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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • two words (Score:3, Interesting)

    by akwash79 (822130) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711127) Journal
    what happened??
  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alan (347) <arcterex.ufies@org> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711223) Homepage
    I'm confused, the race is really close (252/254) with at least one major swing state still not finished counting and with the race there still at 50%/49% or so. I thought that if it was a tight race you didn't give up.

    *sigh*
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711236)
    Choose someone in the primaries that is truly electable? Not necessarily a Southerner, but Edwards would have done it for example. Keep sending those Northern Liberals up, keep seeing them fall.

    Another trend to note...compare the actual electoral votes in the North versus the South in 2000. As the population moves south and west so do the electoral votes, and so does the power.

    The south is rising...again :)
  • Legal Crap (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deathtoallmytormento (814327) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711251)
    Well, Kerry conceded, but could he still win? At the time of this writing, Ohio still hasn't called in, (Bush-254 Kerry-252) so it is still up in the air. What if Ohio called in for Kerry? Would he win? Or is his concession legaly binding? Or does Ohio simply stop counting?
  • by thunderpeel (549987) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:47PM (#10711357)
    At 30 and I can say, as a canadian, that I will do everything in my power to make sure that, someday, the USA will see what a mistake they have made.
    What a horrible thing that has happened. The sheep of america have been lead into another term of murder and lies.
    This is the start of the end of the world. Two LARGE factions of religion fighting for domination of the planet.
    I really hope that something happens to get bush out before the 4 years are over.
    I give up, you people "F**Ked" up again, I guess USA #1!! means too much down there.
  • by JasonUCF (601670) <jason-slashdawtNO@SPAMjnlpro.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711393) Homepage
    I can't find the right word. Annoyed? Depressed? Flustered? None of them carry the meaning for me.

    This was not Bush's election to win. This was Kerry's election to lose. And man, did he lose.

    When will the democratic party realize that they need to get in the game, play it tough? America doesn't want a smarty pants North Eastener with a fake politican smile a mile wide. America obviously responds to the aw shucks grin, the not too einstein but firmly resolved mindset.

    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.

    When will the democrats grow a fucking backbone and nominate a real candidate? I swear this makes me think of the axiom that, at heart, democrats are goths. They love losing, and lamenting about losing.

    Kerry's campaign was self destructing a week before it won Iowa. I don't think they ever got a campaign together that worked. There was no clear delivery, no clear ideology, NO RESPONSE to the clear Republican attacks. When Kerry won the primary I was flabbergasted. I figured we probably wouldn't win then, but I held out hope, I stood on street corners, I called people, I campaigned.

    A 4 million popular vote for an administration that admits no wrong, that has no coherent diplomatic policy, that has no coherent domestic policy. Why? Because 9/11 changed everything? Because we needed to "kick some ass abroad"? These are the responses I get from Bush voters. They don't even know what the Clear Skies act is. They're not familiar with North Korea. 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.

    I'm so... frustrated.
  • It isn't over (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bronz (429622) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711395)
    Technically, an election isn't over until the electoral college meets on December 13, 2004 (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December). At which point the electors are not bound to the results of their state as to who to cast their vote towards. Even if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and Kerry conceeded 1 minute after the first precinct closed, Kerry could still be elected president. Or Nader for that matter.

  • by ukmountie (693035) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:50PM (#10711471)

    So I'm curious,

    I think it's obvious that even the provisional ballots are not going to swing Ohio, but, if, and I mean really big if, what happens if they do?

    Or will they simply be ignored?

  • Re:Well, (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711492) Homepage
    Honor Schmonor.

    The vote is still out in Ohio. He's essentially telling a large number of Ohioans that their vote doesn't count. He is doing this after many Ohioans spent a miserable day in line at overcrowded polling places.

    He's telling those 200 THOUSAND voters that they should just not have bothered.

    THAT is very wrong.

    Kerry could certainly be gracious about the situation without being spineless.
  • Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aggrajag (716041) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:51PM (#10711498)
    Don't be so one-sided in your criticism. Sometimes hate is a choice.

    I just hope that Bush mellows down a bit, like Reagan did on his second term.
  • by kaltkalt (620110) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:53PM (#10711589)
    The one good piece of news is that from now on, the crap about the winner of the Washington Redskin's game right before the election predicting the winner of the election will be citing an urban legend, rather than a coincidence.
  • Issues that mattered (Score:3, Interesting)

    by servognome (738846) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:53PM (#10711593)
    From the results of the election and exit polls it seems that voters were more motivated by the candidate's stances on "moral" issues and security, rather than foreign policy and the economy.
  • Oh yeah. (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:53PM (#10711596)
    Time to refashion a dance song for a new era - sing along with me:

    "Bombs over Teh-ran! Bombs over Teh-ran!"

    Can't wait. Boots on the ground in Syria and Iran within 6 months. Missing WMDs to be found shortly. Stay tuned, we'll make the world safe again - even if you can't stand it.

    (Score:-5, Conservative)

  • Re:Well, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3terrabyte (693824) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:56PM (#10711694) Journal
    Like Gore did?

    Considering that 3 different third-party recounters came back with Gore winning by 534 votes, I can only imagine why!

    What I can't understand is why it was ok for the Republicans to step in and steal Florida in the first place after it was already called, but then when it was time to find out who 'really won', they get to label the Democrats as stalling.

    Truth is, both sides wanted to win, and did whatever sleazy menuevers they could to win.

    Ohio was no where near as close, and I can see why Kerry conceded. I do hope that the full counts come in, I'm curious to see how close everything truly was, even if it's 30 days from now.

  • by fishbowl (7759) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:56PM (#10711698)

    "Just wondering, if by some highly improbable miracle the provisional ballots give Ohio to Kerry does the concession really mean anything?"

    It doesn't mean anything officially. And there's the possibility of faithless electors, or of one or more electors (or candidates) not surviving to give their votes to the House. But barring some improbable thing like this, it's over.

    Don't get your hopes up for a Bush defeat.

    I predicted this, time and time again. Can't say I looked forward to it, but at least, for once in his life, G.W. Bush will be compelled to sit in the consequences of his actions. He can't get out of it. If someone else had taken over the White House now, he, not Bush, would have presided over an inevitable declining economy, escalating wars, and probable civil unrest.

    In the long run it's better that Bush stays in office.
  • by Anonymous Meoward (665631) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:57PM (#10711761)
    My thoughts, seriously, on the next 4 years:

    1. Democrats will finally answer a question they can't stand to ask: What exactly do we stand for? And how do we articulate it in 15 seconds or less? (Disclaimer: I voted Kerry, and would have voted for a bag of doorknobs over Bush. But IMO this was a major failing of the Kerry campaign.)

    2. Saudi Arabia will become an Islamic republic. If we go to war again (and who knows the chances of that?), I don't see the house of Saud surviving the backlash.

    3. Health care and Social Security will take center stage again with rising deficits. Combined with #2, it'll be the economy again, stupid.

    4. Moderate conservatives will opt either for a third party, or even join the Democrats (who have fallen into the role, accidentally, of deficit hawks and gov't spending watchdogs). These may actually be good times to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal, akin to libertarians.

    5. Dems take the Senate in 2006 if the Iraq death toll doubles. It's very likely that interest rates will go up (maybe even skyrocket). Greenspan may not be able to keep inflation in check by then.

    999. All bets are off. Noone could have predicted 9/11, which still managed to cast a long shadow over voting yesterday.

    Add away...

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

    by WA_Dutch (704552) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711839) Homepage
    help us all if everyone stated following America's example. I don't think that circumventing the UN, warmongering and killing people is a productive way to run this world. That said, America has spoken and the majority of them want George W. Bush for another four years. Unfortunately, we've only got ourselves to blame - especially those in the not so progressive states in the midwest that decided not to vote but now elect to whinge about it. Apathy on a large scale does effect the result of elections. The longest journey begins with a single step, in four years time, I hope you all exercise your democratic right to vote.
  • by feed_those_kitties (606289) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711860)
    And for now, at least, we still have the right to voice our opinions.

    At least I think "freedom of speech" still applies in this country - let me see if I can find the actual text of The Patriot Act and I'll get back to you...

  • by forgotten_my_nick (802929) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711869)
    according to John Titor that happens next year.
  • Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phobos13013 (813040) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#10711891)
    Steven Colbare (sp?) said it best last night. All this talk of healing the nation and harmonizing our conflicting points of view is bullshit. So i for one say, not on your life, fatty. No way fatty fat fat mcgee. I will not congratulate a complete moron for duping a nation of bigger morons into voting for destroying the very freedom this nation was founded on.
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:3, Interesting)

    by b-baggins (610215) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:02PM (#10711917) Journal
    And all the people who work for Haliburton, and the people who own Haliburton stock, and the contractors who supply Haliburton and the welfare recipients whose checks are paid by Haliburton taxes, etc., etc., etc.

    ---
    Proud member of the Banned With Excellent Karma Club
  • by gotan (60103) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:02PM (#10711919) Homepage
    Now our best hope is to pray that GWB [...] doesn't alienate the entire world in the next 4 years.

    In fact i hope he does exactly that. I'm really fed up with the USA proclaiming themselves as self-elected world-leader, their unilateral politics and their export of run-away capitalism where war is just another way of doing business.

    The bigotry of anti-abortionists that cheer Bush on to continue waging wars in which millions of civillians are killed (aparently it's ok to kill a pregnant mother if she happens to live in the wrong country) makes me puke.

    In fact i doubt if Kerry would've done much better. To me he came over the perfedt opportunist. In that case we're better off with Bush anyway: at least the world already knows what an idiot he is.

    Sorry for the rant, it's just how i feel about the whole affair. So at least Bush will make sure that a lot more people all over the world will feel the same.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10711982)
    not to mention all the democrats that flipped!!! I hope they rot in hell!!!

    It's thinking just like that that really turned off a lot of potential voteers from the Democrats. The message was entirely too much about hatred.
  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10711996)
    With the amount of massive foreign debt we are currently holding, coupled with the public's unwillingness to deal with this issue at all in any capacity, means massive fiscal crises are almost certain. The fact that economists cannot even determine if it will be inflationary or deflationary shows you how random this scenario is. We're in uncharted fiscal waters kids...the US is the center of the world economy and also the world's largest debtor.
  • Re:The horror... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by delete (514365) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#10712009)
    The rest of the world does not take a "blind eye to terrorism". Contrary to what you may believe, people in Britain, Ireland, Spain and many other nations have been dealing with violent radical groups for decades. You seem to suggest that failing to blunder blindly into knee-jerk reactions against such groups is somehow cowardly.

