thus, the only sane conclusion is that they support him and his appalling policies wholeheartedly.

    Today, I am afraid of my fellow citizens and ashamed to be an American.
  • by snopes (27370) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711945) Journal
    I grew up in a Republican dominant environment and had to seek
    sanity on my own. The problem is, I haven't found that with the Democratic
    party. Don't get me wrong. I voted D all the way yesterday, but not because
    I love the party. And that's part of the problem. It's become the
    anti-party.

    That's not to claim that I am exactly typical and representative of the how's
    and why's of voter behavior. It's the overall issue, however, of where we
    are now politically. We have a fascist regime holding power through fear of
    other while carefully ensuring the masses never see the knife as it reaches
    around for their throats. We have an opposition party which fails to
    communicate this reality. Edward's had a good idea with the sunshine and
    smiles, but lacked a strong message and projected an almost childlike image.
    Kerry, as so many recognized from day 1, was just too dour and lacked the
    passion needed to push a message clear of the chaff.

    Somehow between now and 2008 the Democratic party has to become a whole lot
    more than just an opposition party. It's got to become a party passionate
    about truth, feedom, and life. There are ways to break through this morality
    battle currently running across the country, but they require boldness,
    confidence, passion, and strength. States issues must be kept off the
    national stage. America's self-image of independence and strength relative
    to the rest of the world must be nurtured while restrained. Most
    importantly, they must clearly, honestly, and unarrogantly communicate to the
    working people of the South and Midwest why their lives are harder because of
    the policies of the RNC and it's elected politicians.

    The only way we're going to get out of this death spiral is if the liberal
    elite of the coasts comes to terms with the reality of the social perspective
    of the south and midwest. We can't secede. We can't repopulate all those
    states as we have in New Hampshire. We have got to recognize the fact that
    the only way to end this is to accept the perspectives of our fellow
    citizens, identify the common ground between us (it *is* there), and build a
    party based on that. A party based on traditional American values of
    freedom, caring, hard work, and so many other moralistic qualities of
    American life which the Republican message simply doesn't and can't address.
    There is tremendous opportunity for the Democratic party to reach out to
    Southern voters if they would just come off the high horse and understand
    what they want and then passionately deliver the message.

    The Democratic party once again gave this election away by delivering a
    message percieved as weak. I agree. It was weak. The most impressive part
    of their campaign was the ability to deliver such a flat, dispassionate,
    unarousing message in the midst of so much turmoil. Maybe it was Kerry's
    delivery. Surely that was part of it. I see it as an issue across the
    entire party. I see it only resolved by growing to understand what's really
    behind the loss of Southern Dems. It's about emotions and egos. It's about
    projecting an image of strength and confidence. It's about not thinking
    those are dirty words.
  • by EngineeringMarvel (783720) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711960)
    Nice to see someone looking at the bright side of things for once. This is only the 2nd time I have been eligible to vote (age) for the president and both times I felt important and very powerful after I walked out of the voting booth. Not so much about the presidental election, but the more local ammendments, congressman, and senator elections. Only a small portion of this planet's population really gets the satisfaction of that feeling and it is a shame that so many Americans take it for granted.

    Yes, there is a lot of BS and bureacuracy in American politics and government, but to me it is still so much better than what a communist or strict republic government has to offer.
  • by tarogue (84626) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711968)
    But when half of the states are divided by only 1 or 2 percent, dont' you think that final 10% could hold the deciding tally?

    I never understood the concession thing. Why run a marathon, then quit just 100 feet from the finish line? If you're going to lose, then lose, don't quit!
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by btlzu2 (99039) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10711978) Homepage Journal
    THIS is good. I agree with you Liberals should stay and fight. We need balance and, although I lean Libertarian, I believe in everyone fighting for what they believe in. Leaving is NO solution--it's emotionally-charged nonsense.

    On the other hand, I don't recall hearing conservatives threatening to leave during Clintons' terms. Yes, they whined and complained profusely, but they dug in and fought.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10712003)
    The popular vote should have been enough. Other countries count that as sufficient - he's not being partisan, just commenting on the feelings.

  • Re:The horror... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10712004)
    I have a very different perspective here in the US. There seemed to be very few voters who truly wanted Kerry as president. The majority of those who voted for Kerry were really voting "not Bush".
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjwaste (780063) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#10712015)
    There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates. Have a look at this:

    Economists against Kerrynomics [nationalreview.com]

    Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office. The surplus was dissipating as the tech bubble burst and the market took a dive. The subsequent accounting scandals didn't help. 9/11 didn't help. I'm not saying Bush didn't overspend, he did. What I'm saying is, he's planning to spend less than Kerry. To be quite honest, that's the main issue I voted on.
  • by woodhouse (625329) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#10712028) Homepage
    Strange. In the UK at least, we count all the votes before working out who has won, and then if the results are close, we count them again. What a warped system you have in the US.
  • Re:The horror... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#10712034)
    nearly half of the voters did not want

    Funny how that works, isn't it?

  • by Jerf (17166) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:06PM (#10712042) Journal
    Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

    That was it, last night. Every election is a bloodless civil war.

    In all seriousness, continued attempts to start a bloddy one one are going to be met with overwhelming hostility. The solution to losing an election is not to start a war, and anybody who truly acts like it is shouldn't be moving to Canada, they should be moving to central Africa or something where that sort of barbaric behavior really is the expected result.

    I'm not a "love it or leave it" person; I'm a "love it, leave it, work within the system to change it, or shut the hell up" person. But if you really think this is worth killing people because an election didn't go your way, then I offer you two other choices: Shut the hell up about "civil war" and grow up, or yes, get the hell out.

    Good lord. You can demonize conservatives as much as you want, but when Clinton won, nobody talked about civil war.

    Grow up, kiddies. You lose sometimes. Now is a chance to rebuild and refocus. Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.
  • The reason we lost is because we have not justified and defined a real leftist agenda. The Rightwing, on the other hand, has spent 30 years or more defining and justifying the RIghtwing agenda. We all "know" that low taxes are good for "The Economy" and we all "know" that productivity should be ever high and we all "know" that low labor costs are good and we all "know" that welfare states are bad and we all "know" that government managed healthcare is a disaster, etc etc etc. And why do we "know" all these things? Because the rightwing propaganda machine has been pushing them down our throats via the teevee, radio and newspapers for the last 30 years.

    THe rightwing propaganda machine starts with nonprofit foundations and think tanks that pay for studies and write articles based on those studies. Of course, because there is no criminal penalty for cooked, bogus studies, and no money to check these studies and news articles that are based on these studies, the rightwing propaganda machine is able to dominate the media agenda. THey have the money. THey are funded into the billions by billionaires and global corporations.

    THe news articles based on these studies are propagated to media outlets (tv radio papers) where they reach the public.

    The rightwing propaganda machine also does many other things, such as fund up and coming rightwing media talent, e.g., giving grants to promising rightwing radio talk show hosts, authors and reporters, consultants etc.

    Also, because the rightwing propaganda machine has so much money to give, most high profile media figures, reporters, etc, know that after they quit working at their current job with the networks, newspaper, etc, if they are ideologically "suitable, they can get lots of fat consultancy gigs with the rightwing propaganda machine, as long as they do not piss them off.

    So the rightwing propaganda machine is like a huge planet in a solar system, or maybe even like the sun itself.

    If liberals want to change America, they need to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. It costs money. Unfortunately, the entities with the money want to keep their money. So they are not about to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. So it is up to us.

    Once we do get a a LEFTwing propaganda machine, we need to make sure it pushes OUR agenda, and it needs to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues. We need to make the case to the American people that high taxation is where it is at. And it really is. All we have to do is show people that high tax welfare states are a great place to live. Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. Do you see a lot of citizens coming over here from there to live permanently? No! Yes, some of them (the cream of the crop) came over here doing the IT boom to make more money, but they know they have a good deal there.

    We need to make the case that America is a partnership and we are getting ripped off by the richest Americans.

    Crank up a LEFTwing propaganda machine. Start generating facts and figures. Start with healthcare. Show Americans exactly what is going on with nationalized universal healthcare in places like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France etc.

    Show how West Europe and their unions and restricted trade benefits the people. Hell, in Sweden it is quite difficult to expand a business. But there are reasons for that. Show Ameiricans that having corporations get their fingers into every pie disempowers the average person.

    Teach America the game theory of politics.

    To change America, we need to define our issues and an agenda. The problem is that we have simply moved along to the right with the GOP, keeping ever so slightly to the left of the GOP. No wonder white suburban and rural middle class Americans do not trust the Democrats. They seem to simply see the Left as a tool of the minorities for ripping them off for the welfare checks of the urban minorities.

    But to do all this we need a LEFTwing propaganda machine. But we have to pay for it.

    ----All about Leftism
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712068)
    Are you trying to be funny? Or is this just another case of "stupid uninformed american, opens mouth, half truths and bullshit spews forth".

    The line is

    "I stand on GUARD for thee"

    Close.

    If I was God, I'd be like "Hey, stupid Americans, quit quoting me, and holding me up as your guiding light, if you stood before me in judgement, I would send you all to burn. You are being ruled by a man, who claims to have spoken with me. Trust me, if I was going to speak to someone, it would at least be someone who would be able to hold an intelligent, and meaninful conversation. Do you really think I would break eons of silence, to speak with Bush! Please. Who would believe him anyways, don't you think I would pick someone with enough credibility to at least have a half a chance of having someone believe him? I mean, every time Bush opens his mouth, he is lying about something."
  • It's done. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Timex (11710) <smithadmin@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712072) Journal
    Let's agree on two things, shall we?

    1. The Kerry supporters (and, by proxy, the Gore supporters from 2000) should agree not to whine for the next four years. It's okay not to be happy about the result, but one can voice one's displeasure without whining.

    2. The Bush supporters should agree not to gloat. Yes, we won, but the margin was still pretty close. Fortunately, it was a little more decisive that the 2000 elections.


    Through it all, we're still Americans. (Well... The American readers, anyway.) The system of electing our president for the next four years worked like it should. That is something that both sides can be proud of.

    For the "foreigners" readng this post: This is how American politics goes sometimes. There are winners, there are losers. If you don't like the way our elections turned out (based on the posts I've seen in the recent past, I think that's an understatement), too bad. I'm not going to apologize to anyone about the way our system works. The American people chose who their president would be for the next four years, and that's that.
  • Oh, shit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bcmm (768152) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712085)
    Oh SHIT!
  • congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by non (130182) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712093) Homepage Journal
    you're not any safer.
    your deficit isn't any lower.
    you're not creating new jobs.
    your government isn't any smaller than before.
    and you'll probably never _elect_ anyone ever again.

  • Oh Lunada! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rob Carr (780861) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:08PM (#10712100) Homepage Journal
    I'm non american, so can I leave the planet now? The moon is looking mighty good right now.

    If lunar colonization were the result of the people of the world fleeing the second W. presidential term, it might be worth it.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Hok (702268) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:08PM (#10712102)
    Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy? (Score:5, Funny)

    No way this is funny...

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:09PM (#10712123)
    Oh come ON. First of all, a few people saying "that's it, I'm moving to Canada" hardly constitutes a significant sample of Democrats worthy of making ANY generalizations about.

    Secondly, you are correct that Bush was democratically elected in a more-or-less fair election in 2004. This was not the case in 2000. I'm personally quite happy to have a democratically-elected President for the first time in four years, even if it's the same person who occupied that post during the intervening four years. "Florida bull" my ass. Bush lost, then later he won. What's so hard to understand about that?

    And lastly, there does come a point where democracy can tip towards despotism. The saying "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" refers to this situation. I seriously doubt Bush will persecute a significant portion of the US population. However, if I was Arab, Muslim, or gay, moving to Canada would make a lot of sense from a "get out while you're still allowed to leave" point of view.

    And I suppose if you're a draft-age American, that wouldn't be a bad idea either. Damn, okay, I guess I just showed why a large number of people WOULD want to go to Canada. But it's to save their own skins, not out of contempt for the democratic process.

    Are you saying that if the people of your country voted to have you kept under constant surveillance, jailed, and sent off to get shot at by people defending your country, you would just say "well, the people have spoken, and my life isn't really that important in the grand democratic scheme of things"
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:09PM (#10712128)
    One good thing for the coutry as a whole is that the popular vote matched up with who won - that should help eliminate a whole category of people proclaiming the winner was not really the winner and make the results less embittering to some.
  • by lunartik (94926) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:10PM (#10712153) Homepage Journal
    When will we realize that whining about problems won't work when the majority of the population doesn't want to think about problems? They want a bed time story, and someone to turn the light on and off for them.

    Democrats may start taking back red states when you stop viewing them as morons who are beneath you.
  • by Halcy0n (267641) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:10PM (#10712158) Homepage
    "In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished."

    My question is, how many of these people that went out to vote, actually knew the issues? All of these voter campaigns were going on telling people to go "Vote or Die" (or that they didn't vote in 2000 and should now), while they should have been saying, "Learn about the issues, and how they affect you, then vote".
    How many of the people that voted actually voted on the issues, and not whether or not the candidate had their exact religious beliefs?
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Valar (167606) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:11PM (#10712175)
    Not to pick on you, particularly, because I know you are joking, but that is exactly the wrong attitude. Stick with America. If the people who have cared about our democracy in the past become so frustrated that they remove themselves from the process (geographically or mentally), there will be _no_ way for the entirety of american values and ideals to be represented. My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now, because I don't think America and the democratic process can survive without the attention of all well meaning Americans right now. Democracy isn't just about majority rule-- it is about reaching a compromise that maxmizes societal welfare.
  • Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gorbachev (512743) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:12PM (#10712196) Homepage
    "I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election."

    Bush promised in 2000 that he would act as a president that would unite the country.

    Four years later, and the country is even MORE divided than before, largely due to the acts of Mr. Bush and his administration during his presidency.

    I believe as strongly as the Bush supporters believe Bush is the one man terrorist busting machine that he has no intention of ever acting as a unifier. You just need to listen to his rhetoric on any issue and you can not come to any other conclusion. It's always us against them, no matter the issue, small or large.

    You can argue about everything else about his presidency, whether or not the war on Iraq was justified or not, or whether or not the economy is better off now than 4 years ago, but on the point of dividing the country, there is no argument. He has failed, miserably, in uniting the country.

    Further I believe that he has done so because that is his true nature. He calls it being steadfast, I call it a stubborn inability to make compromises whether due to his ideology (right-wing Christian), partisan hackery (Republicans are right, Democrats are wrong, no matter what) or just plain lack of diplomatic skills.

    To me this is more of an issue than anything else, it goes to the heart of what Mr. Bush is like and how he governs.

    In a country like the United States that was founded on the principals of freedom, free exchange of ideas and diversity among other things, it is truly unbeliavable someone like Mr. Bush could ever become a president.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:13PM (#10712224)
    Fucking idiot. You disgust me.

    Let me ask you a simple question.

    Has there been a single thing that Bush has done that has directly encroached on your freedom to do anything? Has he banned any books? Sent police to your house? Have the FBI visited you questioning why you are a political disident? Has it happened to anyone you know? Shit, has it happened to anyone THEY know?

    Of course not, but fucking jerk offs like you will be the first people to antiquaint legislation like the PATRIOT Act (Which I admit, is bad legislation) to the Nuremberg Laws.

    Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies.
  • by Frymaster (171343) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#10712232) Homepage Journal
    Bush got more votes than any American in history.

    true. so, now when the american government makes aggressive and belicose blunders in the middle east the rest of the world won't just despise and deride the president. they'll hate the american people too.

    congratulations america! you've completely alienated yourselves from all of your former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#10712236)
    It is better to be an American only becuase we are still living off the fat of our "good" behavior, in general, for the past 200 years.

    Another four years of devil-may-care abuse of our military power and stomping around on other cultures and other countries may very well use up what remains of all that good will and technical achievment.

    George Bush is bad for America and bad for the planet - unfortunately over 50% of this country won't know that for another 5-10 years, at which time our ill-concieved policies will really come home to roost in a country with no jobs, no health care, no retirement plan, and a multi-trillion dollar debt.

    We'll see how great it is to be an American then, and if anyone still thinks NOT having a riot in the street today was a good idea.

    Evets
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#10712237)
    >The middle east has been propetually in conflict.

    and you americans have played a BIG part in it by supporting dictators like saddam hussein, saudi and the rest when it suits you and then shitting it when they turn bad like everyone knew they would.

    >I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.

    you people really are very frightening indeed.

    four more years of idiocy, ignorance and brutality. you brought it on your own stupid thick fat heads but i don't see why the rest of the world should suffer because 50% of shit kicking hicks couldn't be bothered to look past fox news and their lies.
  • by tobe (62758) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#10712243)
    .. from the US.

    Honestly..
  • Democratic, yes. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by imurchie (643825) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:15PM (#10712262)
    > You got Bush, in democratic elections

    Yes, we got Bush in democratic elections. I have no problem with that. He got more votes than Kerry. I DO have a problem with being in a country where that would happen. The lunacy of living in a country where slightly more than half the population believes a complete idiot bent on making America the next Empire is fit to run things. I thank God that I am over the age of the coming draft, and that I've already done my service (8 years, Force Recon... yes, I've killed (many) random strangers so we can enjoy the "freedom" we have). I'm scared for the youth of this nation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:15PM (#10712269)
    You are an outstanding example of why the Democrats lost. Those that mock and demean religion are vocal liberals. (This does not mean Democrats mock and demean religion.) The Democratic Party must distance themselves from you nuts if they hope to win another election. Why would a religious person vote Democrat when all those that publicly ridicule their innermost beliefs are shouting for them to do so?
  • by flibuste (523578) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:16PM (#10712288)

    Bush got more votes than any American in history.

    Yes, but that doesn't mean anything, your comment is biased:

    • USA never had that much registered voters who actually voted in overall.
    • Because each year there is MORE people allowed to vote in USA (like normal population growth, immigrants becoming citizens, etc.), there are more voters.
    • and because what matters is the RATIO of voters (you know that bizarre % sign used all over the place).

    Number of actual voters many vary a lot depending on variables that has nothing to do with being electable or not: weather, current political context (like, people are generally enclined to not go vote when they are sure their candidate will win or there is not much at stake - check the last presidential election in France: a lot more people showed up when extreme right suddenly became a possibility - they blasted their number of voters for such an election.).

    Actually, the current mobilisation of voters shows only one thing: there is more people who doubt of the future, hence go to vote to secure theirs. So basically, there are a lot more people who are in doubt and do not know where to stand, which doesn't sound good for a supposedly "united" country.

    But /.tters and /statistics rarely share the same DNS.

  • by andrew_0812 (592089) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712301)
    I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology. Suppose the Popular Vote had gone the other way. If you voted Kerry in Alabama, your voice is not heard. The election is always decided in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. Why let the few in these states decide the whole election. Use the Popular Vote, drop the Electorial College, and every vote truly is equal.
  • by svallarian (43156) <svallarian @ h o t m a il.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712307)
    So was Walden O'Dell, the diebold CEO, successful in his boast of carrying Ohio for bush?

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.ht m [commondreams.org] /conspiracy mode off

    Steven V>
  • by EddieBurkett (614927) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712311)
    Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too. (Previous leader was Reagan in '84 w/ 54 million.)

    Bush may have won a clear majority, but this election is still close, and there is still a large portion of the population that despises him. I'm sure Bush will interpret his victory as a mandate and do what he wants (not like his lack of a mandate was stopping him before), but this country needs some serious help closing the divide, and I don't see how Bush is going to address that.
  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712317)
    - Calculate your share of the National Deficit

    Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.

    - Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby

    As you could have done under Clinton as well. (What, did you think that "assault weapon ban" actually banned all assault rifles?)

    - Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get

    Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)

    - Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income

    Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!

    - Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq

    It sucks royally, but that is a risk of joining the guard. Do you think Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq? At least Bush had the sense to start redistributing troops from cold-war nations. (Personally, I'd pull all troops out of nations not currently in war.)

    - Move so that the selective service can't find you

    Our voluntary military is growing faster than ever, and we are redeploying troops wasted in cold war nations, why would we need to draft?

    - Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.

    Agreed.

    - Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.

    Make an alternate sign that says, "The government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of a welfare office, social security distribution center, IRS office, etc.

    - Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives

    I'd prefer to rally for the abolishment of the IRS, all income taxes, and the institution of FairTax.

    - Do something illegal, get arrested, and excercise your right to trial before 4 years of Bush-appointed, Republican confirmed Supreme Court appointees uphold the Patriot Act's elimination of right to trial.

    Agreed.
  • by CommieOverlord (234015) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:18PM (#10712332)
    1) There were no riots in the street.

    And you're proud? A nation is heavily divided against an administration that is destroying the economy, civil rights, foreign relations, and the environment.

    Under different forms of government of government this would have seen an armed upraising or states fracturing off and declaring independence. Instead, because of democracy and voting people just shrug it off and decide to suffer under 4 more years of this just so they can vote again.

    Sometimes the proper thing to do _is_ to riot in the streets, launch a coup, or succede.

    Perhaps the British parliment should have granted the Americans some form of elected representation in their houses. Then there wouldn't have been a Boston Tea Party or armed revolt. Instead the founding fathers would have just ran for parliment and 200 years later the US would still be colony. Maybe.

  • by Skjellifetti (561341) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712346) Journal
    Bush got more votes than any American in history ...

    for exactly the same reason that he also got more votes than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln combined.
  • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712358)
    Perhaps change so that either Popular vote decides the election, or in a compromise do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state. Seems to me to be a true representation of the people's will doesn't it?

    Saying Bush won with more votes in history is downright misleading(sp?). He won with more votes in history in an election with MORE VOTES CAST than any election in recent memory. Show me he got a higher PERCENTAGE than anybody else and I'll be impressed.


  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by krog (25663) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712360) Homepage
    I can accept that Bush won the election. What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

    Perhaps New England and Quebec could each secede, and merge. All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.
  • Ultimate Power (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrnick (108356) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:20PM (#10712373) Homepage
    So, now we have a President / Commander in Chief during wartime. He has a Republican House and Senate and does not have to worry about pleasing the American people because he cannot run again.

    If I were George W Bush I would activate ALL military reservists, enact the draft, and send mass troops to Iraq to disarm their entire nation and impose martial law. Oh, and by the way build the Marine base right over there. Set the price of oil about $5 a barrel and start loading up the tankers.

    I doubt he will be SO harsh, there is a reason I am not a presidential candidate. But, I wouldn't be surprised if the gloves come off and he actually wields the force required to conquer Iraq.

    God bless America!

    Nick Powers
    http://www.nickpowers.info/ [nickpowers.info]
  • God vs Country? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Painaxl (673056) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:22PM (#10712421)
    While I find him unbelieveably deplorable, you've got to hand it to Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

    I thought there was no way that this country would re-elect a president who had the worst attack on this country ever happen on his watch, presided over a terrible economy, mismanaged a war that was waged for questionable reasons to begin with and was soundly defeated in three consecutive debates with his opponent.

    I think the answer was, make this election about God. Take the extremely divisive social issues in this country (stem cell research, abortion, gay rights) and make the election about them rather than the economy. While outwardly, the Bush campaign was all about the War on Terror, I think he owes his victory to the social issues. He's made no secret about his faith, and while that is somewhat noble, it also overshadowed his record for lots of people.

    Coming out of mass two Sundays ago, I found an Ohio Right to Life flyer in my windshield telling me how Bush fairs on four "Pro-Life" issues compared to Kerry. While abortion issues were the top two, the third was "Faith Based Initiatives" and the fourth was a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While neither of these are pro-life issues, they were included on a Right to Life flyer, while another true pro-life issue, the death penalty (not to mention just and unjust wars) was conspicuously absent.

    If there is one thing this election has proven, it is that Americans no longer desire a separation of church and state. And that frightens me more as a Catholic.
  • by Methuseus (468642) <methuseus@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:23PM (#10712434)
    How about changing us away from a 2-party system. How about counting *every* absentee vote, regardless of whether the race is close or not. How about not announcing even preliminary results until all votes have been made and all absentee votes have been counted. It's way too open in the US. People getting ready to vote at 3 or 4 PM may watch the news, see that one candidate is winning (when about 25% of the vote has been tallied, if that) and not go to vote when they could have possibly made a difference seeing as the votes they saw were from a different state or district.
  • by AugstWest (79042) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:24PM (#10712457)
    ...the counting in Ohio shows that Kerry actually won?

    How binding is this concession?
  • by PMuse (320639) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:25PM (#10712464)
    Kerry did the math, that's all.

    He was down 136,221 [cnn.com] votes. Kerry's single best county in Ohio was Cuyahoga [cnn.com] (City of Cleveland), where he scored 67%. The most favorable assumption one could realistically offer would be that the as-yet uncounted provisionals would be as good as Kerry's best county. There are 135,149 [nytimes.com] known provisional ballots + perhaps 10% more that may yet be reported. So, 135149*(110%) provisionals *67% margin = 99605 votes possibly gained.

    That's 136,221 - 99,605 = 36,616 votes too few.

    I feel like going door to door and yelling at my neighbors. I feel worse that I didn't do it last week.
  • by jafomatic (738417) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:25PM (#10712480) Homepage
    I'm horrified to agree, but I really believe you're correct in this last statement. I think this is precisely the ONLY type of campaign that can ever hope to "win" (not end, win) any war on terrorism. Not just in fallujah, or any part of one specific country, but throughout the region.

    I don't think a candidate for re-election would've stood a chance in committing what are, I'm starting to think, necessary atrocities. I'm thinking the war we've seen in iraq (thus far) has been nothing more than groundwork for a larger and startlingly brilliant campaign.

    For a moment, let's say that's all wrong and this isn't "the plan." Things get worse rather than better, and there will be no arguments in 2008 of "Well if he'd had 4 more years."

    Let's say someone else had won, kerry or not, and now has the job of cleaning up. Let's say the guy needs more than 4 years to perform all the repair to our international credibility, relationships, etc. How does that person get re-elected?

    This decision may end up causing more damage to america and the nations in the middle-east, but I wonder if it's not better to allow the process to finish before trying to roll it back (or, in the case of a real victory over terrorism) building fresh in new places.

    Maybe I'm feeding a troll, maybe I should've posted anonymously, but I don't think it's worth the loss of political currency, right now, to be blamed for what will be a failed cleanup after W's presidency.

    One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.

  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:26PM (#10712483)
    > Reagan, popular as he was, ran into trouble in his second term

    The perpetrators of Iran-Contra were all pardoned, many by his vice president, and many of them now have cabinet posts in his idiot son's administration.

    Remind me how that's a backlash again?
  • by Golias (176380) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:26PM (#10712490)
    I disagree. We are better off as a federal union of states in which the government of that union is presided over by somebody elected by the states. If Bush had lost Ohio and Iowa, then it should have meant a Kerry presidency regardless of the popular vote.

    Not that it matters this time around. The parent to your post is correct: By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:27PM (#10712507)
    After all, Kerry never lies (Cambodia, anyone?). Bush is all lies. Must...bash...Bush. Cannot simply admit being wrong.

    Mod up accordingly, please.
  • by Chester K (145560) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:29PM (#10712536) Homepage
    This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race.

    But it does remove the possibility of contentions over results, lawsuits, recounts and hanging chads. So, yes, Kerry conceding is important; even if by some miracle Ohio comes out as a Kerry win and Kerry ends up in the White House.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:29PM (#10712539)
    four more years of hilarious Daily Shows.
  • Re:Bad move (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:30PM (#10712554)
    People like you who believe Bush is the worst thing for this country are simply delusional. There's an unreasonable hatred for Bush. You are simply expressing that view. And you hate corporations, but you probably work for one, one way or another. Without corporations, we wouldn't have so much that we do. For example, you want to build your car? How about your computer? Who do you think made the components, a 10 person shop?
  • Best of the best? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by z3r0w8 (664036) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:31PM (#10712568)
    Let's all us Americans out here ask the question, "are these guys really the best we have to offer?" I don't think so. I think it is a shame that it takes 100's of millions to run for President. What are the actual chances that someone who really does care will ever get out in front of the american people? zero.
    I realize that when you boil it down, this is what the founding fathers actually intended. I am not sure they could have imagined the skewed disparity between the "have" and "have nots" that we have in our country today.
    I think it sucks that we are forced to vote based on defense and military action but that is the world we live in. All non-americans seem to think that we want to be shipping our military around the world. The US has such potential to do great things for everyone, it is just depressing we have to focus on defending ourselves.
    I would have gladly voted for the Democratic candidate if I could have seen someone other than a wife trying to get her husband something he wanted. Bush himself is not the greatest President or candidate.
    Bottom line, you have to have money to even THINK about being president. In the case of this year, it's just a lesser of two evils vote. Unfortunately, I voted based on whether the man could do whatever was necessary in case something terrible would happen and just didn't think JK could have done it.
  • by trongey (21550) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:31PM (#10712572) Homepage
    He WAS a terrible candidate, but he was the INCUMBENT terrible candidate which will always beat a terrible challenger.

    A halfway decent incumbent would have won by a landslide.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squidfood (149212) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:31PM (#10712574)
    81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion according to national studies.

    That's what fucking scares and alienates me in my own country. Tolerance in U.S.? Fuck no. From Canadian news [canada.com] One-fourth of Ohio voters identified themselves as born-again Christians and they backed Bush by a 3-to-1 margin....Bush was favoured among ...evangelical Christians who view him as a messenger from God in a titanic fight to quell terrorism and spread liberty around the world...