    The reason that most of the world outside the US is concerned by the re-election of Bush is that he seems to conduct his "war on terror" in a short-sighted manner, regardless on what the ramifications will be for future generations. The reason that anti-American ideologies are rife in Islamic states is largely due to US foreign policy in the past. It is disturbing to even hypothesise what kind of problems will result from four more years of Bush's terrorist pogrom.
  • despair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CGP314 (672613) <CGP&ColinGregoryPalmer,net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:06PM (#10712052) Homepage
    What depresses me the most about this is when GWB was elected, we didn't know what he was going to do. Now, with this election the American people have said "I agree with what you've done and would like more."

    I'm an American in London [colingregorypalmer.net] and used to be able to tell Europeans that I hope most of the American people don't approve of Bush and wouldn't have voted him in if they knew what he was going to do. Now I see that I am wrong and I despair.
  • Re:I for one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Samrobb (12731) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712076) Homepage Journal
    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.

    As did I. I'm a registered Republican, but I think that voting for someone just because of their political affiliations is ridiculous. This election, as in any other, I did my best to vote for the candidates that I felt shared my same core values and beliefs. While I'm happy that Bush won the presidential race, I'm also disappointed that other candidates I supported for senate and state races lost.

    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.

    Agreed. For all that I don't agree with his politics, Kerry's done a good thing, for both the country and his party... another round of election lawyering would have been a hard blow for the Democratic party, I think. Nobody particularly likes lawyers, and I'm pretty sure that Kerry recognized that if he didn't have a clear-cut reason to take a case to court, then people would start associating the Democratic party with election litigation.

    IMHO, though, the majority of the credit for this election going so smoothly should go to the poll workers and monitors. They managed to keep a good eye on things this election, and to keep any obvious problems (and hence, challenges) from surfacing.

  • Election reform? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zakezuke (229119) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712090)
    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.

    This is yet another case where I wish America was on the popular vote system rather than the electoral vote system. Bush clearly won the popular vote by a factor of 3,529,724. While I didn't vote for Bush based on these numbers I could move on. But the Bush lead in Ohio is 136,221, a margin lower than the amount of votes still left uncounted. I can not in good conscience say that Bush won our election so long as provisional and absentee votes are yet uncounted, to do so would be un-American.

    This is a testament to the American democratic process, a process that serves to divide a nation rather than unite it.
  • by CrayzyJ (222675) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:08PM (#10712110) Homepage Journal
    "if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason."

    wrong wrong wrong wrong. I am a huge Bush supporter, and I am also agnostic.

    There are plenty of other reasons. My main reason: I believe Bush will do more to protect this country than Kerry (who looks like a Basset hound, btw).

    As a side note, I am not happy about some of his religious policies, but hey it was a two horse race.

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

    by sjwaste (780063) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:11PM (#10712168)
    I didn't say the rest of the world doesn't see it at home nor did I accuse anyone of being cowardly. However, anyone else's efforts to curb it haven't exactly worked well. The train wreck before Spain's election is a very prime example of such. I really believe the rest of the world needs to work with the US a bit more on this issue. I know our actions haven't been completely right, but I also don't think we're completely wrong either.

    The idea behind taking out governments like those in Iraq and Afghanistan is to give the country a chance at electing its own leadership. Democratic goverments do show better economic growth, personal income, and education than those that are not democratic. This has been studied in many economic journals. I'm optimistic about the futures of the two countries I mentioned. It's rough going there now, but I happen to believe they will turn it around. Change is never easy, and never instantaneous.

    I'm curious, though. Everyone is all over my terrorism comment, but nobody can refute my statement on economies?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:13PM (#10712229)
    Bush is the first incumbent president since World War II to be reelected with an approval rating of under 50%.

    Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) to see a net loss of jobs while in office. Hoover lost his reelection bid, Bush didn't.

    Most polls in the days leading up to the election had Kerry narrowly winning on a state-by-state basis and most exit polls said the same.

    Normally, I'd just say, "What do you know, conventional wisdom and the polls got it wrong." However, with what happened in Florida last time, coupled with the controversies surrounding the voting machines, my first thought is, "Was this election fair?"

    Without the paper trails, we'll never know.
  • by Retrospecter (807978) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712316)
    Dear DNC,

    Please take the results of this election as a strong hint, and please go meditate in a corner somewhere until you have the following revelation:

    Although you and the members of your party are strongly attracted to smarmy candidates who love the camera and the sound of their own voice, you must realize that much of the country detests this kind of person. People do not like being talked down to, and our country is not desperately seeking the next JFK.

    You failed to capitalize on the fact that many moderate-conservative people were disappointed with Bush's performance over the last 4 years. You failed to recognize the opportunity to bring these people into your camp, which would have been quite a feat considering many of the people in your camp are hippies that do not bathe. Instead, you nominated another rich, pre-manufactured, pompous character that non-Democrats just didn't want to deal with. You forced a lot of people to hold their nose and vote for Bush because John Kerry represents everything that sucks about the Democratic Party.

    I hope you all learned something. See ya in 2008.

    Love,
    Retrospecter
  • by ControlFreal (661231) * <[niek] [at] [bergboer.net]> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:18PM (#10712318) Journal

    From Europe:

    Apologies accepted. Remember, this is not a contest; it's not US against the rest of the world. Indeed, many nations of the world (including the EU, that is) like to work together with the US, even if that may be a little bit more difficult under Bush.

    Wealth through cooperation is not a zero-sum game; when two nations or unions cooperate, both can get wealthier.

    I sincerely hope, for both of our continents, that the Dollar won't sink any further. Even though that would be good for our imports, it won't do much good for our exports, and the resulting economic friction is good for neither of us.

    I might come on holiday to the US though; it's rather cheap at the moment. Politics be damned ;)

  • by dfj225 (587560) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712348) Homepage Journal
    How can you be so sure that Kerry would have led America in a better direction? I think Kerry's campaign platform had some positive ideas...but most of them seem unfounded or such departures from his past that I have a hard time believing that he has really changed. Bush would have you believe that Kerry is a "flip-flopper", I would say that if true Kerry would be a better man for it. Take a look at this article: http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.jb.john.shtml I would hope that Kerry has changed from stances that he has taken in the past...but actions do speak lounder than words and I would be that if he were president he would continue to push for legislature along the same lines. On another front, Kerry spoke about bring jobs back to America from foreign soil...if he really believed so much in this, why not convince his wife to have some of her company's assets moved to America? It seems too much to me that Kerry was saying whatever he needed to get elected. I'm glad that some people saw through that. That said...I do think things in this country need improvement. I just don't think they would have come in from John Kerry.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Blindman (36862) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712350) Journal
    Isn't this the problem? Liberals (for whatever reason) that come from conservative environments concentrate in certain areas which has the effect of deluting their representation based on the electoral college system. Those that like the conservate environment move back to those areas, so you basically have a conservative minority dictating policy for a less conservative majority. Even though the electoral college was close, the number of states that went for Bush was way more than half. Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller.

    I'm not volunteering to move to a conservative area, but if liberals don't occupy these areas then the country can expect more of this type of outcome.
  • Re:Give me a break! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HarveyBirdman (627248) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712355) Journal
    Isn't it pathetic?

    Here we have a supposedly above average crowd (intelligence-wise) of folks, and it suffers the same blind ideologies of those they claim to criticize. I'm astonished that people so out of touch with objective reality can even turn on and use a computer.

    The bigotry is rampant. Anyone who voted for Bush is a trailer park goon. Sorry. There's just not that many trailer parks. And for the record, I voted for Kerry. It's not an uncommon pattern, though. I often see very intelligent people fall prey to extreme ideologies or bigotry. Intelligence does not seem to be an innoculation against such things. In fact, it can be an amplifier because you have the "I'm smart so I cannot possibly be wrong on any topic in the universe" aspect going on.

    Some of the posters here really need to seek counseling. Their detachment from reality is way beyond the point where any professional would decalre it a mental illness.

    Some people here seem to think they are literally living in the equivalent of Nazi death camps. They're sick, and I can't even get mad at them anymore. They are pathetic little losers so desperate for attention or someone to give a shit about their meaningless lives they've slipped into a dementia where they become some sort of noble revolutionary fighting the Empire with a rag tag fleet of whatsis. Or something like that. There's a name for the syndrome, but it escapes me.

  • by jepe (826944) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#10712362)
    You might be a whiny left winger, but as today as a resident from another country 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...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:21PM (#10712397)
    With the current state of America, it's not very surprising that Bush won out. There seems to be a popular sentiment (in the U.S., not on Slashdot) that appearing "strong to the world" and having "strong faith and character" are the most important issues...it's really amazing that Bush was able to pull off the whole character and faith thing. What a sham. Jesus preached love and peace for our fellow humans; Christians are to be peaceable and leave vengance and judgement to God (look up Romans 12:18-19 if you want to see it in black and white). I'm not saying that Kerry was any better, but at least he didn't have the Texas cowboy mentality that Bush seems to throw around. As far as appearing strong to the world, it seems that most Americans still don't get this one either. The biggest reason why people in the middle east (and around the world) dislike the U.S. in general is that they continue to act like the "American Way" is the best way and any other way is wrong and their responsibility to change. Terrorism will continue to thrive as long as the U.S. continues to act as a global bully. Until this country can start thinking of themselves as global citizens and not think of the world as potential U.S. territory America won't be safe from radicals on the other side of the fence.