    Why is it that America and the fucked Middle East are the fundamentalists and problem-causers, while the rest of the world has gotten over it? The middle ages are over, fellow Americans. Figure it out. (ps. my viewpoint: I'm 2nd-generation Turkish American, committed atheist: after seeing what fundamentalists (muslim and christian) are doing to both of my otherwise lovely countries.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by binner1 (516856) <bdwalton.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:32PM (#10712577) Homepage
    Doesn't it make you sad that in one state (can't remember which) only 17% of the votes actually counted? That's downright pathetic!

    As a Canadian, I have to admit that I'm not entirely pleased with the outcome of this election either. I don't think Kerry would have made a spectacular leader by any means. I do think he could have reversed some (not all, by any means) of the damage done in the last 4 years...That and any monkey couldn't be worse than Bush...

    Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world. Sleep tight, don't let the WMD bite!

    -Ben
  • Not entirely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beh (4759) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:32PM (#10712578)

    Granted, it might alienate some people, but while I would have liked Kerry to win, I am happy he conceded - just because I think it would have been wrong to have Kerry win the presidency with a minority in the popular vote - yes, Bush ruled with a minority, but two wrongs don't make a right.

    For me, as a foreigner living outside the US, this will simply mean, that I'll stay out of the US for at least another legislative period - as long as those paranoid suckers are in office, I wouldn't even want to enter the US as a tourist.

    The only thing I am concerned about right now, is what the new cabinet will look like. If Colin Powell really drops out of the cabinet (and isn't replaced by someone with an equal amount of internationally accepted integrity), the government will lose a lot of its standing to the outside world. I'd give more about what he said, than all the crap that Bush, Rice and especially Rumsfeld "emitted"...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:32PM (#10712580)
    At the beginning of his administration, President George W. Bush asserted that he was a unifier, not a divider.

    I think that George Bush is one of the most influential politicians in history; he's been successful not only in polarizing America but also the whole world.

    Never before has the rest of the world paid such close attention to the American presidential election.

    --This SIG was sold and put on a bumper sticker.
  • by SQLz (564901) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:33PM (#10712592) Homepage Journal
    Heh. Your assuming that the midwest cares about people on the rest of the planet.

    Let me take you through a typical mid-western's day.

    Get up
    Pray
    Walmart
    Pray
    Sleep

    I don't see these people planning any trips to Europe anytime soon, be it Kerry or Bush in office.

    A lot of conservatives who voted had 1 single issue. Abortion, same sex marriage,t-ism, the childen, the church told them too,etc. Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.

    Most Americans are going to believe anything you tell them. I actually know people who would flip flop their vote almost everyday depending on who had the latest scathing comercial out.

    The US is going to be stuck in this quagmire for a long long long time. The rest of the world should just get used to the fact we're just a bunch of assholes and move on.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:34PM (#10712608) Homepage
    How is the USA becoming a "religious police state"?

    Well, the country IS run by a "Born Again Christian", and he has vowed to attack abortion rights, gay marriage, and continue to slaughter other random countries without the consent of the rest of the world, and the feds can monitor the books that we buy and checkout from libraries.
  • Misunderstanding (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall (25149) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:35PM (#10712620)
    I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash.

    Well, if you look at demographics it seems Bush did better with people that earn 50,000+, and Kerry did better with people that earn less...

    So how does your assumption hold true?

    If the Democrats continue to ignore demographics and instead fundamentially believe misconceptions like the one you put forth then they will keep loosing.

    Instead they should try and think about what led so many middle class, non white-trash people to vote for Bush and try to put forth a candidate that those people would vate to vote for, instead of a simple Anti-Bush.
  • by straybullets (646076) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:35PM (#10712628)

    This is the process that the founding fathers [...] It is great to be an American

    I can't believe you're being serious !! Of course it's not "great to be an American" ! As it's not great to be Russian, Greek, whatever ! Who cares ?? I'll never understand someone that's proud to be of a special nation, this has so few logical reasons, this is such a poor feeling ... And moreover when the country in question is f*cking up on every subject, such as word treaties (kyoto, geneva), institutions (un, wto) etc ..

    And how can you be proud of your electoral system ? Just because we all traveled to work as if it was a normal day ? That sure seems like an easy way of dismissing the fiasco it is, abstention included ! Call it a "democracy", go give lessons to third word countries, but it really is an organised system of greed, and the first deception is making you feel important with this little, almost useless vote.

    This morning, i heard mister Fat Rich Richard Pearl on the radio. He was clearly stating that, the cold war being over, it was time for a true competition between the U.S and Europe, and any other country, including strong conflicts of interests, et al.

    Congratulations, war mongers.

  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dfj225 (587560) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:39PM (#10712678) Homepage Journal
    "four more years of the rich getting richer"

    Wouldn't the root of this be capitalism and not Bush?

    "the middle class losing jobs"

    I wonder, is there truely any way in a free economy to keep buisnesses from sending jobs overseas? It is not like this has only happened with Bush...it has been a trend for some time now.

    "civilians all over the world and American soldiers getting killed for nothing"

    I don't think it is right to make light of the deaths of US soldiers or innocent civilians. You may not agree with the US invading Iraq -- and that is fine -- but should at least respect the work they have done and that one more nation is free of an opressive dictator. Sure Iraq is not a land of joy right now...but I believe we have given them the potential to be a safe, democratic nation once the insurgents are dealt with. The most important thing that we can do now is train the armies of Iraq to fend for themselves. So far I think Bush has done a good job with this.

    "more hatred against Americans"

    I don't think America should ever let the opinions of outside nations affect our own morals and sense of what is "right" or "wrong". It has been shown that France and Germany, among others, had lucrative financial deals with Iraq, so why should we let countries, where we cannot know all of the alterier motives, stand as the authority of what is right and wrong for the world.

    "less freedom in the US"

    Kerry supports the Patriot Act, Kerry (along with every senator but two) voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry also has a very poor history when it comes to civil liberties. I do think that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, but I do not think that any of the Presidential canidates with a chance of winning will help to fix this.
  • by dmccarty (152630) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:39PM (#10712682)
    Uh, hello. How was this modded anything but the flamebait expletive-laced troll that it is? A bunch of pissed off moderators today, maybe?
  • by jc42 (318812) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:40PM (#10712706) Homepage Journal
    One thing the rest of the world has to come to terms with is that roughly half the voters in the US have just expressed their approval of what George Bush has done. They approve of invading another country on false pretenses. They approve of killing civilians by the tens of thousands. They approve of putting religion into government (and probably don't approve of whatever religion you may follow). They approve of putting companies like Haliburton in charge of projects in your country through no-bid contracts and no voice for your citizens. They don't care whether your countrymen may have done anything at all against the US; they'll still approve attacking you just because of what you might be capable of doing sometime in the iindefinite future.

    I'll bet that there is a lot of discussion of such things going on in the rest of the world. It'll be interesting to see what the rest of the world can do to defend themselves.

    The one good sign is that I've already heard and read a number of comments from the rest of the world pointing out that roughly half the US voters were opposed to all of the above. It's fairly clear that most of the Kerry votes weren't really for Kerry; they were votes to get Bush and his policies out of power. Many people in the rest of the world understand this and that the US isn't a monolith supporting whatever Bush does.

    But still, the rest of the world has gotta be considering how to deal with a George Bush who now thinks he has a "mandate" for his policies. It's time to start looking for information about what people around the world are going to do about it.

  • Re:two words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:41PM (#10712724) Homepage Journal
    No, conservatives did not vote. It was the far right-wing, hyper-religious, I-hate-anything-not-christian, anti-equal-rights, creationism-is-a-theory, neo-cons who voted.

    Please stop trying to claim that the above people are conservatives. They are not. They are the American version of the Taliban.
  • by Symbiosis (39537) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712736) Homepage
    Actually, the U.S.A. isn't a democracy. It's a Federalist Republic. The popular vote was never intended to elect the President. In fact, the framers of the Constitution designed it such that the popular vote wouldn't elect the President. We are a representative democracy where what we're actually voting for on Nov. 2 is memebers of the Electoral College who will, in theory, vote for the candidate that we put down on our ballots. Technically they are not bound to vote either way, but that's just the way the system has developed.

    Those crazy guys back in the day didn't trust in the transient will of the populous or "tyranny of the majority." Do you? ;-)
  • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712737) Homepage
    The electoral college ensures that a winner needs broad-based support throughout many regions of the country. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.

    What if Bush solidly won every state except for extreme landslides in NY and CA? Do you really want two states to rule over the other 48 states?
  • by Tufriast (824996) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:43PM (#10712760)
    I've got several military sources, that will go unidentified, whom I attend college with. If you don't think a draft is coming, think again. Look for a draft in March-May of 2005. Here is the latest ruleset for us college students. http://www.sss.gov/viet.htm "Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year."
  • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Professor Oompa (258687) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:44PM (#10712765)
    This is too accurate. According to CNN, 22% of voters stated that "Moral Values" were their primary concern in the election. Of those, 79% voted for Bush.

    Since when was George W. Bush the poster child for Moral Values?
    Did I miss it when John Kerry said that he wanted cut expenses by using babies as speed bumps?

    I guess no abortion and no gay marriage is the ticket to being a morally sound individual.

    11 of 11 states that had "define mariage" proposals on the ballot passed them, most by a landslide. Maybe I'm naive, but I learned something new about this country last night.
  • by Surt (22457) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:44PM (#10712766) Homepage Journal
    Except that the current system actually resulted in neither candidate visiting quite a few undisputed states.
  • by Kentamanos (320208) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:45PM (#10712774)
    If the popular vote was all that mattered, why would any candidate focus on anything but the 10 largest CITIES in the US. Forget about states...

    And if population is so important, doesn't the Senate seem "deprecated". Why should Rhode Island have two seats?

    The most obvious good thing about a true popular vote election would be the incredible turnout. For instance, how many Republicans in California and Democrats in Texan would vote if it was a popular vote?
  • Hate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:45PM (#10712777)
    Hold up now. The statement that 49% of Americans who voted hate W is a bit much.

    Or is it?

    Me, I voted Democrat in '92, '96 and '00. But the fucking virulent hate without much rational thought or reason is why I voted Republican this year.

    I couldn't take the nonsense...the hate that was coming from some Liberals.

    Yesterday we had a conversation in a meeting and someone admitted to voting Bush, a lady went off, yelling Someone looked over in horror and yelled "how could you? He has raped and murdered millions in Iraq!"

    I said, "George W. Bush personally has raped and murdered people in Iraq?"

    "Yes he has!"

    "Personally? Like he went over and raped and murdered people?"

    "Yes he has! Millions!"

    Back to the word "hate", do you really think that every single person who voted for Kerry "hate" George W. Bush? I doubt it.

    "Hate is the generic word, and implies that one is inflamed with extreme dislike. We abhor what is deeply repugnant to our sensibilities or feelings. We detest what contradicts so utterly our principles and moral sentiments that we feel bound to lift up our voice against it. What we abominate does equal violence to our moral and religious sentiments. What we loathe is offensive to our own nature, and excites unmingled disgust."
  • by Bromrrrrr (166605) <brommer@g m a i l.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:46PM (#10712801)
    We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this

    Stop playing with your GI-joes little boy, that war has been over for 60 years and believe you me you are NOT your grandfather.

    The people that liberate europe (not just US soldiers you arrogant little shit) are still venerated but united states credit has been running out steadily for years and Bush will spend the rest.

    The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.

    Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...


    Ow but you have let the extremists come to power. I can recognize them from far away no matter what flag they are wearing, Bush is no defender of any kind of freedom anywhere.

    We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.

    No, you're screwing with our asses and we'd love for you to stop doing it.
  • by querist (97166) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:46PM (#10712806) Homepage
    I agree with everything you have in the parent except for your last sentence. Democracy is exactly about majority rule; what you have described (reaching a compromise that maximizes societal welfare) is a Republic, which the United States is supposed to be according to our Constitution.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:48PM (#10712821)
    Enjoy the next four years, fella. They're gonna be swell. :)
  • by thunderpeel (549987) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:48PM (#10712825)
    We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this.
    ** nice of you to sit back and wait until it was in your best interests to help tho.
    Do you really think you guys are free of this? We're the target cause we're prominent. If we don't stand strong. Guess what...for all your support of liberal ideas and thoughts, homosexual marriage, etc. It will be moot.
    ** You're the target because of your ultra agressive foreign policy. Not to mention you back a state that is DIRECTLY in conflict with Muslim interests. THEN DONT EXPECT THAT CONFLICT TO COME TO YOUR DOORSTEP?!
    You want us to not defend ourselves or the right to be. Guess what...if we don't. It will be extremist fanatics killing every gay in Canada in the name of Allah. Destroying every bank, savings and loans. Forcing your women to wear excessive garments.
    ** You honestly think that if the Natzi like regime falls out of power that a MUSLIM govt will be put in place? Holy fuck, you are a sheep.
    Man you don't get it...but you euro-minded people never have. Would you like to give Austria and Poland to NAZI Germany now or later?
    *** Well, Nazi Germany exists today! IN AMERICA!!! YEE HAW .. Lie to the people, extort and control the people, wage private war FOR the people.
    You in your dismal lack of understanding think this is a pride USA #1 issue. The irony is this....
    The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.
    ** the actual funny part is you BELIEVE what you are told .. perfect sheep... continue believing blind, like religion, because it will all end up the way you want. poor poor sheep.
    Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...
    Let me ask you this...what do you think would happen? who do you think would be the ones allowed to live? moral conservatives....or the supporters of homosexuality and non-traditional morals?
    **Personally I dont think that North America would ever be "taken over" by muslim warriors. This is how the FEAR has taken you .. you actually believe this.
    We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.
    **YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR FUCKING MONITARY INTERESTS SO DONT FUCKING PLAY THE BRAVE SOLDIER TO ME YOU FUCKING SHEEP! THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DEFEND YOURSELVES IS BECAUSE OF YOUR BACKWARDS PROTECT OUR OWN GREEDY INSTERESTS VIEW OF MORAL SOCIETY. IF YOU EVER REALLY KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A BROTHER TO ANOTHER WORDLY BODY YOU WOULDNT BE SUCH A FUCKING CLOSED MINDED SHEEP AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN WORLD ISSUES, INSTEAD OF STEPPING IN AND TAKING OVER.
    SIEGE HAIL BUSH
  • by Daengbo (523424) <daengbo@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:48PM (#10712826) Homepage Journal
    Your view of "the rest of the world" appears to include only Europe.
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deltagreen (522610) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:48PM (#10712830) Homepage
    Most Bush-voters think the Iraq war was justified, but many purely on the grounds that they still believe Iraq had WMD and/or Saddam was behind 9/11. Some of these voters might be disappointed by what they learn during the next four years.