    As far as the Democratic party, I think the writing is on the wall for them. They have clearly failed to adapt and evolve in the new millenium and against the Republican propaganda machine. I'm not a fan of a "two party system", but there needs to be some kind of strong alternative to the conservative extremism that is taking over America. This is my own opinion, but I would be willing to bet that sometime in the next 10-20 years (hopefully less) either the Democratic party will comepletely redefine themselves or a new party will finally be able to break through and replace the Democrats as the other major party alongside the Republicans. You read it here first...
  • Yes and No (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:23PM (#10712432)
    Some states require the electors to refelect the vote of the people but most don't. One Republican elector did say before the election that he was voting for Kerry either way due to Bushes record. It's not enough to sway the election but he will loose one vote. If you want to see rioting in the streets see what happens if the college went against a four million popular vote margin. There would have been just cause in the last election. This time around it would be a disaster.
  • by calstraycat (320736) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:23PM (#10712439)
    Does anyone have any suggestions regarding where someone tired of living in a Christian theocracy might move to?

    When the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians escalates into WW III, I'd rather be watching from the sidelines in a country that has advanced beyond superstitions.
  • by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:23PM (#10712444) Homepage
    Ah...

    We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this.

    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 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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.
  • by minotaurcomputing (775084) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:30PM (#10712559) Homepage Journal
    "Bush got more votes than any American in history."

    So I guess that means that Kerry got the second most votes than any American in history.
    -m
  • by Snocone (158524) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:40PM (#10712703) Homepage
    Highest percentage since 1988.

    (First majority since 1988, to boot.)

    Higher percentage than any Democrat since 1964.

    That seems reasonably impressive to me, I'd say.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Merk (25521) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:41PM (#10712714) Homepage

    What's interesting is that the French version of the anthem is by no means a direct translation of the English version. Let me see if I can translate it:

    Oh Canada! Home of our ancestors
    Your face/forehead is encircled with glorious florets
    Your arm knows how to hold the sword
    It knows how to hold the cross
    Your history is a epic
    Of the most brilliant feats
    And your gallantry
    Of tempered faith
    Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
    Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights

  • by jrexilius (520067) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712729) Homepage
    I didn't realize governance and national security was a popularity contest. It is good to have trade and diplomatic relations with other nations and isolationaism isn't a good strategy but niether is focussing on the opinions of others. You would be a fool and a liar to say that other countries put global opinion ahead of their interests, why it is expected of the US I dont know.

  • by GuyFawkes (729054) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712738) Homepage Journal
    Well, the view from here in the UK is this.

    Kerry vs Bush, or anyone else, is just a competition between two talking heads, they don't matter.

    Let's be honest, Bush as a human being is as thick as shit, he couldn't run a branch of blockbuster, much less a country.

    So, despite the fact that American elections are esentially personality contest in the style of a television pop star junk thing, what you actually get is not just the puppet, but the puppeteers.

    Bush getting re-elected is essentially a big hearty slap on the back and multi-million dollar tax free bonus to the Straussian Neo-Con puppeteers.

    Expect them to see this as carte blanche.

    Everyone one else on the planet OUTSIDE the USA is now expecting these bastards to start pushing for...

    a/ military intervention in Iran
    b/ continued support for Isreal in terrorising Palestine and it's other neighbours.
    c/ Military intervention in equatorial Africa (oil again, surprise surprise)
    d/ possible military intervention in North Korea

    The American people have managed to effectively declare christian and economic (oil and military might inc nuclear capability) jihad on the rest of the planet.

    If any of you think this is going to make life within the borders of the United States SAFER then you're out of your fucking gourds.

    I fully expect a "sum of all fears" scenario and deployment of biologically engineered pesticides in your belts against your wheat and corn growers within the next couple of years.

    As it stands today my fee for any job that involved working in the USA or indeed anywhere else for an American company would be US$ 100,000 up front for every flight and US $50,000 per week to be within any major US city and US$ 10,000 per week to work for any american company, IN ADDITION to any salary and benefits offered as standard.

  • I Laugh at you all (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712745)
    To all who said Kerry would win because of a football game, I laugh at you.
    To all who said Kerry would win because the planets aligned, I laugh harder at you.
    Michael Moore, the American people are not as stupid as you think. Just cause you got the gulible French to believe your lies, doesnt mean America will....

    (granted, I am sure that as un-intelligent as Moore is, he probably never visits /. much less read my post...but still if you ever do Moore...I LAUGH AT YOU!!! BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!)
  • by Proteus (1926) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:45PM (#10712790) Homepage Journal
    The Electoral College exists because the States are supposed to be relatively independant. It is the States that vote for the President, not the citizens. So, unless you want to radically change the framework upon which the US is predicated, we're stuck with the Electoral College.

    The problem is that the College no longer represents the population. I would favor the splitting of Electors based on the results of each State's popular vote. For example, in a State with 20 electors (like Ohio), each 5% of the vote would certify an Elector, with any remaining elector going to the winner. So, if the last count I saw of 51% Bush, 49% Kerry is accurate for Ohio, Bush would get 10 Electors, Kerry 9. Since Bush won the popular vote, he'd get the last Elector for a total of 11.

    Additionally, we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population. In fact, it needs to be at least doubled in size. In that way, Electors will more fairly represent the will of the Citizens they are supposed to represent.
  • by leadsling (734216) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:46PM (#10712798) Journal
    But to do all this we need a LEFTwing propaganda machine. But we have to pay for it.

    As if that's not what Michael Moore, George Soros, the Hollywood l33ts, etc haven't been doing??? One thing this election proves is that the drone of the "poor, poor party of the peepul" can come up with the dough when they want to.

  • by degradas (453730) <degradas@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:49PM (#10712842)
    There is a poem by a Nobel Prize winner Czeslaw Milosz that seems to be very appropriate here:

    Song on the End of the World

    On the day the world ends
    A bee circles a clover,
    A Fisherman mends a glimmering net.
    Happy porpoises jump in the sea,
    By the rainspout young sparrows are playing
    And the snake is gold-skinned as it it should always be.

    On the day the world ends
    Women walk through fields under their umbrellas
    A drunkard grows sleepy at the edge of a lawn,
    Vegetable peddlers shout in the street
    And a yellow-sailed boat comes nearer the island,
    The voice of a violin lasts in the air
    And leads into a starry night.

    And those who expected lightning and thunder
    Are disappointed.
    And those who expected signs and archangels' trumps
    Do not believe it is happening now.
    As long as the sun and the moon are above,
    As long as the bumblebee visits a rose
    As long as rosy infants are born
    No one believes it is happening now.

    Only a white-haired old man, who would be a prophet,
    Yet is not a prophet, for he's much too busy,
    Repeats while he binds his tomatoes:
    No other end of the world there will be,
    No other end of the world there will be.

  • by Atzanteol (99067) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:51PM (#10712878) Homepage
    Good way to start a civil war actually. This is exactly the case of what happened in the 1800's.

    I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.
  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:53PM (#10712902)
    "Bush didn't win, Kerry lost."

    No, "anybody but Bush" lost. As far as I could see, that is how Kerry was sold. Perhaps I've spent too much time on Slashdot lately, but I've seen far more statements that equated to "Bush is bad" than I did see "Kerry is good."

    For example, the Daily Show last night. I suppose by this point I shouldn't be surprised that Sharpton didn't have an off switch (I think William Weld did better with the crowd), but in all the "Bush is bad" and the "Republicans are bad" statements he made, there was not one comment to the effect of "Kerry is good" or "Democrats are good."

    "ask yourself why the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Kerry."

    Because they weren't catering to their own likes. Kerry won the primaries because the Democrats felt he was the most Republican of all the candidates, therefore the most likely to beat Bush.
  • by multipartmixed (163409) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:54PM (#10712921) Homepage
    It's a well-documented fact the Diebold CEO promised to deliver Ohio to the President:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08. ht m

    That fact that he kept his promise in this matter shouldn't be newsworthy; I'm surprised they even bothered keeping the polls open last night.

    Tannenbaum is reporting that the exit polls and the actual vote results are quite different there, as well. Big surprise. Of course, there is no proof that the fix was in, because Diebold machines don't leave a paper trail.
  • by Zak3056 (69287) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:58PM (#10713004) Journal
    in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!

    What do you mean "given?" Voting equipment is left up to the individual counties. Anybody using old and broken down equipment, or not enough equipment, or Diebold equipment, need place the blame for that right at the foot of their county election commissioner.

    In Ohio's Cuyahoga county, that would be Jimmy Dimora, a democrat. Just like the woman that designed the infamous butterfly ballot of 2000 was a democrat. And how the place with all the hanging chads in 2000 was run by democrat controlled election committees with democrat commissioners of election.

    If you want to piss and moan, piss and moan at your own party before you start implying conspiracies.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:00PM (#10713021) Homepage
    My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now...

    But I'm guessing me might disagree on what to do now. My idea was to buy time on a little light bulb AM station somewhere and air the voice of the independent radio show. Spend the next four years hacking everything the Republicans do, spouting conspiracy theories, stating absolute garbage as established fact and screening calls to make it sound like everyone agrees with me. Pretend to be an overall Bush supporter, then mention every piece of dirt that has plausible deniability.

    I'd spend the next four years hacking back at them in the media like they did for eight years of Clinton's term.

    Politics is a dirty game and it's time to start fighting dirty.

    I'm guessing that may not be what you have in mind, but we've got nothing to lose going negative at this point. Light the flame throwers! You want division, we'll give you division and angry, unrelenting defensiveness until you're stuffed with it. We'll take our cues from Karl Rove's playbook and make winning a living hell.

  • by BawbBitchen (456931) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:05PM (#10713095) Homepage
    Wow! Let me let you in on a little bit of information. We do not care if we have pissed off the rest of the world. For the past 50+ years they have had their well being protected by the American taxpayer. Maybe we are sick of getting shit on because we seem to see things in a right and wrong view of things that work justed fine for you when the commie hoards were at your door but now it is not good enough for you. If the rest of the world does not like what we do then take care of your problems yourself and stay out of our way. It is really interesting that when the shit hit the fan in the former Yugoslovia that it was American force of arms that was called for by the EU states to support thier fight because they did not have the power to do it themselves. And I just love the way that the whole world has said that it was right to invade Afganistain and gave their support and said they would give troops but still have not delivered on even 20% of what they have promised. Hey Germany and France we are still waiting on all the NATO troop support you promised us! Why should we care what the the rest of the world thinks when they cannot even deliver on what they have promised when they pat our backs and say they support us?

    BTW:

    1. I did not vote for Bush. I do not even like him.
    2. I am not a Republican.
    3. I do have a passport and it has stamps in it from the EU to asia.
    4. I did server in the millitary and have seen combat.

    At the end of the day, my message to the rest of the world is put up or shut up. It is easy to bitch and moan. Lets see you do something for once.

  • by freaks_and_geeks (773345) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:06PM (#10713104)

    Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.

    Why? At some point, shouldn't reasonable people realize that they share different value systems and agree to split up -- amicably? If it weren't for the fact that the blue states essentially subsidize the red ones -- best link I could find was here [eriposte.com] -- I'm sure they'd be happy to see us go.

    But as I've said before: I'm sure that with strong morals, a lot of prayer and -- this is the most important part -- no gay marriage, the red states could make up for the lost income in no time.

  • by asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:10PM (#10713156)

    When you see the moral standards of your society being destroyed, what good man would not act


    I have a question for all the people in this counry who are against gay marriage:

    Exactly how does a gay couple getting married affect you negatively?

    Please be specific.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:11PM (#10713158)
    "RE: you being gormless, easily duped intellectual dungheaps"

    While the rest of your post is quite true... that the responsibility of whatever comes of the Bush administration in the next four years rests with those voters who kept Bush in office, that starting line really irks me. And no, I didn't vote for Bush.

    One thing that really bothers me about elections is when one side ridicules the other side's intellectual capacity - in essence, "you don't agree with me, therefore you must be stupid." This is not arguing the issues on their own merits; rather, it is an ad hominim attack. I thought we were all sick of "dirty politics" like this... I guess not.

    Get any group of intelligent people together to discuss an issue and you will find that while you may get "consensus" you will almost never get unanimity. Have you stopped to consider that the reason people disagree with you might not be because they're stupid and you're smart, but because they are smarter then you? Or perhaps because they are in possession of more facts than you are and are therefore better-equipped to make a decision?

    Of course you haven't. After all, each of us has the intellectual snobbery to believe that we are always the smartest and best-qualified to make decisions... and of course we'll refuse to admit even the possibility that we could be wrong (interesting to hear this from an obvious Kerry supporter when in my estimation, Bush has been the one with problems accepting that another way of looking at the world might even exist).

    Furthermore, it's pretty doggone unlikely that any party - even one of the "non-majors" - mirrors your ideology exactly. And unlike the major parties would like us to believe, issues are seldom black and white (though there are no shortage of elegant, simple, and completely wrong solutions they propose). Life and reality is nuanced, with billions of shades of gray and (more importantly), swirls and eddys of color that make walking in black or white all but impossible.

    I can't find a link now, but I remember noting something interesting in the exit polls last night... they broke down voting tendencies by education, and as many will probably expect, those with less than a high school education voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

    As education increased the percentage voting for Bush decreased... until you hit "post-graduate work" and degrees... while people with a Bachelor's degree had the smallest percentage of Bush voters, people with Master's or Doctorate degrees had an even higher percentage of Bush voters than the "did not finish high school" crowd! I thought that was an interesting trend... that the *most* educated voters actually favored Bush over Kerry. Does this shatter your assumption that "the dumber you are, the more likely you are to vote Bush?" (Leaving aside the obvious point that education != intelligence) Is it an anomolay? Just food for thought.

    Be upset with the way the country is heading if you must (I am), but calling into question the intellectual capacity of those who don't agree with you solely BECAUSE they don't agree with you makes you look pretty non-credible to me. //voted Badnarik, and wasn't really even happy with him
  • Well... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Perky_Goth (594327) <paulomiguelmarques@gm a i l . c om> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:12PM (#10713185) Homepage
    all i can say is, good luck Americans. hope the next four year changes you, and that you keep fighting the (mostly) bad parts of this administration.
    I am at a loss here. The last year, in which i've become a lot more politicly informed, i've found incredible that someone like Bush can get elected. Or thar Kerry is the best de DOP can muster. on hindsight, it even seems he didn't really try to win.
    i hope Europe pulls together and goes in a much more liberal and socialist stance, otherwise... the world is screwed...

    Obligatoy expletive: how the fuck can this guy win? WE'RE SO SCREWED! 4 more years of this and we could very well end up in a new Dark Age... FUCK!
  • Sad as a french (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Spaham (634471) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:14PM (#10713214)
    Why am I even writing about the US elections since I'm french ? (of course I'm french, why do you think I have this outrageous accent ? ;-)).
    Just to tell you american guys that we're sad. Everyone around me is sad about this election. Of course you got the right to pick whatever looney you want (it's a free country (remember, hitler was ELECTED))...
    Electing bush in the internet age is like saying what IBM's CEO said in the 50s, something like "the world will only need less than 10 computers".
    We live in a world of exchange, of trade, diplomacy. There ain't no more cowboys with em' big guns you know. I'm not being aggressive in any way, just sad and scared for the future. The future of the rest of the world.
    You know that the US is the only country in the world where people asked me where france was ? Or if we had apples, or electricity ? (I was an exchange student in the subburbs of Boston, so I had quite some time to meet *real* americans. Bush americans)...
    anyway, let's not lose hope, for whatever it's worth...
  • by bcarl314 (804900) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:18PM (#10713266)
    Here, and in other places, I keep hearing the word "liberal" used as a put-down. Some how insinuating that being a "liberal" is bad. My question to all of you is... Why?

    Definition of Liberal [reference.com]

    I'm actually quite proud to be a liberal. Seems to be a more accepting, forward thinking type of person.
  • by EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:22PM (#10713315) Homepage Journal
    In my journal, I write about There are four kinds of people who support Bush [slashdot.org].

    I call the Battered Wife "#3 The Codependent - People who enjoy being lied too and live in a fantasy world put forth by the President, where America is still noble, secure and respected around the world. At night, he beats you black and blue, but you keep quiet.
  • by jepe (826944) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:27PM (#10713402)
    Actually i am from Canada... And i dony know a single person who backed bush...
  • by randomErr (172078) <ervin.kosch@PLAN ... minus physicist> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:31PM (#10713468) Homepage Journal
    Ummmm no. Check some facts on this, like who put forth the latest reinstatement of the draft bills:
    S.89
    Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003)
    Cosponsors (None)
    Related Bills: H.R.163
    Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee.
    Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

    H.R.163
    Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003)
    Cosponsors (14)
    Related Bills: S.89
    Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions.
    Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
    Hey wait, the sponsors are Democrats, not Republicans! Who are the cosponsors?
    Rep Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI]
    Rep Brown, Corrine [D-FL]
    Rep Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI]
    Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO]
    Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI]
    Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD]
    Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL]
    Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL]
    Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX]
    Rep Lewis, John [D-GA]
    Rep McDermott, Jim [D-WA]
    Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA]
    Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA]
    Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY]
    So, Democrats, not evil Republicans, were completely and totally instituting the draft. Why? Simple: To give MTV and other liberal group fodder to try to throw at the president, to accuse him of trying to get the draft back. The left leaning groups were purposely to DISENFRANCHISE youth voters with a falsehood. This is as low as some of the tactics of MS and SCO against Linux.
  • by schuster (39361) <.d.schuster. .at. .cox.net.> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:34PM (#10713524)
    I know that in my case, I'm no "whiny left winger". In fact, this is the first time I've ever voted democrat in my life. There are a few things that bother me about this election. First of all, when we had 9/11, for just a moment, not only was our entire country unified, but we also had the support of our allies as well. As it turns out, in his campaign the first time, Bush had promised to be "a uniter, not a divider", which was what convinced me that he'd be okay to vote for. I confess though that I should have known better than the whole "compassionate conservitive" nonsense. So, he's completely failed in every campaign promise he's made. I don't even blame him for the collapse of the economy, although I don't support the way he's handled it either. The other thing that bothers me is that we've now completely lost anything resembling a balance of power in this country. Finally, as far as the allies go, it doesn't bother me that we've done what we've done, rather I'm bothered by the way we've been ass-holes to the rest of the world and I'm bothered by the inablility of both Bush and apparently the "Americans" who voted for him to admit their mistakes. So, as someone who voted for Bush the first time, I will tell you that I never even considered voting for him in '04, no matter who the Democrats put up and I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country and I'm certainly not in favor of the idea of what apparently is an even smaller percentage (land-wise) of the country running the rest of the world. I think the northeast should just secede from the rest of the union.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:36PM (#10713556)
    What are you smoking?

    What Bush supporters [pipa.org] believe is absolutely incredible.

    Apparently, this election was decided by people who are misinformed regarding reality.
  • Accepted. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cuberat (549657) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:37PM (#10713578)
    This is the kind of intelligent, informed discourse I love about American politics. I would have thought that the disastrous consequences of Michael Moore-esque tactics for the left this election would have put this kind of debate to rest for good, but I see it still has it's adherents.

    Yeah, I voted for Bush. No, I didn't want to, but my personal policy is to vote for things rather than against them. All I heard from the Kerry camp was a litany of 'we're not Bush' and that's not good enough.

    Not happy with the outcome? Welcome to the club. I was sick to the point of physical nausea when an amoral, greasy politician like Clinton was able to get re-elected. Suck it up and live with it, and do what you can to undo it in later elections.

    You sound like you're a half-step from throwing Molotov cocktails at police stations and kidnapping newspaper heiresses. Knock it off and start working to make things better instead of trying to set the national whine record. I'd love to be able to choose between the Rebellion and the Empire, but life is tragically not that black and white. Painting people and groups and evil or pure of heart simply means you haven't taken a hard enough look at either point of view.

    Like it or not, the people have spoken and they came down decisively on the side of the Bush crowd. I don't hate him, you, or anyone else. We're all brothers on the same side. If you haven't yet realized that the issue isn't me against you, but us against them, then you haven't been paying attention.

    Finally, let me respond on your level on one issue: Integrity begins at home, motherfucker, and don't you dare call out others to take responsibility when you come out with a sniveling, whining, wailing rant and post as AC, you hypocritical, nonsensical, snot-nosed cunt.

  • by mozumder (178398) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:46PM (#10713696)
    The voting SHOULD be skewed towards urban interests, because that's where most of the people are.

    Do you believe it is appropriate for rural interests to overtake urban interests? Only 1% of the population are now farmers, yet they somehow manage to overweigh their influence on the US government due to our founding fathers lack of vision - they probably just assumed that the US was going to be a rural country forever. This is why we have a government that largely appears to be run by inbred redneck trailer trash that are proud of their lack of edumacation, because, the horrible rural population seems to get 5 votes for every one urban vote.