    From http://www.pipa.org/ [pipa.org]:
    A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.

    A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future. Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them.

    Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

    Steven Kull comments, It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program.

    Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

  • by scotch (102596) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:49PM (#10712839) Homepage
    If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election.

    This assumes that everyone or nearly everyone in those populous states will vote the same way. It's a stupid assumption, and it's a stupid argument against proportional representation for the president. Keep in mind that we already have an extremely powerful arm of the government that represents states rather than people; the senate.

  • Advice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fizban (58094) <fizban@umich.edu> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:50PM (#10712858) Homepage
    My advice to the Democrats:

    Let the Republicans do whatever they want. Don't fight them on any issue. Let them pass any legislation they want, appoint any judges they want, spend any money they want, cut any taxes they want. Let them have free reign of the government. They want a chance to prove their system works? Give it to them. In fact, whenever they ask you to support them on an issue, go willingly, go gladly and give them everything they want.

    In 4, 8 or 12 years, let's see how things turn out. If it's really that bad, then the Democrats will easily be able to regain control of everything. If things are going well, then we'll know for certain that the conservative agenda works and we will have a clear mandate for the future.

    It's time for the democrats to fall back and watch for a while. It may be a lot to suffer, but I think it's the only way for us to get past the divisiveness. If the Democrats continue to fight the Republicans, they will continue to get blamed for the lack of progress in this country and continue to be labeled as whiners and obstructionists. By not making challenges, then they can't be blamed for mistakes, and if there are costly mistakes, it will be easy to turn the country in a different direction and start again. For the liberal America, this is your trial by fire.
  • by Malc (1751) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:51PM (#10712881)
    The funny thing about all these people who are threatening to move abroad is that they probably won't be given visas! Relocating to different parts of the US is relatively easy. Perhaps this is what makes it deceptive. Crossing borders is much much harder - I can hardly see the US signing up to mobility concepts like those that exist within the EU.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:52PM (#10712895)
    congratulations america! you've completely alienated yourselves from all of your former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet.

    Just like we did after WWII [64.233.179.104].

    There's a reason the people who started America were called the "Founding Fathers." If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.

    The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done. And sometimes it takes a while before those behind you realize you are doing what's best for all concerned (thanks Mom and Dad for the vegetables and bed time!).

    And one other thing...all you countries complaining about how Americans are just for world domination...where exactly in our history have we ever done that, especially when we were in the driver's seat (Germany and Japan weren't annexed after WWII)? Never, that's when. But YOU, you've done that many times (Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin, etc.). Perhaps you distrust us because you were corrupt in your own history. We may not be perfect, and there may be a few of us that are anarchists (Michael Moore), but we don't want to dominate you...regardless of what conspiracy theory you choose to believe today [buttafly.com].
  • by Mr. Ghost (674666) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:54PM (#10712924)
    Wow, that was extremely rude and narrowminded.

    Are you sure that isn't "hate speech" :-)

    To use your own argument, doesn't "your side" usually vote a single issue: evironment, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage, etc... Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.

    I thought "your side" was supposed to be much more open minded with respect to people who have different belief systems than you do, I guess I was wrong.
  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:54PM (#10712926) Homepage
    CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way.

    Maybe conceding isn't legally definitive, but it is a formal public statement by Kerry that he recognizes Bush as the winner. Politically, it would be impossible to come back, after conceding, and claim the presidency.

    Especially-- consider what that speech would sound like: "I was in favor of conceding before I was against conceding. What's worse, my making a mistake in conceding, or Bushes mistake in taking that concession seriously? But I have a plan to take care of this concession. We're going to work with the UN-- I mean lawyers, and we're going to carry out my plan to fix this election."

  • by EllisDees (268037) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:54PM (#10712934)
    > If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.

    And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.

    >The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.

    But they don't. At all.

    > If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.

    Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.

    >Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote.

    So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.

    1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.
  • Education... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by c.herwig (720742) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:55PM (#10712941)
    "Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
  • by Gogl (125883) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:56PM (#10712963) Journal
    No, not quite.

    Regarding the terrorists, yes they actually do the attacks, and they are wrong to do so, but it is still largely caused by the asinine and boorish foreign policies embraced by the Republican party.

    Regarding the draft, well, the Republican party may say they don't want it, but those same foreign policies may necessitate it. The Dems who are pushing for it know they won't get it, they're trying to make a political point.

    And you think we've established .5 of a democracy with Iraq? All we've established is a full quagmire.

    Conservative judges actually look at the constitution? Damn, they must be missing that amendment that talks about "equal protection under the law"...

    And while we shouldn't be accountable to the rest of the world, you might think something is awry when 80% of the world doesn't like what you're doing. Considering the thoughts of others doesn't mean you're cowtowing to them, it just means you're not an arrogant asshole.

    Lastly, the whole "full of steaming hate" thing, well, yes, they're often frustrated and even hateful. But that's just ad hominem, you should decide based on the actual issues. And frankly, the frustration and hate is quite understandable, if you bothered to actually look at the issues.
  • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:57PM (#10712978)
    Unfortunately, it's under 50%. Even with a record turnout, it was just too scary for many people to change presidents now. The status quo feels 'safer'.

    It's strange, but too many Americans no longer understand the strengths of the U.S. Constitution, and fail to realize that those strengths actually allow the country to function in a time of 'war', and change presidents.

    Well, guess what? They *WILL* have to do that in four years.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:00PM (#10713017)
    I know of at least one founding father who would disagree with your assessment:

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    -- Thomas Jefferson
  • by williamhb (758070) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:00PM (#10713029) Journal
    This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American

    You're talking as if the US is alone in terms of being a stable democracy. In fact, if you look anywhere from Australia to Ireland to New Zealand to India to the UK to South Africa... there seem to be an awful lot of democracies about, and most of them don't owe their system of government to an American heritage.

    I'm sorry to sound a bit of a moaner, and gripe about your very noble patriotic sentiment, but Aussies like me actually get a bit irked when we hear Americans talking as if they owned democracy. (And we then normally mutter and grumble amongst ourselves about how Rumsfeld, Powell, etc did not have to stand for election, whereas Australian and many other countries' government ministers do at least have to be elected to parliament or the senate first)

  • by slcdb (317433) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:02PM (#10713039) Homepage
    The results of this election reveal that most Americans still understand the truth about the state of the world today, despite what the mass media would like them to think. If the remainder of the populace (i.e. the Democrats) would stop and think about the reality of the situation, then all of the hysterical reactions to the outcome of this election could come to a stop.

    Most Americans see the truth about the "War On Terror": coalition forces gave al-Qaeda the thrashing of their lives in Afghanistan -- and in only about 30 days, not the 10 year protracted USSR-style Afghanistan fiasco that some had predicted. Al-Qaeda still remains severely crippled from this shellacking in 2001.

    Most Americans see the truth about the situation in Iraq: coalition forces continue to be overwhelmingly successful and are achieving their objectives at a steady pace, with unprecedentedly low casualties. To have achieved such a high level of success, with casualties in the low 1,000's is simply amazing. The truth is that in 2003 no one, not Republican or Democrat, could have hoped for such a positive outcome.

    Most Americans see the truth about the economy at home: unemployment is now lower than it ever was under the Clinton administration. Homeownership is now at an all-time high. The country has now seen a net gain in jobs. The previous recession and loss of jobs began under the Clinton administration, not under the Bush administration. The Bush administration's economic policies successfully reversed the economic slide that the Clinton administration left behind, despite the difficulties imposed by the 9/11 attacks. This too is unprecedted and something for all Americans to be proud of.

    I don't understand the media's motivation for attempting to decieve the American population with regard to these three major issues, but it is refreshing to see that the majority of American's are not buying into it.

    The Republicans are doing a commendable job steering this country down the right path, and, with the outcome of this election, it is now apparent that most Americans recognize this fact. As soon as Iraq is set completely free and begins to rebuild and prosper, the rest of the world will see just how wrong they were about the Bush Administration.

    God bless America!
  • by starling (26204) <strayling20@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:02PM (#10713040)
    Man, that was beautiful. Thanks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:03PM (#10713062)
    In the rest of the world we don't view the USA as solely one man, we know that there are about 300M of different people there. We also sorta worked out that Bush jr is not Bush sr and that G.W. Bush is more or less advised by neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz who do not have the wide scope view of people like H. Kissinger.

    In other words, we don't blame America as if it was one island with one inhabitant. We just can't believe the foreign policy of one man and his rabid advisers who plow the world on the hunt for just an other man who the wanted ennemy. G.W. Bush doesn't seem to be consistent in more than some of his speeches, it's sort of clear that he is not the one wearing the pants in his team. At least that is how he is portrayed here in Europe.

    So are we to take that onto the next american tourist that comes by to ask for directions? Not at all, unless you want her/him to go back home and vote even more extreme-Right next time, thinking foreigners are all beyond hope.

    My strategy is the same one I have seem when I used to live in the US. Be nice, be kind... you always surprise people that way. I have always been impressed by how civil, nice and kind your Joe American is as compared to us and our attitude. So I'm not going to judge a whole people because of one opportunist in the Washington D.C. beltway. I lived there for years, it's full of other people like him.
  • Re:Wow. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:03PM (#10713064)
    I agree. I was absolutely appalled when reading last night that 11 states had approved gay marriage bans. I'm not gay, but I do believe that any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should be able to enter into a civil union and enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married people. It's a no brainer to me.

    Sadly, much of the rest of this country is still clinging too tightly to its puritan roots. The puritans had a lot of good values, but this was NOT one of the good ones. People are too fucking stupid and close-minded to think outside that "moral" box.

    We have a loooooooooooong way to go... I'm sure these backwards values will still plague our society when every one of us is dead. Sad, sad, sad.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! (33014) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:04PM (#10713077) Homepage Journal
    They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

    Because, as a citizen, it is my job to reason why.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:04PM (#10713079)

    I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

    So...they are 'ignorant', 'prejudiced' and 'gullible' because they don't think like you do?

    Until you start approaching people with other opinions in a more open way, you will be guilty of that which you accuse them of.

  • by Skyshadow (508) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:05PM (#10713086) Homepage
    This is probably far enough down the thread that it'll never get read, but:

    Congrats, Bush supporters. You side won, and won relatively definitively compared with 2000. You also picked up some house seats and a Senate seat (two if you count Zell Miller as a Dem). It's your day, and despite my personal views I honestly hope that the US electorate made the right decision.

    To my fellow dems, well, here we are. Take a couple of days to lick your wounds and feel shitty -- it's always tough to lose, especially when it's a close one. But no matter what, and especially no matter how much crap you take in the next couple of days, don't lose faith. There are two things I've learned about politics: (a) there's always another election and (b) things are never as bad as they seem.

    In retrospect, I believe it was to our detriment that we didn't lose the popular vote in 2000 because it gave us and excuse to not stop, admit defeat and regroup -- instead, we figured we could just steamroll to the next election and win. Well, now we know better.

    Back in 1992, the GOP suffered the same sort of defeat we're facing now (actually, a worse defeat). They did the right thing with it, though, and in '94 they came back and were able to be highly successful by presenting a new look and new promise.

    I know. I was a Republican back then. I was at a victory party for a GOP house member named Scott Klug whose campaign I'd worked on when the wind shifted. You could *feel* it happening -- it was the dawn of a new day for a party that had strayed away from its roots during Bush I.

    Well folks, this is our 1992. Even now, the GOP is drifting away from its core ideas of fiscal responsibility and keeping its nose out of people's business. It's our opportunity to retake the soul of our party and demand a new look and better people, and they're out there right now -- Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Barak Obama in Illinois and dozens of other good Americans around the country ready to be the new face of our party. It'll happen, but it can't happen without our determination and our hard work.

    I won't give up, and neither should you. At the risk of sounding cheesy, we'll pull this off for the same reason the GOP did a decade ago because of a fundemental commonality we share with them: We're Americans. We don't give up, we don't quit, we don't go quietly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:06PM (#10713107)
    I do not really see how your comments are interesting, but I thought as part of the 51% I would help you understand some things that you seem to be missing.

    First, The only people who have suggested the draft are two Democrats, one of whom wouldn't even vote for the bill he proposed. The entire Draft crap was a scare tactic and it appears to have worked on you.

    Second, despite the wonderful promises of Osama Bin Laden we would be attacked again whether or not Bush was in office. There is a faction of people out there that hate our very existance. Most of that comes from the crap that the liberal media is pumping out. It is all the sex/violence that is shown on our media that angers so much of the middle east because it is then pumped into their homes via satellite and walks all over their religious beliefs. What we put on television is heresy to them. So it is not the President's beliefs that cause the terrorism, but the crap the liberal media that think they should be able to put anything they want on TV creates. A change to John Kerry would not change this fact.

    Third, last time I checked the economy was not in tatters despite the fact that the media is trying to paint it as so. The unemployment has been right around a rate that was considered great during the Clinton years. How is it great for Clinton to have an unemployment rate, but it to suddenly become horrible when Bush has it?

    Fourth, if the world doesn't like us then they do not like us. You can't please everyone all the time. The UN is corrupt beyond belief, and the countries you are so worried about appeasing would gladly stab us in the back if they thought it was good for them to do so. Of course they are going to pretend that they like you to your face, but it matters more what they do when we are not around (read Oil For Food corruption). If they abandon us, so what, which country has bailed out which country when there was trouble?

    Fifth, the deficit is just a Bush created problem it is a Congress problem. Until both sides of the stop spending beyond their means, it is going to be a problem. Of course, how can we as a people ask our government to stop doing this when we ourselves cannot keep ourselves from doing it.

    Finally, perhaps you do the work once in a while to go get the information yourself instead of just listening to what they tell you. But then it is always to just hate and blame someone without reason than it is to be truely informed about the world around you.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MustardMan (52102) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:07PM (#10713115)
    because you didn't get your way

    Um, there's a difference between "not getting your way" and realizing that you are in for four years of hard ass fucking by a redneck who has already fucked this country more than it has ever been fucked.
  • Re:Well, (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:08PM (#10713128)
    I'd be more concerned about the 2,138,800 voters in New Mexico and Iowa (figures taken from the BBC website) whose votes ultimately don't matter because of the way the system works.

    But hey, I'm just an outsider looking in.
  • by Larthallor (623891) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:08PM (#10713129)
    I agree.

    This was a vote about identity. The Republican party has been steadily convincing Christians that they are the party of Christ. It started with conservative brimstone and fire evangelicals and was dismissed by liberals as finge politics. Unfortunately, this sentiment has spread steadily until it encompasses not just the religious right, so much as the plain religious. Republicans have framed the argument as choosing between Democrats and God. Dems cannot win that fight.

    Democrats have failed utterly, as candidates, to stand up and show believers how true Christians have more in common with Democratic values than Republican supply-siders. The only person I've heard harp on this is Al Franken, who is not exactly a voice evangelicals are going to trust.

    Democrats need to show those with faith that the values of Jesus are the values of the Democrats. This will mean downplaying things like gay rights and abortion.
  • by JInterest (719959) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:08PM (#10713134)

    We have to find a way to dumb ourselves down into simple ideology. Easy digestible soundbites. It sounds ridiculous but I see no other way -- 1992 was "The Economy, Stupid", nothing else has worked. People don't want to think about problems, they want to eat McD's and watch Joey.

    And the Republicans hope you keep thinking this way, because it shows that you really don't understand why John Kerry lost this election.

    You are so fixated on the presidential race that you are losing track of the fact that Republicans made significant gains in the Senate and House of Representatives as well. Tom Daschle lost. He was targeted, and his constituents booted him out. That's his reward for 4 years of obstructionism. Why?

    You are so fixated on the presidential race you are ignoring that in every one of 11 states where there was a ballot initiative prohibiting gay marriage, it passed, in many cases by overwhelming majorities. Why?

    Why don't people like you get it?

    The Democratic party doesn't need to "dumb down". You can drop your geek pomposity. Your analysis indicates that you aren't any more "clueful" than the people who voted for someone other than Sen. Kerry.

    There was a huge voter turnout. The media focus on the Democrat 527s missed the point that huge numbers of evangelicals and blue-collar people turned out to vote. They didn't always vote Republican, but many of them did. What you should be asking is, why?

    Check those ballot initiatives. Look at the overall picture, and it becomes clear.

    People didn't vote for George Bush because of his handling of the economy. They didn't vote for him solely because of war rhetoric.

    They voted for him also because they didn't want a social liberal who has consistently voted for gun control, or who avoided a vote on an amendment to the consitution on gay marriage, to be president. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because he was a social liberal. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because Michael Moore was for him. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because they didn't like his behavior in the Vietnam era. They didn't like him because he was all-too-obviously the candidate of foreign powers.

    If there was a "Dukakis in a tank" moment in this election, it was when John Kerry put on brand-new camos and went goose-hunting after the NRA came out for Bush. Many Kerry supporters missed the significance of this. The Kerry campaign people knew that the NRA had just split the union vote.

    If the Democrats want to be successful again, they certainly can be. They could trounce the Republicans. But to do so, they would have to make changes that I suspect wouldn't make you very happy.

    A Democrat who is opposed to homosexual marriage, who supports gun rights, who is socially conservative, can win. A Democrat who steps away from NAFTA and the WTO (unlike John Kerry or Bill Clinton), can win.

    In other words, an old-fashioned Democrat who is socially conservative, mildly protectionist, and who supports a modest social safety net that won't break the bank but provides assurance of real bread n' butter security with regards to health care, can win, would win, and would do so handily. A Democrat who isn't afraid to knock heads overseas, and doesn't act like he cares more about whether the French like him than whether he is representing American interests, can win.

    I doubt you would support such a person. You would much rather spit invective and pretend that everyone who thinks differently than you do is more stupid than you. Maybe you would vote for Nader or vote Green before you would vote for the kind of Democrat I'm talking about.

    But if the Democrats as a party want to win, they need more Sen. Millers, not more Sen. Kerrys, running for national office.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mike_the_kid (58164) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:09PM (#10713141) Journal
    They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?


    If I believed in what they are doing over there, I'd be over there, why aren't you?
  • by cavac (640390) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:09PM (#10713143) Homepage
    For the last few years, all i've been hearing in europe over here from the U.S. Leaders was following this theme:

    GI: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    GOE: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    If you want to know who wrote this, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Goering [wikipedia.org] and tell it's not happening again. Please!

    LLAP & LG
    Rene
  • by gingerTabs (532664) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:10PM (#10713153) Homepage
    and if the majority wants something, in a true democracy they would get it, since that is the defin,ition of democracy.

    And that my dear man is the flaw with democracy. If the plebs can be led down a path that is immoral, racist, isolationist and imperialistic by one charismatic leader and his religion, then that's fine because *drum roll*

    That's democracy kids...
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neves (324086) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:11PM (#10713162) Homepage
    In my country Liberal means a business friend politic, nearer the right. I've always get som cognitive dissonance when I read definitions like Orkut's "very left/liberal". It's an oxymoron. USA political environment is so conservative that any democrat candidate would belong to the right in other countries.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daulnay (695892) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:11PM (#10713163)


    The real problem is not that Americans on the losing side are frustrated, it's that the U.S. is so bitterly divided now. The radicals on each side have been vilifying the other, so much that it's gotten difficult to have a civilized discussion. Most of the people on either side love their country, but we have trouble remembering that in the midst of all the vitriol. Loving your country includes loving the half of the citizens who disagree with you, after all. Or at least recognizing that they're just as much part of the country as you are.



    As a nation, we need to start accepting the other side, and try to figure out a way to live together with people whose views and lifestyles we don't especially like (and even abhor). Not a meeting-in-the-middle kind of compromise (which neither side will accept), but some kind of cohabitation agreement where we come to some arrangement that keeps us out of each others' faces. I honestly don't see either side changing their minds about what they don't like in the other, so we need to move beyond the battle for hearts and minds (and laws), and try to accommodate each side.



    As for leaving the country, it's not at that point yet. The checks and balances in the system were designed expressly to avoid the evils of majority rule, and it's up to those on the 'blue' side to make sure their senators and reps use those checks to the fullest. The checks and balances have already reined in the worst excesses of the Bush administration, like the attempted end-run around the court system.

  • Re:Invade! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jlanthripp (244362) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:12PM (#10713175) Journal
    Bring it on! The people of the United States have 222 million firearms - or just over 1.5 for every adult in the country. I personally own 8, and about 2000 rounds of ammunition in total. When I see a "peacekeeper" in the US, I don't plan to stop shooting till I'm dead or out of ammo. And there are 50 million or so more, just like me.
  • by yupie (772822) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:12PM (#10713176)
    First of all, popular vote causing a Democrat to win because of some states "having the most population" doesn't strike me as utterly unfair. More population equals more votes.

    But even if you want to respect the state-biased system, why not keep the actual numbers of "electoral votes" per state (e.g. 20 for Ohio), but dividing them according to state bound results (e.g. 55% for Bush => 11 electoral votes for Bush). This would remove (or reduce, at least) the unfairness of swing states calling the shots.
  • by cOdEgUru (181536) * <cherian,abraham&gmail,com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:12PM (#10713179) Homepage Journal
    Why did Kerry lose? Why did Democratic pary lose more of its share in the senate?

    The White house and the Republicans were smart and farsighted enough to realize that by galvanizing the religious, the evangelical community, it stands to gain the most. And they did. As much as Democrats gained by getting the youths out to vote (even then it wasnt a total success as less than 1 in 10 voter was between 18-24), Republicans reaped the rewards of getting Rural america to vote. Thus, being slanted towards the left that I am, I believe Poor people, uneducated, mostly white as well as blue collar americans decided to stay the course with their president. Reasons are quite a few. And has a lot to do with how the Republican's stayed the course, kept their message clear and did not waver, did not admit any mistakes (though they were made all over).

    But most of all, Bush won four more years, because they were able to equate Democratic party and Kerry with a Sinful party, a party that is elitist, that looks down upon their religion and cares more about the environment than their jobs. All of which the white house and the Bush administration were eager enough to portray Kerry and his cohorts as least interested in the commmon man and his values. People who voted for Bush, atleast a significant portion, voted overwhelmingly for his virtues (though there are seemingly none) and the values they believed he will uphold.

    Republicans also were smart enough to include the Ban for Same Sex marriage on the ballot, thereby once again drawing a parallel between morality and the Presidency. As Republican party seemed more and more the party that cared about religious values, about people's jobs, about tax cuts(though for wealthy), and about the nation's security, The Democratic party seems more and more elitist, belonging to the yuppies, caring more about tree huggers than about the loggers and their jobs, caring more about gays and their rights than about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and ultimately wavering all over the place with their message and their views on foriegn policy. Kerry also couldnt put forth a consistent and coherent plan on Iraq. I almost wish he had said: "We will pull out of Iraq in six months, regardless of what the cost, to save more american lives, and we will let a Global coalition sort out the mistakes of the previous administration", that could have been a start. But he didnt and as time wore on, there wasnt much of a difference between Bush and Kerry on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and the differences they did have were on moral grounds, on values, on tax cuts, on environmental rights, that majority of Rural america dont give a hoot for.

    It will be interesting and we will all be watching the road ahead with trepidation. There is a possibility that the current administration, takes the permission to rule fairly for the next four years, as a god given right and squander it, infact, its not a possibility, it is certain. This President had a chance to unite the country 3 years ago, but he didnt. I dont think he will start now. We will have 4 more years of the same, but more over, we will look back on this day and wonder why we voted to give him 4 more years.
  • by E_elven (600520) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:14PM (#10713203) Journal
    The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

    That sure worked well with Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin [sic], etc.
  • by slartibart (669913) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:15PM (#10713228)
    When you see the moral standards of your society being destroyed, what good man would not act, if the decline could be stopped, or at least slowed by simply showing up and voting NO? If he does not want homosexuality to become an accepted practice, surely it is the right thing to do.

    And surely, if he does not want to see interracial marriage become an accepted practice, surely it is the right thing to do. Right? Right? How is it different?

    People used to justify stomping on the civil rights of black people just like they currently are doing to gay people. It's bigotry, plain and simple. All you're doing is calling your bigotry a "moral value" to make it sound upstanding. People used to to racial separatism a moral value.

    Your kids are not going to turn gay just because they see gay people. Would you have turned gay? I don't know about you, but it wouldn't have mattered how many gay men I saw kiss, boobies would still have given me a woody.

    People are so afraid of turning gay - makes me wonder if they're *already* gay.

  • Flamebait, my ass! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Deagol (323173) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:17PM (#10713256) Homepage
    Whoever originally modded this as flamebait is a moron.

    It's those very issues that won the election for Bush.

    The vast majority of Americans are some Christian derivative. Nothing wrong with that.

    These Christian folks have some strong-held beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.

    But what tangible affect on the day-today lives of those Christians do those issues really have? None. None at all. They're not gonna get an abortion, nor will they marry a same-sex partner.

    So... does having a president in office supporting those views really change much? Not a whit.

    Never mind his obvious lying and the smear campaign during the election. Never mind the dubious war we're waging, the jobs fleeing over seas, or the the US's growing debt. Nevr mind that Molly Morman's kids can be sent to war next week, so long as we have a president strong on "morals" who might get R. v. W. overturned by the supreme court and amend our most important rights-protecting document to exclude a segment of the population.

    So let's recap: War good. Fags bad. Huge deficit good. Personal choice in medical care (abortion) bad.

    As much as I liked him as a President, I think Clinton is the reason we're in this mess (that whole scandal thing). People hold party faith like they hold religious faith -- without any thought or intelligence put into it. They go with the flow, 'cause it's the easiest thing to do.

    For fuck's sake. Kerry was no shining star, but we had 4 years of Bush. I'd pick an unknown for the next 4 years. I can't praise Dems for thinking Kerry was the right choise, but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.

    We deserve to get attacked again. We really do. We're such sheep.

  • by Merk (25521) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:18PM (#10713257) Homepage

    How many Marines do you think there are that think that military force is the wrong way to solve problems?

    The Marines absolutely have to believe they're doing the right thing. That absolute, unwavering belief is part of what keeps them alive.

    The thing is, Marines are generally not political scientists. They're not experts on foreign relations, and they don't know the nuances of the different branches of Islam. They're the pointy end of the stick, and they're damn good at being that.

    The problem is, the person weilding that pointy stick has to use that stick effectively. They're supposed to be the ones who *do* know about diplomacy, who *do* know about the history of the region, the culture, and everything else. Loyal marines should *not* be wasted on something that is not going to make the country or the world safer.

    What many of the "liberals" think is that not only is it awful that US soldiers are being killed, the bad part is that it is making both the country and the world a less safe place. It's the job of the Marines to do what the Commander in Chief says to do, including dying. Its the job of the voters to choose a Commander in Chief who won't send them to die unless it's absolutely necessary.

    If you disagree, and think that their deaths are necessary to help save the world, why not enlist [marines.com]. It's something that far more of the current democrat politicians have done than republicans. Maybe that should tell you something.

  • by the morgawr (670303) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:20PM (#10713292) Homepage Journal
    we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population

    The problem with doing this is that as the house gets more representatives it becomes harder to get things accomplished. That's why Congress capped the number of seats.

    I would propose that the real solution is to reduce what the federal government does. If the individual states started doing Social Security, Welfare, Education, etc. and the national government mostly did foreign and monetary policy, I think there would be a lot less need for having "better" representation.

  • by vyrus128 (747164) <gwillen@nerdnet.org> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:21PM (#10713298) Homepage
    > Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies. Because obviously /. is the entire US. And obviously it doesn't matter if OTHER people are arrested and detained indefinitely on trumped-up charges, just so long as they aren't _us_. "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."
  • by TrentTheWiseA (566201) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:21PM (#10713300)
    As another midwesterner, I agree with the g'parent post. How can someone vote for a president with arguably the WORST record on any subject in U.S. history continues to mystify me.

    Many midwesterners have seemingly turned into sheeple, not thinking about long-term consequences
  • Bush may have won a clear majority, but this election is still close, and there is still a large portion of the population that despises him. I'm sure Bush will interpret his victory as a mandate and do what he wants (not like his lack of a mandate was stopping him before), but this country needs some serious help closing the divide, and I don't see how Bush is going to address that.

    I don't think hate is the right word. I don't hate Bush, and I don't hate Kerry. Just because someone voted one way or the other does not imply hate for whomever they didn't vote for.

    What I don't get is all of the "run for the hills" people. Why don't you want to follow up your vote? You know, there are more elections than that of president. For example, voting a majority of the Senate or House Democrat with a Republican president. By leaving, you're only giving the future of those elections over to those of us who stay. But people are led to believe those races don't matter, and it's all about the president.

    I think I got off track here... I replied on the hate issue. Hate is Moore and his movie; that's outright hate. Not everyone feels that way, however. I suspect most people went to vote to decide who they felt would be the best choice, not who they hated the least.

    Kerry supporters: besides, in four years, we all get to choose between two totally different people. Don't be dicks about losing.*

    Bush supporters: don't be dicks about winning.*

    * Vote counts are not signed, sealed, and officiated yet. There's still some outstanding deadlines for stuff like overseas votes.
  • Whiners (Score:2, Insightful)

    by COMON$ (806135) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:22PM (#10713317) Journal
    Why is it that most the posts I see on here are assuming that the majority are morons and only the liberals know what is best for the country. I guess you need to get it out of your system, rant away. I think most of you forget about all the other facets of the country's Gov't that shapes our future. It is not one man. I think as an american people we need to stop whining so much and actually do something about the economy and the events around us. We love to talk but we hate to do anything ourselves. Let someone else do it and bitch about how we could have done it better. Great mentality. How about we do something different for a change. Support the Gov't, work on reforms as a people. If you dont like something, DO something to change it, start a petition, talk to your representatives. Just stop whining....
  • by pappy97 (784268) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:22PM (#10713320)
    It seems that Kerry tried to ride the anti-Bush sentiment into the White House and it didn't work.