    The electoral college AND the senate have got to go, they're entireley inappropriate for this modern industrialized era.

    Besides, the proof of the failures of the electoral college system was clearly shown by the lack of any presidential campaigning in any non-battleground states.
  • So what ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rainer_d (115765) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:46PM (#10713703) Homepage
    I'd like to believe that Bush's politics will somehow change (commentators speculating about that), but I'm also realistic enough to realize that the quasi-cleptocratic regime will probably continue just like before and stands a good chance of totally annoying and scaring-off the rest of the world, removing the last bit of credibility the USA still had in some places around the world, while also ruining the budget. With cynism, one could argue that the current administration is trying to shove all money that is available now, together with any money they can borrough on to political friends and old allies just so that should one day another administration come into power, it wouldn't be able to spend it on welfare and social causes....

    I don't want to say the so called "war on terrorism" cannot be won - but it looks doubtful if it can be done with the means (and dare I say: attidtude?) of the current (and next) administration - and the consequences of a failure of this undertaking are really horrible.

    If we're lucky (we=the world), we're only in basically the same situation 4 years from now. *If* the shit hits the fan in the middle-east, people even as far as Ohio or Texas will be more-or-less directly impacted by those events.
    Not to mention us in Europe,

    So, what ?
    Maybe the only thing that results from this election is that the world will go belly-up just 4 years earlier than anticipated.
    Small change in God's plan.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HardYakka (265884) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:48PM (#10713748)
    So: if you're a Slashdot reader who moved abroad because of the political situation, please post here, and tell us why, and how it's working out.
    I left the US for Australia and lived there for 10 years. I also lived in Canada. Both were great but I'm back in the USA now.
    One thing I've found is that there are good things and things that drive you crazy wherever you live - because people are people.
    The problem with most complainers is they want somewhere to live that's just like the USA with a few things changed to suit their viewpoint.
    Well I've got news for you - that place doesn't exist so you might as well get off your ass and try improving your own neighbourhood.
  • Re:Advice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CatsupBoy (825578) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:50PM (#10713790)
    That is a horrible idea, and awefully scary as well. The only good thing about a two party system is both party's keep each other in check.

    When the republicans want to exercise too many tax breaks, the democrats step in and fix the budget. Vice versa when the democrats want to censor everything in the world, the republicans step in and modorate things a bit.

    What is really frustrating is that america wont embrase an non-patisan president, when in fact its the presidents job to approve the crap the house and senate come up with. That way when issues come up that are extremly partisan, the president would see it from an independant view.

    This is why its hard for me to vote on the president, especially here in ohio. My independant vote goes nowhere in this staunchly republican state (never mind the close race this year, republicans will always be loved in ohio).
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Samhain13 (827511) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:51PM (#10713804)
    I moved from California to Germany this summer to do a post-doc position. This was for various (mostly political) reasons, including finding out as a gay man, what it was like to be treated as a first-class citizen. I had originally planned to come back to the US in 2006, but now I think I will extend my stay here a few more years. Perhaps indefinitely.

    The worst part about being abroad (as an American) at a time like this is the resulting discussions around the water cooler that ensue regarding the current political situation. I have to say that I feel pretty small when the topic of Bush's popularity comes up. People here are just appalled (rightly so) that over half the friggin' country voted for that idiot. Also, the anti-American jokes and comments are really beginning to get to me.

    I don't know that I want to be an American abroad, but I certainly don't want to be an American in the US!

    -j
  • by Londovir (705740) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:54PM (#10713853)

    I think the point is being missed. Our country is a representative form of government, and more importantly, the United States is just that: a collection of united states. (50 of them, in fact, plus disputedly the District of Columbia, which should just be made a state and be done with it.)

    In any case, I totally disagree with your comment "If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million." No state's vote should be more valuable than any other.

    Since what point have people forgotten that we are a collection of independant states that work together as a whole to form a country? That's why we have state governments, with state constitutions, state courts, and so forth. We're NOT a unified country, although we often work together for a common goal. Thus, when we elect a president, we are electing someone who will execute the Constitution of the United States, not the will of the people, per se.

    Thus, Alaska should be just as important as California when it comes to electoral votes. Why not? Just because people don't choose to live there en masse, does not devalue their importance as one of the 50 states of our union. They have an equal voice in our country, and deservedly so.

    The problem is the electoral college system has become unbalanced in its purpose. It was intended to give each state a voice, but when it became tied to populations, it lost it's whole value. What should be done is simple: make each state have 1 electoral vote. A president will win when they claim a majority of electoral votes. Each state's electoral vote will be decided by the winner of the state's popular vote. In the case of a national tie in electoral votes, rely upon the national popular vote to break the tie.

    In this way, every single state is important to deciding the presidency, which is the way it should have been all along. How insulting is it to live in a state like Alaska, where your livelihood is made or broken in Washington, but candidates will skip you like a hopscotch board to concentrate on a "rich" state like California with it's 55 votes? Why do you think the Senate is designed with 2 candidates from each state? To make it even to all, that's part of the checks and balances. It is unfair to regard the popular vote as the only decider, for the simple reason that our country is a collection of states, not population, and that's the key difference. We might wish to feel otherwise, but the reality is that it's the states that are represented in government, not the people directly - we just serve to decide who will represent our state's interests in the government. That being the case, let the popular vote decide who the states vote for, not the president directly.

    As an interesting aside to this idea, this concept of elections would have kept the same election result all the way back to the 1976 national election, and it would have given Gerald Ford the win, as he had won 27 states to Carter's 24. An interesting thing to contemplate.

    Londovir

  • by Tailhook (98486) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:56PM (#10713870)
    I would favor the splitting of Electors based on the results of each State's popular vote.

    Colorado defeated this soundly. Amendment 36 would have split CO electoral votes proportionally. However, the collective voter knows better than to gimp their own vote by marginalizing their own state.

    If Amendment 36 were to apply nationally I think it would win. This requires amending the Constitution. Have we debated the inefficacy of the electoral college long enough for this to happen? I think so.

    Strangely I think Bush would be the right president to try it; the thought of a proportional CA has a lot of appeal; finally those 55 odd electoral college votes would represent beyond Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Republicans had a net gain of 8 electoral college votes between 2000 and 2004 due to pro-Republican state legislatures which, in turn, are the result of shifts in the electorate population and demographics. The Republicans should not fear proportional voting.

    Bush won a majority of 120 million votes, the largest turnout in American history. This is not a Michael Moore nation. If proportional voting were proposed at the Federal level I'd support it 100% and I think a lot of other Americans would too.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:56PM (#10713881)
    I say we make a third, moderate party, and draft McCain and Biden to head it. Eliminate the extremes on both sides. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the way _most_ people are.

    I just saw a CNN poll yesterday of nationwide voters, and a majority (~75% or so) are in favour of legal abortions of _some_ type (with the most restrictive being 'some legal' probably meaning in cases of rape or incest), and a majority of around 57 or 58% being in favour of either civil unions or marriage for gays.
  • Re:Hate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by IoN_PuLse (788965) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:57PM (#10713900) Homepage
    So you blame the party for their supporters? A few days ago I went to GeorgeWBush.com. I saw a couple graphics and links to "get the real deal about John Kerry" and stuff like "Play the Flip Flopper Game". Then I went to JohnKerry.com. On the front page, there were no obvious links of "click here to read our attack on our opponent". Seems to me (and has for a LONG time) that the republication attack machine was in full force.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by krog (25663) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:58PM (#10713918) Homepage
    So...they are 'ignorant', 'prejudiced' and 'gullible' because they don't think like you do?

    No. They are 'ignorant', for example, because they support the teaching of creationism in schools. They are 'prejudiced', for example, because they oppose the right of gay couples to be married in the eyes of the state. They are 'gullible' because they reelected the President after he ran on a platform of national security -- the same President who allowed 9/11 to occur despite rancorous warnings beforehand, who allowed Osama bin Laden to escape because he cheaped out on troops, and who turned Iraq from a backwards but orderly dictatorship (just like dozens of others in the world) into a chaotic breeding ground for Muslim extremists.

    Addressing a comment below about me being a liberal elitist: you bet your ass I consider my views superior to those of the conservative right. If I didn't think so, I would change those views. If that makes me a liberal elitist, well, fuck it -- at least I live in Boston.
  • by Omniscientist (806841) <matt.badecho@com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:59PM (#10713934) Homepage
    Bush won, ok, fair and square, but this election has caused me to think quite alot.

    Alot of organizations were running around registering people to vote. I was one of them, and even though we did it under the name of a non-partisan cause, we all knew that it was for the benefit of the Democrats. Most of us went around to the lowest voter turnout areas, which happened to usually be the more poorer sections of cities. We would register people to vote, and not ask them who they're going to vote for. But in the back of our heads, our thinking was that these people would be voting for the left wing choice...because most of them either were pissed off about the current situation and needed some convincing that their vote makes a difference, or another big reason was that they were a felon at one point in their lives and they had no idea that they can vote if they are off paper. Higher taxes are a pain for middle or upper class, but social services are a great benefit for the lower class, therefore if we made it easy for these people to vote, we thought they would be voting for Kerry.

    This election had unprecedent voter turnout, so we succeeded in getting people out to vote! However, Bush beat Kerry better than he beat Gore. He even won the popular vote this time. So it seems that these people we were registering...well most of them chose Bush. The democratic party really needs to rethink their strategy, because that was a huge part of it.

    My little theory, and this seems a little crude, is that if one opponent is using fear to win, well I don't think you can fight that with something else. I think you need to use that also, because the top voting issue was probably security. And if an opponent is using hatemongering tactics, you must do that same. You can't be nice and win in politics.

  • by karniv0re (746499) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:03PM (#10713999) Journal
    Nebraska voter here. As I very well know my state would not vote Democrat, I started to wonder why this is. Or why this country has been so strongly divided. I had a long conversation with my Grandma last night, and it showed a lot of insight.

    Nearly every arguement she used had to do with religion or something the TV had told her. She was still hanging on to ideas that Iraq collaborated with Al-Queda and that there could still be WMDs.