    Instead of conceding he should do this:

    1.) Tell all Kerry electors to cast their Prez vote for John McCain and Colin Powell for VP.

    2.) Try to get Bush Electors to change their vote to McCain/Powell. This plan would need 17 Bush electors to defect. Since the defection would only be Bush to McCain, it is possible there are 17 Republican electors who would do so (to "unify the country.")

    Now either McCain is elected President, or more likely:

    Bush 269 EV
    McCain 200 EV
    Kerry 52 EV (because not all Kerry electors would change votes, in fear states that consider it a crime)

    and the election is thrown into the House. All the dem state delegations would vote McCain, and probably a few Repub state delegations would go for McCain too.

    Although Kerry can't win the Presidency anymore, if he was smart, they would try to make sure a republican they could live with (like McCain) could end up in the White House.

    Too bad Kerry and the Dems are dumb.
  • by VTBassMatt (761333) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:27PM (#10713393) Homepage Journal
    I agree that the plurality vote is bad, but IRV is flawed, too. Approval voting is the way to go. Read a good summary of the issues at ElectionMethods.org [electionmethods.org].
  • by Wicked187 (529065) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:28PM (#10713422) Homepage
    Wow, I am really glad that the moderators came to their senses and voted this flamebait instead of interesting, as it started. This is a large mess. You really should use your frustration in a productive manner. You could have rented a 13 seater van and brought sandwiches and $5 bills to young voters in Ohio and you could have driven them to the polls (I was going to be extremely depressed if Bush lost, and I would have blamed myself for not doing this)... Heck, they could have even registered on the spot.

    The biggest thing this nation needs is to become unified... there is a real threat out there, and the only way we can overcome it is to unify. I would have initially been heart broken if Kerry would have won, but I would have sucked it up and tried to do my part in making it clear that the US is still the greatest place to live.

    I truly believe you should drop it, but I doubt it. You seem to be greatly effected the Democratic propaganda. People waking and realizing that the Kerry campaign was running on lies is what lost the election for Kerry.

    1) Last I checked, a group of terrorists is responsible for the mass murder of over 3,000 Americans.

    2) No military draft, that is just silly. It was actually 2 Democrats that proposed that idea. Good thing the Republicans shot that down.

    3) As has been stated, the Middle East has been in constant conflict with itself and anyone else that it drags into its affairs. The Ottoman's vs. the Safavid's is what created the Sunni vs. Shiite tension today. The Muslim empire that ruled over India (cannot recall the name off the top of my head) is responsible for the India vs. Pakistan tension. Europe/America was pulled into this by the Safavid's and the Ottoman's were actually bring the conflicts to Southeastern Europe. Without Democracy... they have no chance.

    4) The economy is fine. The stock market is back, we have job growth, it is great. The problems that we did have were created by Clinton in the first place. Further, each time that we change parties for the President, we take a nice hit on our economy. By retaining Bush, the economy will stabilize more.

    5) The environment is hardly an issue that you can blaim on the US. Out of all the industrialized nations, the US contributes the least, per capita, to poor ecological effects. China uses more than half of the worlds coal. Europe is predominately powered by diesel fuel for cars, which is very dirty. Placing more environmental regulations on the US will hur the economy and have a minimal effect on the environment.

    6) The world is not going to abandon us. There were some tensions leading up to this election, but the world will fall in suite now. If you check out the BBC, most of Europe, Russia, and even opposing Middle Eastern leaders believe we will have better relations now. The world knows where Bush stands, and they do not want terrorism, just as much as us.

    7) Kerry would have been the one to screw the future, sorry. The last things we need is a radical liberal in office who is going to elect up to 4 supreme court justices who will remain until the die or leave. It is quite crazy, but the media is trying to make it seem like having morals is a bad thing... how silly.

    8) I am sorry, if this world is less prosperous for your child... then you must be grooming your child to be a terrorist (or a trial lawyer). My children are going to have a better place to live because of GWB.

    And yes, I am quite please. GWB is back. The Republicans control the legislative branch, and the Judicial branch will become more conservative. And my state finally ended a 16 year reign of Democrats as Govenor... now hopefully there is enough left for the Republican Governor to salvage. Hopefully the state (Indiana) doesn't have to file the second bankruptcy in its history.

  • by ash (98519) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:30PM (#10713444)
    "I can tell you you 'whiny left wingers' are the only americans for which we keep some respect. Gosh... for the rest of the world your democrat party is right wing... so imagine our idea of who your people elected..."

    What you have written above essentially translates to: "The most powerful and successful country in the world is further to the right than the rest of the world."

    While it is possible that political stance is not a statistical predictor of a country's success, you should take it into consideration that it could be. After all, the U.S.S.R. was left of the rest of the world and now is no more. China is communist, but is struggling to grow with it's own burgeoning capitalist economy. Is it not possible that position from which you are delegating this respect is akin to Karl Marx paying respect to an economic system?

    Also, I'm curious, how can you claim to speak for the rest of the world? Treating "everyone else" as a monolithic block with a mass opinion is the hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.

    An opposing foreign opinion.
    http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/SunSpec/Oct04/ind ex145.shtml [davidwarrenonline.com]
  • by Dashing Leech (688077) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:30PM (#10713453)
    Nope, it likely includes most of the rest of the world. It certainly includes Canada, the closest neighbour, ally, trading partner, and most culturely similar country to the U.S. Based on surveys, news, and workplace discussions, we can't understand how anyone could vote a major fuckup like Bush back in. On Sept. 11th, 2001 the U.S. had the sympathy of most of the world. Within a year Bush pissed off everyone and thumbed his nose at the international community. He's taken away freedoms of the American people in the name of security. He started a war for reasons that the world told him were wrong, have since been more than proven wrong, and it has turned sour just like everyone said it would (except Bush and friends). And he still says everything is fine. And the American people voted him back in.

    We could understand that Americans didn't know he was a fuckup when they first (barely) voted him in, but it's hard not to know he's a fuckup now. Although I work with a number of Americans I respect, I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

  • by vinniedkator (659693) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:31PM (#10713475)
    I find it interesting that in the areas of the country at the highest risk of terrorism most people voted against Bush. New York City voted almost 5:1 against Bush and D.C. 9:1. However, in rural America people feel he's the best one to take on the terrorists. Funny how things become clearer when it's your ass on the line.
  • by bshroyer (21524) <bretNO@SPAMbretshroyer.org> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:33PM (#10713507)
    Wow. What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers.

    My family (wife and three kids) supported Bush this year. Not because he's the magic bullet which will fix America's problems, but because he's much less dangerous than Kerry. Last night at dinner, the kids were watching the early returns, and were worried that Kerry might win. I told them, "Kerry might win. If he does, he's going to be our president for four years, and we'll do our best to support him. Everything will be all right."

    Kerry was a very, very poor candidate. He was, as it turns out, unelectable. The Democrats were given the "Perfect Storm" election:

    --A sitting president engaged in an unpopular war, with no clear extraction date
    --An incumbent who can't reliably speak the English language
    --Job loss statistics pointing to millions of lost jobs
    --Massive healthcare cost inflation
    --A swing from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits
    --A "charged-up" base who felt that the 2000 election had been stolen
    --Hundreds of millions of $ in 527 support

    The Democratic party should have had no trouble presenting a candidate who would have been able to crush the incumbent. Instead, they chose Kerry.

    I understand you're mad at the results. I think it's time to look inwardly, and reform the Democratic Party. Learn from this mistake. Show the American people that you're not run by left-wing nutjobs, and field an electable candidate, and I can't see how you lose in 2008.

    Unless you try to nominate Hillary.
  • Re:Congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aardwolf64 (160070) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:34PM (#10713535) Homepage
    You say that the country is more divided than before, but it's simply not true. In fact, the majority of the nation voted to re-elect President Bush. The distance between him and the runner-up is even greater than before. How is this more divided? If anything, more of the country is united in support of Bush.

    "In a country like the United States that was founded on the principals of freedom, free exchange of ideas and diversity among other things, it is truly unbeliavable someone like Mr. Bush could ever become a president. "

    In a country like the United States that was founded on the prinicpals of freedom, the president is selected through a process we call an "election". I know this is a difficult concept for you, as your concept of freedom means that the rest of the United States has to agree with who you want for president.

    Your side lost... get over it.
  • by zurab (188064) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:35PM (#10713540)
    There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones.

    This reasoning fails to make sense since right now less populous battleground states are "drowning out" the bigger ones that lean one way or the other in a way that they are deciding who is elected. In other words, a more committed majority state can be disregarded for the benefit of winning the minority battleground states.

    Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states, but about all citizens in the country. You cannot make a compelling case to anyone that if you live in one state your vote = 1 vote towards presidential election, but in another state your vote = 1.2 votes towards the same election. And besides that, your vote will not count at all towards electoral vote because most of your *state* leans the other way.

    It should always be that 1 citizen = 1 vote towards the federal election, not a state all-or-nothing tally; no matter where you live. Sure, people living in more populated areas will have more effect on less populated states or counties. The principle here is majority rule, minority rights [state.gov]. The electoral college doesn't guarantee that.
  • by surprise_audit (575743) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:36PM (#10713551)
    But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up. Bush may win, but the popular vote is still quite close, which means that roughly half the voters didn't want Bush .

    CNN.com is still showing Ohio as "to close to call", so Kerry either knows something is going to push Ohio towards Bush, or he's a really dumb sonofabitch for conceding before the final tally.

    Which reminds me - if Kerry wins Ohio, and therefore the Presidency, does his concession still stand?? Or does Bush have to suck it up and start packing up his stuff??

  • by macdaddy (38372) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:36PM (#10713554) Homepage Journal
    I'm another midwesterner. I'm an actual midwesterner, not from the so-called Midwestern state of Ohio or Michigan (that always pisses me off). I'm from Kansas. Fortunately I'm atypical and don't match the other poster's list. Whew. We should start a support group for people who live in state's where their vote doesn't count. We might as be voting for Nader in these states because we'll never outnumber the people voting strictly down the party line. That has always disgusted me. I can't think of a more irresponsible way to vote than by voting down party lines. Toeing party lines is the ignorant man's game. It's easy for him. He doesn't have to pay attention to what's going on around him. He just has to remember which party he always votes for. People like that don't cherish their right to vote. In my honest opinion they shouldn't have that right if they misuse it. The whole system is screwed up. I don't know what a possible fix would be like but there's got to be some better way of doing things. Uh oh. There's a black hellicopter landing in my front yard; men dressed in black are heading towards my front door. I guess I shouldn't have questioned the status quo....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:37PM (#10713574)
    >"A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
    >
    >Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.

    Do you mean the ones that Bush is recruting now with his war for oil???

    >"Military draft stealing away the lives of an entire generation of young Americans (and then some)? YOUR FAULT."
    >
    >Draft? Hate to tell you this, but the draft was the democrats idea, and now it's certainly not going to come to pass.

    Which time Sparky?? Draft is how you get people to serve in a war nobody believes in. Perhaps if you get your head out of your ass and look at how many people are not re-enlisting and how few are enlisting, you might get a clue about how Bush will get people to serve for his ever expanding war for oil/wealth/power watever.

    >"Perpetual wars in the Middle East making Orwellian nightmares seem like tinkertoys in the sandbox? YOUR FAULT."
    >
    >The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
    >

    Because of 50 plus years of demented medaling by "hollier than thou" cult of christ freaks determind to solve the the muslim problem.
    Democracies?? What Democracies ?? The new iraq constution ties the government to the koran, handing power to the muslim clerics who are the final authurity on the koran. The same clerics that hold daily "Great American Satan must die" prayers"

    >"A ruined economy and ecology, a Constitution left in tatters, a tyranny of wealthy white "Christians" who are anything but? >YOUR FAULT."
    >
    >Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
    >

    Fun and Games?? Do you mean like how Bush's Patriot Act stripted away our first, fourth, fifth, eighth anf fourtenth ammendments?

    >
    >"The rest of the world abandoning us when we'll need it most (and don't say it won't happen)? YOUR FAULT."
    >
    >I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
    >

    Nobody else matters, just the voices in your head, is that it?? Or do you think thats god talking?

    >
    >"Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall."
    >
    >Honestly, this makes me feel rather good about who I chose as president. I had a few doubts before, but it seems like GWB's opponents really are largely full of steaming hate. At least on slashdot.

    What else do you expect when someone attacks our freedom, attacks our livelyhood and threatens our safty so that they can line their pockets with money????
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:39PM (#10713602)
    That's why America is the ONLY superpower left in the world... and why our economy makes the economy of your piss poor, back water, know nothing country look like piss in a bucket.

    I know this is a Troll, but this is EXACTLY the attitude that the scares the rest of the world. First off the grandparent didn't even specify what country he was from. Therefore we must conclude that you find all other countries besides america "piss poor, back water, etc". A scary thought indeed.

    If your way of doing things is so great, why do they ALWAYS lose out to the socialist-leaning countries in the UN Human Development Index? [wikipedia.org]. Not to mention having the highest number of criminals per capita, the worst medicare in the developped world, rampant obesity, etc..

    Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a plane ticket and see how the rest of the world lives.
  • by MasTRE (588396) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:41PM (#10713635)
    This was said to be the most important election of our lives. Does anybody still feel that way, considering the outcome?

    Let's think with a clear head here. Most Americans, the ones that voted for Kerry included, have no idea what's going on in the world. You can try to figure out why that is (media is f-d up, people being taught to lead selfish materialistic lives from the day they are born, etc.), but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The popular vote was for Bush, and that's who won. So, at least in this election, you could say that the will of the majority was expressed. I am not concerned with why more than half of the people who voted did so for Bush. They did, and he won.

    Change is not as simple as having P. Diddy start a campaign. Real change is very hard. Near impossible. You have to educate people, in such a way that they seek out information. You do not teach people what they should think. You teach them to think, and show them what methods are available for gathering information. What they think afterwards is up to them. This is not even close to being a reality in the USA. Most people are simply concerned with their well-being and materialistic things - I want an iPod, I want a bigger truck, I want this, I want that. I want. It is very easy to control such people, because they are short-sighted and distracted. And Kerry would not have made any difference whatsoever in this respect. The imperialistic foreign policy America puts forth would have been relatively the same, albeit probably with a much less arrogant and aggressive façade.

    The rest of the world pretty much lives in ignorance too, much like the people of the US. As long as you don't add insult to injury, like Bush likes to do, they have their own local problems to focus on. Granted, their problems are a bit different from yours and mine - we're worried about what Apple will legally allow you to download to your iPod, while some of them are worried about where their next meal will come from. In the end, none of it matters, although you do need food for basic life support.

    Killing people, however, is unacceptable. And probably the biggest tragedy of all this is that most of the people who voted for Bush don't realize what they support because of the distorted view of the war. Make no mistake, Kerry was no great leader - far from it. But a) my personal opinion is that he is at least barely more intelligent than Bush and, more importantly, b) I think a few more lives would have been spared around the globe were he president.

    Please note that lives are lives, and it is morally wrong to make a distinction between innocent foreigners and innocent Americans when it comes to dieing. Yet this is accepted as common practice in this country.
  • by dfenstrate (202098) * <dfenstrate@NOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:41PM (#10713636)
    What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

    You know what gets me? How Democrats can't seem to shut up about how smart they are. Really. Every single political thread I've seen lately has had some kind of attack on the intelligence of Bush voters, with the implicit or explicit praising of anti-Bush voters.

    Tell me, if you guys are so damn smart, then why are you out the presidency, why are you out more senate seats, and why are you out a few more house seats too?

    (Note: Americans are dumb is not an acceptable answer.)

    When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.

    You need to think long and hard about what that is. I have my own ideas, of course.
  • Re:Oh, fuck (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jmulvey (233344) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:41PM (#10713641)
    Well, your disdain for the American electoral and political environment is part of the reason the election turned out as it did.

    Just because you think all of Bush's decisions were bad doesn't mean the rest of the country has to agree.

    Maybe your opinions are not the mainstream. Maybe -- just maybe -- your opinion that all of Bush's decisions were "bad" are wrong.

    I'm sick of this whole liberal attitude of how "dumb" the common person is. GWB is "dumb". People who want to control a part of their social security plan are too "dumb" to not get screwed. Government control of everything is the way to go. Tax the bejesus out of everyone because they just can't be trusted, certainly not as much as our fine politicians.

    Isn't a cornerstone of liberal idealism being "open-minded"? But if you don't happen to agree with an "open-minded" liberal, you're just dumb, and should be dismissed.

    Why not instead take a good hard look at this election, and accept the quite obvious fact that the Democrats are simply OUT OF TOUCH with the mainstream.

    Or, take the easy route and say everyone who doesn't think like you is just "dumb".
  • Red State hatred (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CaptPungent (265721) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:44PM (#10713665) Journal

    All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.

    Hold up just a second. You have to realize that not ALL of a particular state is 'red'. I'm in IL, which went to Kerry. However, I'm in the lower part of the state, St Clair county. [cnn.com] Right across the river from here is St Louis, MO, which is part of a "red" state. However, look at the voter breakdown. [cnn.com] St Louis was ALSO for Kerry. My particular region is pretty heavy in Democratic support.

    What I'm getting at is, don't hate a whole state because its vote went to Bush. Remember that parts of those states voted the other way, but just weren't big enough to carry the state. If you want to hate the red states fine, as long as we get to annex St Louis.

    NOTE: I really like St Louis and don't want them lumped in with the rest of MO.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:44PM (#10713671)
    "A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
    Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.

    No, just naive.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:46PM (#10713707)
    You are correct.
    The founding fathers were wise. The way the president is elected is not that big a deal. Each party should be putting up a good candidate. So it should not matter that much whom gets elected.
    The main problem I have is that the current president is not following the wisdom of the founding fathers. One of the main principles was the separation of church and state. This president is not following this at all. Gay marriage is a good example. It is being band because churches do not think it is right. I think the country needs to decide if marriage is a religious or a state activity. If it is a religious activity then the state should not be able to ban any form of it because the government does should not be able to control a religious activity. If it is a state activity then there is no reason for it to be banned because the only argument put forth is where God does not think it is "right".
    The reason why this is not the current policy is because the erosion of the checks and balances system. But that is for another post.
    I created a /. account but have not yet received a password. So unfortunately there is a good chance this will not be read.

    p.s. I believe that the reason urban areas tend to vote Democrat is because people living closely to each other have to learn to accept people different from themselves. If a popular vote means that things are "skewed" towards acceptance then I feel that is an argument for the popular vote.
    Jason
  • Hug this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by |/|/||| (179020) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:46PM (#10713710)
    Yeah, I was pretty sure that Kerry would win because of the high voter turnout. Guess not.
    Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him
    I think you underestimate how many people hate GWB. He's fucking over our country pretty royally, and showcasing just how ignorant and gullible half of our population really is.

    Before the election I was disgusted by Bush, but now I'm disgusted by our entire country. I can only hope that he'll break things so badly that people out in the midwest/south will be forced to start thinking.

  • by xThinkx (680615) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:51PM (#10713807) Homepage

    "The most powerful and successful country in the world"

    Wow, those are some nice blinders you've got on, where can I get a pair? What standards are you using for power? We've got the biggest military, and that equates to what? Sure we could destroy the whole world, so could several other countries, are we more powerful because we could nuke the same area 7 times? What about diplomatic power, which is the way things really get done in the modern world, we're certainly not #1 in that category.

    Most successful eh? I guess all of those countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies, and shorter work weeks are just green with envy.

    Treating "everyone else" as a few countries that are easy to make examples of is a hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.

  • by hb253 (764272) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:52PM (#10713822)

    You're right about voting for someone new in 4 years, but my fear is the damage this administration (with the help of a right-wing Senate and House) will inflict that could last 20 or 30 years. This is what I foresee:

    • ultra conservative supreme court appointments
    • ruining of Social Security
    • relationships with allies severed
    • inability for Americans to safely travel overseas
    • the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)
    • bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue

    The list goes on...

  • by FJ (18034) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:54PM (#10713851)
    Look at what happened to the Democratic party as a whole.

    - They spent more money on Kerry than on anyone else in their history. I even heard the out-spent the Republicans.
    - The conservative religious people in 11 states (including Ohio & Nevada) banned gay marriages which helped get out the religious vote. These people are traditionally anti-abortion republicans. Kerry is a well know supporter of abortion.
    - The Republicans gained seats in the Senate
    - The Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives.
    - The Republicans hold the majority of governor's seats.
    - Democratic Senator Tom Daschle was defeated. The first time a party leader was defeated in 52 years.
    - The Democratic party spent a good deal of time in court in keeping Nader off of the ballot in some states. If you were a Nader supporting Democrat it was a tough pill to swallow.

    The Democratic party was hit hard in this election.
    It will be interesting to see what the restructuring effort will be.
  • by mankey wanker (673345) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:54PM (#10713857)
    Terrorism: OBL, excellently attired, looking fit and tan, gave a speech last week. He was living proof that Bush has failed to protect us from terrorism. I take Bush at his word, I don't think he is bothered by OBL as long as he can use OBL as an excuse to blanket over the rest of his misguided agenda. War is good business for these guys. Big profits!

    The Draft: is almost inevitable. The soldiers that are there don't want to be there. They are being retained well beyond their time. The war is a failure. To make it work and keep those war dollars flowing into the right pockets many more americans will have to die. Say it with me: Draft!

    I'll give you the middle east issue as long as it is agreed that our continued support of Israel might be misguided and create enemies for us. Israel cannot talk of peace with clean hands. Some Israelis, just like some Americans, are sick warmongering bastards.

    Chief Justice Scalia? Yeah, he is a strict constitutionalist - in your dreams! Hell, the Gore decision revealed the huge partisanship of certain members of the court. Don't be a retard. The Gore decision is only useful as toilet paper. Bush may well lean the court so far right you will not know what hit you.

    I keep hoping that Bush's faith is just an act for the lamers to believe in - but if it's the real deal, even you may have issues with what is to come.

    And the rest of the world doesn't matter? Hmmm. that might be a bad business idea right there. I think it certainly does matter. No nation ever lost money because they made more friends in the world than the next nation over - that's just a good trade practice. When you piss everyone off, they have a tendency to take their business elsewhere.

    I won't put words in your mouth, but I bet you think China and India trade with us because they like taking our leftovers, the scraps from our table. Has it occurred to you that they are just biding their time until we need them more than they need us?

    Stay tuned...

    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/index.html [conceptualguerilla.com]
  • That was one of the very few well thought out comments to ever appear as a comment on this article. Well done. And, i'm a conservative, and a geek. It's a tough mix.

    I enjoy computers, I enjoy guns, I enjoy shooting computers with guns. Go figure.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:57PM (#10713892)
    Hmm, kudos to your self control. But this brings to my mind the question oft echoed in these pages -- how can *anyone* not criminally insane actually support Bush? I guess you are a supporter. I'll feed your troll.

    "Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me."

    Things are sometimes complicated. It's one thing to provoke an aggressive act and then point fingers and say "See, they're evil" (e.g. burning of the Reichstag done by Nazis but blamed on Jews). It is quite another to systematically shit down people's throats, terrorize them into fear-induced rage, and then say "Look what animals they are! How could they *do* something so bad?" all the while maintaining your sober, respectable look. (It's called hypocrisy, in case you don't know the word).

    "Draft? Hate to tell you this, but the draft was the democrats idea, and now it's certainly not going to come to pass."

    There you are right. The democrats had the the WWII one and the one in 1948 for the Korean War under Truman. As to "it's certainly not going to come to pass"...tell you what, if we ever meet in the ranks, then in the spirit of poetic justice I'll take my 30 days in the brig to break all of your front teeth.

    "We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope."

    Hehehehe. Two democracies? Israel is a *very* democratic country, with some of the finest police-state features in the world. No wonder it's our best friend. And Iraq....listen, you and the rest of the Bush leadership are taking the same drugs. That region will not be conquered. You will win when you have exterminated all the men, and have raised a new generation of "obedient" Iraqis. That's the only way. Your cozy American lifestyle doesn't allow you to understand that there are people in the world who hate being dominated by foreigners. And who would rather die than live under your heel. So yes, if you consider committing cultural and physical genocide against a people as a valid means to establish a democracy, you will eventually "win". May you enjoy that victory.

    "Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution."

    Actually, that's everyone who's not too lazy to re-write the law.

    "They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it."

    Our founding father were white, privileged slave-holders. I'm pretty sure the 14th Amendment was not in their plans. I knew all them black people shouldn't be walking around! Back to the fields with you all! (note sarcasm please, for the humourly challenged).

    "The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means)."

    That's just mudslinging. As if Republicans never interpreted the thing "dynamically"

    "I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions."

    Well aren't you the model of rugged independence. Speaking of rugged independence, picture this: if you were in the wild west, and you went around acting like an asshole all the time saying "I don't care what anyone else thinks" guess what happens? People get together, catch up to you, tie your hands and hang you from the first tall tree they find. Amazing! They don't give a shit about *your* opinion either!

    Application to the current political situation is left as an exercise for the reader.

    "Honestly, this makes me feel rather good about who I chose as president."

    Good. We know who to blame - someone who conscienciously elected this.....person.

    "I had a few doubts before, but it seems like GWB's opponents really are largely full of steaming hate."

    Little one, that's not hate. That is wailing grief and sadness and despair.

    I actually do know people like you. Self-satisfied, infintely full of your own self-importance, hypocritical, morally blind swaggering "god
  • by Analogy Man (601298) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:57PM (#10713899)
    A coworker was just moments ago saying that when he goes to India he tells everyone he is from Canada. A cab driver yelled at him all of the way from the airport to his parents home on a previous trip when he said he was coming from US.

    I don't know why folks get so down on Europe. They collectively looked at the 100,000,000 folks killed in wars in the 20'th century and decided there had to be a better way. Europe has successfully prosecuted more Al Quida than the US. They just happen to distiguish the murderous thugs from the millions of other folks knuckle draggin' Joe 6-pack wants Bush to "kick some ass" with.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jonas the Bold (701271) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:01PM (#10713964)
    I, too, am getting really pissed with the red states, meaning (for me) the deep south. Why is it, that every time we try to make any progress at all, whether it be the end of slavery, civil rights for blacks, women's suffrage, religious rights, gay rights, ANYTHING, we always have to drag them, kicking and screaming about the dire, dire consequences? Now 11 of them have voted to Ban gay marriage.

    You do realize that history won't look back at this as the heroic defense of christianity any more than your fight against civil rights was a heroic defense of society? Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on others?

    You've turned the republican party into a tool of the christian right, something that is no longer fiscally conservative in any way, shape or form. Congrats on moving America backwards. Maybe you'd be happier in a theocracy. Just look at the existing theocracies of world, Iran for instance. THAT is the direction you're moving us.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:01PM (#10713967) Homepage Journal
    Well, as one of the apparently meaningless midwesterners, I will be praying for you and your ignorant view of the midwest.

    Well, my view of the midwest was that it was full of religious nuts with superiority complexes...

    That...sorta confirmed it.
    ;-)
  • by greenrom (576281) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:01PM (#10713968)
    There are a number of good reasons to keep the electoral college. Here are a few that come to mind. I'll leave out the ones about ensuring representation for rural states, since that one usually comes up in the discussion.

    It isolates voting irregularities to a single state. This can be important. For example, if Diebold voting machines showed 3 billion people voted in Montana, it wouldn't have a drastic effect on the outcome since Montana only has 3 electoral votes.

    It balances differences in voter turnout. New York is roughly twice the size of North Carolina. However, lets assume that New York gets hit by thunderstorms and has massive flooding on election day making it less convenient for people to vote. As a result, New York might have 30% voter turnout while North Carolina might have 60% voter turnout. This would mean North Carolina would have roughly the same representation as New York -- a state twice its size. The electoral college reduces the impact of weather, disasters, and even regional voter apathy on the final election results.

    Not everyone that lives in a state may be eligible to vote because they may not be citizens. If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote. The electoral college ensures this since electoral representation is determined based on raw population data from the census. A nationwide popular election would short-change states with lots of immigrants, or lots of children, or any other sizeable block of ineligible voters.

    The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome. Even in 2000 when election results were unclear and court challeges delayed the outcome, the electoral college ensured we would eventually get a result that could not be legally disputed. Even if Gore had continued the court challenges and things were undecided until the day the electors cast their votes, once the electors voted, the outcome would be definite. By having the votes of a few hundred electors chosen by the states determine the final outcome, there is no room for errors in voting or tabulation. It is always clear how each of the electors vote.

  • Dear World, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stinky wizzleteats (552063) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:03PM (#10714000) Homepage Journal
    Many of us are just as shocked and disappointed as you are. I and 55,124,615 of my closest friends did our best to elect a non-madman, but we ultimately failed to an administration that invaded a country without cause, "lost" $2 billion to Halliburton, and had enough political capital left over to win a second term on a campaign targeted exclusively at their own base.