    And she's not even really a Fox watcher. When I mentioned the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq, she still refused to believe that they were not happy that we came in, and that the only ones who didn't want us there were the "radicals".

    My roommies on the other hand, had different reasons. They are all very intellectual and logical thinkers, but they also share a common trait: They're racist biggots and classic examples of upper-middle class white people who fear change. I know a lot of that has to do with upbringing, but I was raised in a Republican household, and I turned out completely different. I guess there's a lot there to ponder.

    What really confuses me is how, even with all the grassroots campaigns, like the Rock Against Bush tour, the big names openly speaking out against Bush, and even with all the hard evidence on the news where the mistakes speak for themselves (Nope, no WMDs here), and even such a huge voter turnout, that it still wasn't enough.

    It's really kind of depressing when you think about it. Call me a sore loser, but when you give it your all and it isn't good enough, you're still a loser. I'm going to be depressed for about 4 years.
  • by isotropique (635117) <froggy@ste p . p o l ymtl.ca> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:10PM (#10714096) Journal
    It also includes Canada and Mexico which are the closest US neighboors. In Canada, the population was supporting Kerry with more than 60%. In Quebec, it was more than 80%. This morning, when I heard the result of the US election, I felt an headache. Just like when you drink too much ...
  • Re:Hate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:19PM (#10714252) Homepage Journal
    But the fucking virulent hate without much rational thought or reason is why I voted Republican this year.

    Well, that IS the Republican Party's track record, so bravo for going with your gut and choosing the candidate that best represents your virulent feelings of irrational hate! : )

    (Yes, I did read the rest of your post)

    "Personally? Like he went over and raped and murdered people?"
    "Yes he has! Millions!"


    I can see why you voted for him! That is one strong and viril man there! Pure, unbridled testosterone, leading the country to a better tomorrow!
    Especially at his age...
  • by endoboy (560088) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:21PM (#10714289)
    you might want to consider a slightly broader historical context.

    the Mexicans, and the American indians would disagree that "never in our history" has the US been in the mood for domination....
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mdfst13 (664665) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:28PM (#10714396)
    "Liberals (for whatever reason) that come from conservative environments concentrate in certain areas which has the effect of deluting their representation based on the electoral college system."

    Yet, the electoral college system was the one that came *closest* to allowing Kerry (the liberal, at least by US standards) to win. If 200,000 liberals had moved from Texas to Ohio, then Kerry wins the election. Liberals would have been better off *more* concentrated not less. It was the conservatives who were concentrated, frequently giving Bush double digit leads in many of the states he won: that's why he won the popular vote.

    "Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller."

    That would explain why Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida got such attention. Oh...wait. Those are the 6th, 5th, and 4th biggest states? What happened, I thought that they weren't important? Actually, the thing is that without the bias towards smaller states, there would be an even larger bias towards larger states. Where would you rather campaign: Wyoming, with miles between households; or New York City, with multiple families per building? I strongly suspect that all the 3 electoral vote states *together* have a smaller population than that single urban area (particularly if you count suburban commuters). Heck, you might be able to throw in the 4 electoral vote states against the greater NYC area.

    Despite the cries of small state bias, it was still the large states that everyone watched. Bush won two (Florida, Ohio) out of the three battleground states (Kerry won Pennsylvania) and won the election.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CreationLtd (541052) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:40PM (#10714589)
    We hear a lot of threats to move from silly starlets and disgruntled geeks, but I've never heard of anyone who actually did it.

    :: raises hand ::

    When Bush began his saber rattling against Iraq and Americans where flocking to him faster than flies to rotten meat, I knew I could no longer stay in the States.

    My wife and I sold 99% of our possessions and moved to Spain in 2003. We chose Spain because both of us had reasonable Spanish skills, I had an EU citizenship, and because England was too wet and cold and Canada too close to the US.

    Now 15 months later we can unequivocally state that we love it here. There's a sanity, a bravery (especially evident after March 11th), and a joy of living that is all but is lost to most of America.

    Here at least when the leaders blatantly lie to their constituents they get kicked out of office unlike the US where they are amply rewarded.

    All that's left is to sell off our house back in the States and divest ourselves from American companies and move our liquid assets to the Euro. Can't wait!

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

    by Tarwn (458323) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:55PM (#10714809) Homepage
    Replying to both your comments and the comments of several others who like to generalize based on little to no real information:

    I don't consider myself ignorant, and while most ignorant people don't consider themselves ignorant, I have had a fairly solid education with extra history and politics classes thrown in. I wasn't born rich and had to work up to and through college so I'm either the dumbest clod on the planet or I actually learned something about working hard to put food on the table. So that covers political, historical, and financial ignorance.

    The only possible definition I can think of for "political obstinance" would be someone that goes out of teir way to choose every option save the one they don't like the most (ie, the best option), as opposed to someone who chooses the best option. Personally I think it depends on your viewpoint and also implies another generalization (closed-mindedness).

    Religously prejudiced: yep, that me, make jew jokes all the time. Course, they are just jokes and, oh yeah, I'm Jewish. Funny how that works.

    Embarassingly gullible: Rather then attack the poor ground that you fling that supposed insult from, I'll re-itirate that you are making a generalization. I don't think I'm gullible (same problem as ignorant, however). I've never been scammed, when watching little children they don't get very far, ...insert numerous othe counter-exampls here...

    The one fact that everyone seems to be missing is that no state is "blue" or "red". While majorities caused the state to be a color in general, there are still mixes of multiple religions, political views, etc in each state.

    ---
    I find it interesting that the group that is supposed to be the most open-minded and supportive of democracy is also the same group that screams the loudest and longest when the system doesn't go their own way. You may want to look back over your previous comments and count how many of those apply to yourself.

    Or, on the other hand, you may want to take your generalizations and ask how "your" party could possibly have lost if your party's representative was against such poor competition.

    On a sidenote: I'd like to thank everyone from moveon.org that went out of their way to skew the exit polls. Ity's a shame there aren't some hard numbers on how many Kerry supporters became complacent enough to not bother voting and how many Bush-supporters decided that the 3-hour line was worth the wait. My personal thanks goes out to the site and members involved in that particular bit of bright strategy.
  • Good luck America! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:56PM (#10714814)
    I'm Danish, and I'm very much against Bush. From reading blogs on the internet, I get the impression that the fact that the rest of the world - by and large - is against Bush, actually helped him, because many voters thought (based on zero-sum view of world politics) 'Hey, that's because they want us to vote for a weak president - that means Bush is strong!". If Americans think europeans are crying now, think again. The general European view is that we don't understand how the American people can vote for a president that is in the process of ruining his country. We are not that afraid of how the election will affect our own situation - after all, it doesn't have that much of an effect on *us* who sits in the White House... it is not very likely Bush is going on another Iraq-venture soon. The result of this election, is going to be really bad for Americans themselves.

    You can already now see the dollar in the red, after it became known that Bush keeps the presidency, because Bush is not going to do anything about the umpteen-billion (or is it trillion) dollar trade and budget deficits - at least until he has to. However, sooner or later the world and the fundamental mechanisms of economics are going to do something about it, and it could get really ugly. Bush seems to think that the deficits will disappear by themselves as the economy grows, but that will unfortunately not be the case: The U.S. economy grew at a fast pace for the past 1½ years and that has done nothing but to make the already record-high deficits even bigger. So the kind of growth the U.S. has experienced has been mainly in demand with little growth in exports. Why should further growth change that?

    On the other hand, if the U.S. is heading for a recession, which is becoming a possibility now that it is becoming clear that consumers have exhausted all their credit options and the artifical growth created by the tax cuts, the U.S. is going to be in big trouble: It is going to have to deal with hefty deficits, inflation and a recession at the same time! An almost impossible task because fixing one of the problems will make the others worse. In the worst-case-scenario such a situation would create a self-sustaining dollar fall as foreign investors pull their money out of U.S. assets because of the lower growth prospects.
    Throw in high oil prices (which due to subtle mechanisms will eventually affect the dollar) and slowing growth in China, and you will see that this is not just paranoia but genuine concerns.
    I really hope none of this is going to happen because it will affect not only the U.S. economy but the entire world economy - but of course, budget-disciplined nations like the Scandinavian countries will have much less of a problem because they don't have to repay a huge debt.

    So good luck America - particularly to those sensible people who didn't vote for Bush. To the rest, you got what you asked for, I really hope you will enjoy it... however, I'm quite sure that within the next four years many of you will regret your choice.
  • Re:In Spite of. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by why-is-it (318134) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:03PM (#10714935) Homepage Journal
    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.

    I think Bin Laden's plan did work. It is more likely to be in Bin Laden's best interests for Bush to be elected rather than John Kerry. He will find it much easier to recruit people for the cause with Dubya in charge.

    Of course, some will spin a Bush victory as Osama's worst nightmare come true, but if fighting terrorism was really the mission, Iraq would never have been invaded in the first place.

    If anything, it makes Al Queda's job easier if the US is isolated from and mistrusted by the rest of the world. It is difficult to imagine Bush making amends for the past and working with the same allies he has previously treated with contempt. The foreign policy of the past four years will continue, and depending on who replaces Colin Powell, it might get worse.

    A Bush victory is Michael Moore's worst nightmare, but I would wager that it is welcome news for Osama Bin Laden.

  • by egrinake (308662) <erikgNO@SPAMcodepoet.no> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:03PM (#10714943)

    Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.

    The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons [wikipedia.org] arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.

    The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss [wikipedia.org], whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana [wikipedia.org] and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.

    To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century [wikipedia.org] was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website [newamericancentury.org]:

    • American leadership is good both for America and for the world
    • such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
    • too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

    The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine [wikipedia.org] is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance [wikipedia.org]. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.

    In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses [wikipedia.org] (PDF download here [newamericancentury.org]), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil [wikipedia.org] (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

    Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted [newamericancentury.org] to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.

  • by Potatomasher (798018) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:25PM (#10715242)
    The problem is that the electoral base of the Republicans (which is apparently, and unfortunately the majority of american voters) does not care what goes on outside their country. As long as the president can control gaz prices at reasonable levels, keep the interest rates low so they can continue their buying frenzy, and make them FEEL like they're safe, they're content with that. So sadly enough, for the majority of americans, there was NO reason not to vote for Bush.