    Before 2000, I was a conservative Republican. I saw the need in that election to put the country ahead of my own party and voted Libertarian. This time, I voted for Kerry. I don't love the Democratic party, but the dangerous state of events in our country right now calls for any plausible opposition, even if it comes from people I disagree with on most issues.

    What we've seen here is the final defeat in a long war of ideas that liberals have been steadily losing since 1988. We need to reinvent opposition to the current government along new lines of political thought. I plan on working with my Democrat friends to try to develop that opposition. It will take time, but please remember that there are many of us who aren't happy with the way things are over here and are doing everything we can to fix it.

  • Re:All I need now (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AhtirTano (638534) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:05PM (#10714030)
    Since we're getting serious, where did all this draft talk come from? I've heard the President flatly deny plans for a draft on more than one occasion.

    "Read my lips, no new draft."

  • by Luyseyal (3154) <swatersNO@SPAMluy.info> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:06PM (#10714037) Homepage
    - Calculate your share of the National Deficit
    Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.

    Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.

    - Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
    Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)

    You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.

    Having said that, the first step in fixing it, either way, is eliminating Congressional pensions and making Congress eat their own dogfood. Bush is too chicken shit to demand that.

    - Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
    Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!

    It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose. Don't believe me? Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"? (I'm borrowing from Bill Gates, Sr.'s book on why it's ethical to tax the rich more)

    Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic. Furthermore, I agree with your flat/fair and/or sales tax proposal. It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.

    -l

  • by toddestan (632714) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:07PM (#10714052)
    The democrats need to start presenting canidates that people like (Dean), instead of canidates that they think will "win" (Kerry). And don't ask me why the democrats don't think popular canidates with a large grass-roots movement behind them won't win, because I really don't know.
  • Axis of Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TamMan2000 (578899) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:09PM (#10714076) Journal
    Yup, Iran [japantoday.com] is pleased with this outcome...

    Anybody else?
  • by iocat (572367) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:09PM (#10714092) Homepage Journal
    That stock should surge: the CA initiative was a 3 BILLION dollar investment in stem cell research. The NIH typically invests far less than that nationwide over the same period (sorry, I'm unable to provide links or more evidence of that; just heard it on the radio).

    I voted against the initiative on principle -- I voted against all bonds this year, due to CA's already suffocating debt -- but I am not unhappy it passed. It will really give CA's biotech industry a great jumpstart, and maybe some great discoveries will come from it.

    Regardless of the national race, I am pleased with how the initiatives seemed to go across the country. The exception being of course, gay marriage. Against gay marriage? Don't have one! It's ridiculous that there are special legal benefits that can only be granted to a union of a man and a woman.

  • by DG (989) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:11PM (#10714104) Homepage Journal
    I'm a Canadian who works in the US, and I'm retired military to boot, so I've been following this election with some interest. Here's my take.

    The Democatic Party nominated THE single least electable canditate they could have laid their hands on.

    You could have had General Clark - impeccable personal integrity, proven leadership ability (he ran NATO fer crissakes!) super handle on foreign policy - can you imagine Bush debating him? And no Senate voting record to dog him around.

    You could have had Howard Dean, and gone for the young rockstar angle. New and hip vs old-skool and scary. Look at Illinois for how effective that can be.

    You could have even had Al Sharpton and gone for pure shock and entertainment value.

    Instead, you wound up with the Democratic version of your opponent - old-skool, big money, old boys club, pork-barrel, professional weasel-featured politician.

    You made an election that _should_ have been a simple decision between good and evil into a choice between the lesser of two evils. What the HELL kind of strategy is "our guy may suck, but he sucks less"?

    The American public is CRYING out for simple, strong, effective, and HONEST leadership. You actually sucker a decent man into the job, and you'll carry the country in a landslide. What the HELL were you thinking when you let Kerry get nominated?

    My advice to you and your fellow confused and befuddled Democrats is to get active in the internal politics of your own party, and to work like mad to make sure the next guy you present to the electorate actually stands a chance at being elected.

    DG
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karma Farmer (595141) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:11PM (#10714119)
    Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

    This election really wasn't about liberal values vs. conservative values, at least not in a way that would be recognizable to the nation even ten years ago. This election was, in many ways, a referendum on a fundemental change in the political landscape of America, with the new dividing line between liberal values and moral values.

    Frankly, for a lot of us here in the blue states (liberal and conservative alike), the issues that matter to the moral values crowd just seem alien. Most of us honestly believed that this election was going to firmly and decisively prove that only a very small, very vocal group of people really give a damn about about moral value issues. We believed that the moral values crowd would be swept off the national stage, and the country go back to the debate between old fashioned liberal versus conservative values.

    We were wrong.

    I'm guessing that y'all in the red states have known how important "moral values" are for years. In the blue states, we were completely blindsided by it, and it scares the shit out of most of us. The fact is, nearly a third of the electorate believes that "moral values" are an important issue. We honestly had no idea it mattered to anyone, and most of us us are scratching our heads trying to figure out why it would matter to anyone.

    The issues that suddenly matter suprise us. In the blue states, we might disagree on abortion, or same-sex unions, or the words "under God" in the pledge of allegience, but for the most part we really just don't give a shit about them. They may all get talked about on the "news" networks, but we view them as filler in between the ceasless prattle about the Peterson trial. They're certainly not an issue that anyone would base a vote on.

    It turns out that same-sex marriage is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we had no idea that anyone gave a damn.

    It turns out that the words "under God" in the Plege of Allegience is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we just can't see how it really matters.

    It turns out that public displays of The Ten Commandments is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we might individually be for or against it, but collectively we really just don't care.

    It turns out that abortion is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we may have strong feelings one way or the other, but for the most part we thought the issue was decided twenty years ago.

    In other words, this election heralds the arrival of a whole new set of important issues on the national political stage. And, frankly, in the blue states the fact that any of these issues are even being discussed scares the living shit out of us.

    When I woke up this morning, it was to the news that the United States of America is not the country that I thought it was when I went to bed last night.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:14PM (#10714170)
    http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html [pipa.org]

    "Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found."

    Americans may not be dumb, but a large percentage of them are surely living under a rock! And that's certainly not the fault of "liberal" Democrats.
  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:18PM (#10714236) Journal
    You are correct, Europe and the US have seperated ideologically. And as you state, "respect" is in short supply. But, rather than "whine" about how wrong the "others" are, why not try to gain some fundemental understanding of why people think the way they do. Far too many people in this country ( USA) and across the world get caught up in this "Us" versus "Them" mentality without even stopping to debate the real issues at hand. I had hoped that slashdot's political section would be a place for such a dialog to take place, but it seems that we get the same crud here as everywhere else.
  • by Slime-dogg (120473) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:19PM (#10714262) Journal

    Well, my view of the midwest was that it was full of religious nuts with superiority complexes...

    And that's different from the rest of the US? Pick your religion, be it atheist, liberal politics, or whatever, we all have a superiority complex.

  • by 3terrabyte (693824) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:19PM (#10714264) Journal
    I knew this would be brought up. Your idea on how the math works on this is incorrect.

    Running around to 5 or 6 swings states after already securing the few larger states, is MUCH different than only needing to win the fewer large states.

    "The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win."

    --But they don't. At all.

    I agree with you 100% there!

    Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.

    What you have to remember is, that yes, Bush won the popular vote. But, to win back the popular vote, all Kerry would have to do is campaign in California to win some of the rest of the 30% that voted for Bush. Since even California's remaining 30% is such a huge population, we're talking about effectively wiping out the whole Mountain States that went for Bush. Campaign in New York to get the rest of those votes, and you've wiped out the effectiveness of the many southern Bush states.

    You have to agree that campaigning does affect voter turn out. If it was only popular vote that decided, the candidates would have campaigned differently. And they would have campaigned in only the big states. Every time.

  • by Dirtside (91468) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:20PM (#10714269) Journal
    The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
    Remember back when democracy arose because the people of a nation were sick of being oppressed, and not because some other country decided to invade them for no good reason? How exactly do you force people to want self-government, exactly?
  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pclminion (145572) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:23PM (#10714317)
    The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?

    Because that was before the election, and now it's after?

    Besides, this isn't a matter of party. The fact is that Bush is a warmonger regardless of what party he happens to belong to, and he doesn't have enough troops.

    It's simple math. We aren't going to have enough troops to take on Iraq AND Iran AND North Korea. We know Bush plans to do this. We also know that people aren't exactly joining the Army in droves. I think the result is obvious.

    I'm just glad that my brother and I are out of the age group which will be drafted first. Hopefully the first kids to die will be all the ones who didn't vote in the election. And I'm going to have a hard time being sympathetic.

  • by Vile Slime (638816) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:24PM (#10714332)
    > You are an outstanding example of why the Democrats lost....The Democratic Party must distance themselves from you nuts if they hope to win another election....

    I,

    Totally agree.

    There are a lot of people out there who have been brought up with some form of religious teaching but are not the best of "church going folks". It doesn't have to be "Christian" religious beliefs.

    Most religious teachings are amazingly compatible in the sense that they urge respect for the institutions of the family and of the church itself.

    Those semi-religious people certainly know that liberal/hollywood/california type ethics are not what they want happening in their homes and towns.

    They may think it's fun to watch those ethics on their TV shows.

    But, when it comes to stuff like partial birth abortions, asking the UN's permission to defend ourselves, and gay/lesbian marriage they suddenly get a conscience and they vote that way.

    One thing that really helped Bush get elected was the large number of state initiatives to ban gay/lesbian marriage (or some derivative thereof). People really identify with that issue. It brought them to the polls.

    If Gavin Newsome in San Francisco and the state of Massachusetts hadn't pushed the gay/lesbian marriage onto the front pages of USA Today this summer then several states that had initiatives on the ballot might not have had the initiatives in the first place.

    And therefore, the election may not have attracted quite as many conservative people to the voting booths. And any of those several states may have easily gone to John Kerry.

    So, thank Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco, at least partially, for John Kerry's loss.

  • by Dark Fire (14267) <(clasmc) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:25PM (#10714350)
    When the country was first formed, our legislative branch was setup such that each state was permitted 2 senators regardless of size and a number of representatives in the house proportional to population size. Why would a state with a smaller population want to join together with larger states and be dominated over in the elections? The electoral college also reflects these early compromises. It represents the mortar of the compromises which built this country. Should California have the right to dictate who becomes president? Iowa, Nebraska, and other smaller population states don't think so. Oh, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to change the matter. Which means it won't be happening anytime soon. If you don't like who won, work to change people's minds, not the rules. Remember why such compromises exist, they made us a country and keep us a country.
  • by jrexilius (520067) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:28PM (#10714397) Homepage
    sadly, that is often the case. In the last election less then 9% of the San Fran population voted for Pres. Bush. The numbers were also very lopsided in most other cities.

    The demographics are just not evenly spread out. Some other posters have made the point that popular vote is popular vote but it would put the urbanists in the driving seat as far as driving the agendas and voting issues and many other things.

    You could argue that democracy is democracy and if 51% says that its OK to mary gays, gas jews, murder babies but not criminals, plunder the environement, invade countries or any other issue that is really repugnent to you then you are out of luck. But our founding fathers did not create a direct democracy for precisely that reason. We have a republic and the attempt was to not setup a system that could be too easily dominated by a slim majority.

    The electoral college, for all its faults, is still a better solution then straight popular vote. Worst still would be a popular vote with a multy party system. Then you would only need 34% in a three party system to elect a Hitler or Stalin.

  • by Ayandia (630042) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:28PM (#10714403)
    Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico were still counting votes as of this morning at noonish EST.

    Since we live in a society where you can be approved for a credit card in minutes, buy toothpaste over the internet with that card AND ship it overnight so you can brush in the morning, I wouldn't say there's no case for SOMETHING to be fixed.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:33PM (#10714473) Homepage Journal
    Tell me, if you guys are so damn smart, then why are you out the presidency, why are you out more senate seats, and why are you out a few more house seats too?
    (Note: Americans are dumb is not an acceptable answer.)


    It may be unnacceptable, but its true.
    If you want a more acceptable one (by your terms): Good guys finish last.

    When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.

    48% to 51%.

    Its because you people spew stuff like "when you loose this big" to a margin of 3% that people infer that you are not smart.

    Also, you're blindly following a guy who can't say "nuclear", who says things like "catastrophic cucess" and who says "mission accomplish" when things are just getting started.
  • by blueberrry (719325) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:33PM (#10714482)
    You feel good for choosing GWB as a president? Feeling good in what way? In the way that closing your eyes makes you feel better than looking at the cold, naked truth? In some ways, ignorances feels really good when you a look at the world now.

    > Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
    What terrorists? The terrorists you sold weapons to before giving them ALL reasons to hate you? The terrorists whose anger was motivated by decades of humanless oil money-centric foreign policies? When you screw people so much that they have nothing more to lose, that's when they do things that may seem to lack any rational. Open your eyes.

    > The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
    Seriously, what is the source of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Isrealo-Palestinian conflict. Americans are sending billions of dollars per year so Isreal can buy weapons and such, and for no other reason than faith in the Bible. Here again, lack of rational. Plus, your attitude is what I hate the most in American people: you think you're going to show the "uncivilized" world how "freedom" works. So you bomb Afghanistan for no good reason than for setting up "democracy", then you place on top of the country a man who's been a former Unocal advisor. Great for defending american oil business. Bad for Afghan people. Democracy is good when it represents people, not the interests of the foreign nation that just bombed the people. And, I prefer not talking about Iraq, because you also invaded this country for NOTHING and brought nothing but death and cruelty.

    >Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when
    >they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
    As I am not American I can't really judge that one, however when a president says he's willing to amend to constitution to make gay marriages illegal, that sounds scary. Plus, looking at:
    * the laws you recently passed (1984^d^d^d^d Patriot Act, anyone?) , the ways you act:
    * with your own people (America is still part of a little group of barbarians countries that have death sentences)
    * with other people (bombing foreign countries for no good reasons except than for Halliburton stock holders, Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib prison),
    i just wonder that the President is doing with the constitution and human rights when he goes to toilet.

    > I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
    Scary. If the rest of the world (except Russia) would have voted 80%+ for Kerry, then the rest of the world is wrong. Let me turn it the other way: what IF the American people is wrong this time? Countries who have stand-up against the USA where countries are friends (France, who helped you gain independance, Canada, Germany, etc). They did stand up for a good reason, not for anti-american bashing. The least you could do is at least consider them. If you don't use the world to judge your actions, why do you want to impose your judgments to the world (Iraq, you went against UN). That's the problem with America: total lack of respect for the world (whoever is not american). Like it or not, the actions you do have an impact on the world. And the world is not yours (that's what you think though).


    Honestly, your counter-arguments makes me feel rather good about what I stand for. I had a few doubts before, but it seems likes GWB's fanboys really are largely full of dogmas and are faith-driven. At least on slashdot.