    Americans have always been more interested with what goes on inside their country then out. And it looks like the majority of them cannot understand that their current foreign policy will only fuel hate towards America, and can only hinder their precious "war on terror" in the long run.

    For a country that is so proud of being so religious, whatever happened "Do upon others what you would like done to you" (??? sorry can't remember the real quote) ? You bomb people left and right, overthrow democratic governments throughout the world in favor of dictatorships in your own interest... and then your surprised that people in the world hate Americans that much ??

    For once i think bin Laden had it right when he said that America's future was not in the hands of Kerry or Bush, but in their own hands.

    Wake up and face what's really happening around us. The world is not a pretty place. Compassion, education, cheap medecines free of any patents/restrictions would go a lot further than sanctions, bombings and Departments of Homeland Security. And speaking of that, am I the only one that seemed to think that Osama bin Laden
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drewzhrodague (606182) <drew&zhrodague,net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:26PM (#10715258) Homepage Journal
    I haven't worked since a few months after Dubya took office -- I'm a unix sysadmin. If I could afford to pay for a plane ticket, and some time to go and move to any other country, I would. As it stands now, I can't cover my costs to live.

    Looking very much forward to more of the same -- four more years of no employment.
  • Re:Advice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by glwtta (532858) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:26PM (#10715260) Homepage
    Let the Republicans do whatever they want.

    Um yeah, they pretty much have been for the last four years, and sure as hell will for the next four. There's really not much more that the Democrats need to do to let them, they've rolled over a long time ago.

  • by saha (615847) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:27PM (#10715282)
    I'm writing this whether or not people agree with me on this matter. Eight years of political darkness will be a turning point in US history. An epoch of change where the US will loose influence globally and alienate our existing alliances in the world at large. Historically the US resembles the great powers of the past at the beginning of the end of their zenith. We can't claim to be the beacon of democracy and the advocate of freedom throughout the world. Our actions, especially in the past four years have been hypocritical and self righteous. The election yesterday will reverberate in the decades to come and weaken the US as a military, economic and social superpower.

    America 2004 = Britain 1900?

    American 2054 = Britain 1950?

  • Diebold CEO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by coli2 (519109) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:39PM (#10715426)
    "One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that."
  • Re:Hug this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aussersterne (212916) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:39PM (#10715427) Homepage
    now I'm disgusted by our entire country

    Exactly. I watched the election with a circle of people who had faith in the American public going into yesterday and were shocked by the result... truly stunned and flabbergasted.

    And the conversation all night and well into today was quite simple, and its narrative thread over several hours and among people of various ages, genders, and backgrounds can be reduced to this: "How can we live here any more? It's now clear that we hate the majority and that they hate us. We're outnumbered by lunatics, warmongers, and crusaders. We hate America and we want to leave. And once we're away and living somewhere else, we're beginning to think we'll hope it falls or dissolves or is attacked by the rest of the world en masse."

    Maps were actually brought out and discussions of what other English-speaking countries would take them went on for hours. The people I was staying with honestly seemed to feel threatened in their personal and familial safety by what is they now see to be a clear ultra-conservative American majority.

    This is not in some political meeting or radical college club, mind you. It was in an average, suburban house in small-town California. There is a split in America, and it will destroy the nation before it is healed.
  • Re:Hug this (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheDauthi (219285) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:42PM (#10715471)
    Good luck down here. If he appears to be a good Christian, Mississippians will vote for him. Hell, if he had horns and ate small children, he'd have Mississippi votes if he was against gay marriage and pretended to be a Christian.
  • I live in Toledo, Ohio. Let me tell you about it:

    ...

    Well, you can see what I think about that. Less amusingly, I can say with all honesty that all decent folk should stay away from Midwestern places like Toledo. A very real, cultural undercurrent of absolutely insane patriotic-religious fundamentalism is rising here, much like what has happened in the Middle East for the last 50 years in all their poverty (and for the same reasons). Those who speak sense in the Midwest today are under a rising threat of a lynching. There's no hope for it. Just stay the fuck out, as I work to save money and get the fuck out myself.
  • by morzel (62033) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:47PM (#10715548)
    I'm European, and (as most of us over here) simply can't wrap my head round this... why you guys let this happen...

    Up until yesterday, you got the benefit of the doubt: you surely couldn't predict what a newly-chosen president was going to do, especially with the 9/11 aftermath... When the day comes to hold him accountable for his actions, you don't...

    I'm really wondering if the average US citizen is really convinced that George W. Bush did a good job and is the best choice to represent them for another four years.

    Just mindboggling...

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

    by drew (2081) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:50PM (#10715605) Homepage
    After the last 4 years I imagine flaunting American, and especially bragging about, in most of the world is going to invite nothing but negativity and grief.

    This is indeed the case. My wife went to school in France for a while, and was over there when 9/11 happened. Although there was a very brief time just after the attacks when people there were nice to Americans, for the most part they found out that they were treated much better if they hung around Canadian students or tour groups. (This was easy to do as many Canadians wore jackets or backpacks with large Canadian flags on them to avoid being mistaken for Americans.)

    However, it does seem to depend quite a bit on where you go. Big cities and places that attract a lot of American tourists are worse. My wife and I went to Corsica for our honeymoon last year, and everyone there was extremely nice to us. But Corsica's economy is mostly based on tourism (French tourism at that) and we only saw one other American while we were there. (on the ferry back to the mainland) To them we were more of a novelty than anything else. (a lot of people wanted to talk about the Bears when they found out we were from Chicago. Apparently learning about American sports teams is something of a hobby over there)
  • by Omniscientist (806841) <matt.badecho@com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:50PM (#10715606) Homepage
    I actually completely agree with you, and that is what I have been predicting also. Of course anything is up for grabs, but its pretty hard to ignore these facts:

    That Bush has the support of the majority of the country is an undeniable fact, therefore he knows he has their trust and confidence.

    Republicans now control both the House and Senate. With a Republican President coupled with these, they will have absolute authority, we are a one party system for now.

    Because Bush has the undeniable trust of the majority of people, and the ability to really pass whatever legislation he wants, he will in my opinion do things that will overshadow anything negative he has done in the past.

    However to be fair if he actually creates something good, well then we all know who was right.

    But I think this is the start of the downfall of the unipolarity system in this world. I believe unipolarity can be maintained if that country is being responsible, however when you start expanding and creating an empire in the middle east (2 countries now officially), the collective security of the weaker states can overturn the US.

    We have the global North and the global South. The global North are countries like US, countries in Europe, and basically most countries above the hemisphere (Australia is a notable exception, they are included in the Global north), the global south consists of the very poor countries south of the hemisphere. We have countries from both the Global North AND Global South hating us. This is not good, and I think Bush will only further aggravate this problem.

  • It worked in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pentagram (40862) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:52PM (#10715645) Homepage
    This is a good point, and there is something of a historical parallel. In 1992, after years of Conservative rule, the Tory party managed to win the UK general election despite being behind in the polls (even the exit polls) and generally being less popular than herpes.

    Five years of corruption and incompetence later, the Labour party (with a new charismatic leader) won a record-breaking landslide and the Tories look to be finished as a political force.

    Try to learn from our mistakes however by not selecting a right winger as the Democrat nominee.
  • Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bun (34387) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:59PM (#10715757)
    The American people voted for a president that presided over an economy that produced a record current account deficit [msn.com], a record trade deficit [cbsnews.com], a record budget deficit [designerz.com] and a national debt [treas.gov] of such proportions that the IMF says they threaten the world economy [nytimes.com].

    Who ever said all that Americans ever care about is money?
  • Your comment brings up something that has bugged me a lot. Here in Norway, I have felt that our current government has pretty much acted as Bush's lapdog. Protests were so severe that Norway did not officially support the invasion, but once it was done, troops were sent in. It has also recently surfaced that Norwegian weapons were on loan to American troops during the invasion itself, clearly against the will of 80 % of the Norwegian population.

    The response is that Norway security is strongly dependent on America, and one doesn't just tell a friend no when they ask for help, why should they help you when you need it? Well, fair enough.

    But Bush is not my friend. My friends are all those Americans I meet daily on IRC and mailing lists. My friends are all those Americans who I can have a reasoned with, regardless of their political stance. Nowadays, the world is small, America is not some place far away, it is a place where I know real people. Also, I know that not only did at least 48% vote against Bush, there were also a lot of "none of the above" folks who didn't vote because their vote would not count anyway. My friendship therefore extends to the vast majority of the American population.

    Somehow, the Norwegian administration thinks it is wrong to tell a friend "buddy, in this case you're wrong". Everyone is wrong now and then, and everyone needs critical corrective, I consider that an important part of friendship.

    Besides, as it happens, I think that Bush has robbed my friends of their freedom. There is no larger failure of character than to let down a friend who is being robbed of freedom, and so, I feel that the robber, Bush, is not worthy of my support, not worthy of our support, as a nation. Therefore, I feel that the "we need to support America to get the security in return" argument is invalid, as long as Bush is robbing my friends of freedoms, he does not provide neither me nor my friends with security, on the contrary. My security, in fact, our security as humans, depends on that everyone supports each others freedom. Only when my friends are free, they can provide me with security.

    Sorry for the long and possibly incoherent rambling. The result of the election hit me like a hammer, and there hasn't been a lot of focus on the things I have to accomplish today. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

    And oh...: Group Hug!

  • by jayemdaet (111145) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:39PM (#10716270)
    The most disappointing thing though with respect to critical thinking, and the part I must addmitt I don't fully understand, is the irrationality and shortsightedness of US voters. According to the CNN exit polls (off by 2-3%) the most important issue for voters where Moral values 22% and Economy/Jobs 20%. If I understand US politics right that "Moral values" here means issues like Abortion, Gay marriage, christianity/religiousness, "family values" and and qualities like steadfastness and itegrity as well as "trustworthiness".


    I think this is an interesting point. I think people actually want to be able to trust their President and his integrity and they look to a man like that. Because once that is in place, you can trust he will make the right decisions in the economy and trust in his integrity to defend the nation. Personally, I would rather have a God-fearing man in office than one who isn't.

    I have seen this for a long time that USA is turning more right than the rest of the world.


    I would say the US has always been more right than the rest of the world. But more recently, we have been seeing a movement leftwards. Take for instance what life was like 40 years ago as compared to now in the US.

    One note to Slashdot, I am sure this won't be scored high cause of this note, but can Slashdot not be so left-winged. I mean every Score:5 is something against the President or the election. I would appreciate some balance. But then, maybe I am asking too much.
  • Re:How Can This Be? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:45PM (#10716349)
    Because Kerry wasn't a good choice. Period. Democrats didn't choose a viable option. In addition, most other countries suffer from the same misinformation from their media as we do. If your not satisfied with the way things are, find yourself a candidate/party (preferably not the main two) that you most agree with and try to help us get more/better options.

    Oh, and marriage is a privilege, not a right.
  • A winner is Bush! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:50PM (#10716415)
    Ah well, gotta love seeing all the wouldbe intellectuals spewing venom because they think they know what's best for their country.

    Time to grow up, folks. The mass media lied to us blatantly and consistently, and we grew tired of it.

  • by Luscious868 (679143) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:36PM (#10716958)
    What about diplomatic power, which is the way things really get done in the modern world

    You're joking right? Diplomatic power is the way to really get things done? Yeah, diplomatic power worked very well when America wanted its independence. Diplomacy did a bang up job of preventing World War I and World War II. Diplomacy worked wonders at getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. In fact, as we speak, diplomacy is working beautifully in Darfur, Sudan.

    If America would have used diplomacy alone to obtain it's independence from Great Britian, we probably would have gotten it, but not until the 1950's . If the Allies would have used diplomacy during World War I, there wouldn't have been a World War II because the continent of Europe would have become the German Empire. If the Allies had used diplomacy during World War II, not only would Eurpoe be completely conquered but there wouldn't be any Jew's left in the continent. If we would have used diplomacy and diplomacy alone to get Saddam out of Kuwait, he never would have left. Now let's turn to Darfur, Sudan. We have been using diplomacy and diplomacy alone to try to bring about the end to the genocide there. Thousands continue to die. At this rate, if we are ever able to reach a successful diplomatic solution, there probably won't be anyone left in the region to "save".

    Diplomacy is a joke unless you are prepared to back it up with action and actually have the economic and/or military might to see that action through. History has taught us this important lesson time and time again.

  • by Luyseyal (3154) <swaters&luy,info> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:45PM (#10717086) Homepage
    The spending bills were not partisan.

    Yes, they were, as always. However, the nitty gritty gets done in committee, as usual, making the final vote seemingly nonpartisan because in the end everyone gets a non-objectionable-enough piece of the pork.

    I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.

    As long as we all understand that this will not reduce the tax burden by one penny, but merely makes more profitable investments possible at higher risk.

    I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.

    Much, probably most of that bureaucracy is dedicated to helping the rich get richer, but on a level playing field and ensuring they supply certain minimums to the workers who helped them get rich. As history has shown time and time again, the aristocracy must be forced at gunpoint to invest in even the most basic needs of their employees.

    Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.

    Your plan is age-old familial aristocracy which foments inefficiency, ignorance, abuse, and concentration of power among elites. Aristocracy is the opposite of equality and the enemy of everyone else's freedom. As you know, you have to spend money to make money, as the old adage goes. Well, to spend it, you've got to have it and not everyone has access to it, especially when concentrated in the hands of the few.

    So to grease the market for everyone, the rich pay taxes to educate and keep healthy their future workers which not only levels the playing field, it provides for a smarter, more efficient workforce and inspires future business opportunities. Simpleton Libertarianism assumes that government is a giant vacuum that makes money disappear, though in reality, government is simply another wing of the market, albeit with its own specialized requirements and guns to enforce the rules.

    In summary, social goals pursued through government are not by definition anti-business, inefficient, or shacklesome to liberty, but must be approached and experimented with on an individual basis to witness their effects. Eliminating inheritance is simply a means to the end of promoting business and common liberty at the expense of the "misfreedom" of funding aristocracy.

    -l

  • by rreyelts (470154) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:54PM (#10717203) Homepage
    a Christian theocracy

    I keep hearing this sentiment expressed on Slashdot, yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else. Our forefathers fled Britain because of religious persecution, and our constitution grants freedom of religion.

    In this day and age, students in public schools are forced to read from the Quran and pray Muslim prayers, but are not allowed to read from the Bible. It strikes me strange that people can use the term "Christian theocracy" with any sort of straight face.

  • very nice rant... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zogger (617870) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @07:00PM (#10717273) Homepage Journal
    ...really. I don't swear much or often, but that was quite nice. I'll add to it, it's not just the 51%, it's the other 48% who wasted their vote as well-clearly now, they wasted it, and voted to try and compromise "this time" so they can "work to make it better" the next 4 years. I've seen it election after election after election, over and over and over again. Keep voting for the two headed demon, that's who gets in.

    There's only a small few percent of us out here, whether we call ourselves greens, libertarians, progressives, constitutionalists, reformers, independents, who make an effort to REALLY have some change, to vote for ANYTHING but an R&D dictatorship, the same dictatorship and cooperative criminal junta which has RULED over the US for generations now. We are of both the left and the right, but one thing we agree on,and a place we can get together on and start to work more effectively from, is the point that that gangster R&D nonsense is EVIL AND STUPID AND A BIG FAT WASTE OF TIME.

    Oh, BTW, don't go "to the wall" easily. Even if it gets down to just anyone "you" alone, fight the creeping fascism, I know I plan on it.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @07:20PM (#10717507)
    I'm sure nobody will read this, but I moved from the US to Australia back in 1998. I had the opportunity and went for it. America just didn't "fit" - politically, philosophically, etc. I remember back in high school I'd never stand for the pledge (which seems like a crazy thing to make kids do, now that I think about it) and a lot of people would say "if you don't like it leave the country." And so I did. Australia is a nice place. People aren't as... arrogant here. The gun situation is much better - I feel safe walking around late at night. Food and rent are cheap. Work is easy. Other than a conservative government that licks America's boots, I can't complain. And now that I'm becoming a citizen, I can do something about it (for the record, I'm not having to give up my US citizenship - but that's something I've been considering for a while). Would I ever consider moving back? No way, not after I've looked at the US through the eyes of the rest of the world. There's so much people in the US don't know (and probably wouldn't believe anyway). I miss my old friends, but the Internet has kept us together and I'm sure I'll visit from time to time. Would I recommend moving away to others? Sure, if that's what you want to do. Just be ready for some culture-shock when you do it - even if you're moving to another "western" country. And know that while the grass may always seem greener, no country is perfect...
  • by dcmeserve (615081) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @07:23PM (#10717553) Homepage Journal
    I put it squarely on the shoulders of the Democratic party that they lost. All that talk, all that supposed Rock the Vote and similar campaigns, ad campaigns, moveon.org...

    Actually, the Democratic party really did get out the vote. The specific example I heard was in Ohio -- all the Democratic Party operatives met their targets in achieving voter turnout.

    It's just that the Republicans did even better. Handing out leaflets in churches is apparently very effective. So is lying.

    You picked a candidate without a backbone...

    Kerry's biggest problem wasn't a lack of backbone -- remember this is the guy who voluntarily went into hot combat zones in Vietnam -- it was a lack of ability in generating sound bites, and a lack of ability in telling the really good lies. He was also missing an evil campaign-genius on the scale of Karl Rove.

    But more fundamentally, I think the Democratic Party lost the Idiot Vote when it started to engage in more-responsible fiscal policy. The people who reflexively voted Democratic suddenly didn't see a big difference between the two parties in economic matters, so they fell back to Religion as a disambiguator.

  • Re:Moved abroad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:09PM (#10718019)
    Sounds great. I wonder why Linus left.

    Personally, being in position similar to Linus (live in US, born in Finland), there are 2 parts to the answer:

    • In some ways, US is still the land of the opportunity; more high tech jobs, big succesful corporations.
    • Most adventure-minded individuals like the change, to move to and live in another country. It broadens one's horizons; and there need not be anything to so much drive you out of the country than to have something to lure you in another country.

    So, I don't think Linus necessarily fled Finland, it probably just was one more interesting thing to do. Seems to be working ok for him doesn't it?

    I bet, however, that he feels bit alien with "liberal" views... not only are finns in general pretty much left from democrats (moderate conservatives in Finland are similar to moderate democrats), but swedish-speaking part is even more progressive in social issues. It must be hard to understand creationists and anti-abortion folks.

    That is the biggest problem for me: I like people here (even in mid-West); they are open, polite, generally positive... but then there is this medieval theocracy creeping in... what with all gay-marriage zealotry and such. People getting really agitated by things that to me look like normal progress in society (equal rights for minorities; more social security support for poorest, etc. etc.).

  • by ardmhacha (192482) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:11PM (#10718055)
    I created a table mapping the 2004 state by state ACT composite scores with presidential voting. (The ACT is a test used for high school students as part of the college admission process in the US). The states are listed from highest ACT scores to the lowest. I think it makes interesting reading.

    Vote. State........ ACT Score
    Kerry Vermont........... 22.7
    Kerry Maine............. 22.6
    Kerry Connecticut....... 22.5
    Kerry New Hampshire..... 22.5
    Kerry Oregon............ 22.5
    Kerry Washington........ 22.5
    Kerry Massachusetts..... 22.4
    Kerry New York.......... 22.3
    Kerry Minnesota......... 22.2
    Kerry Wisconsin......... 22.2
    Bush. Iowa.............. 22.0
    Kerry Rhode Island...... 21.9
    Kerry Pennsylvania...... 21.8
    Kerry Hawaii............ 21.7
    Bush. Montana........... 21.7
    Bush. Nebraska.......... 21.7
    Kerry California........ 21.6
    Bush. Indiana........... 21.6
    Bush. Kansas............ 21.6
    Bush. Arizona........... 21.5
    Kerry Delaware.......... 21.5
    Bush. Missouri.......... 21.5
    Bush. South Dakota...... 21.5
    Bush. Utah.............. 21.5
    Kerry Michigan.......... 21.4
    Bush. Ohio.............. 21.4
    Bush. Wyoming........... 21.4
    Bush. Alaska............ 21.3
    Bush. Idaho............. 21.3
    Bush. Nevada............ 21.2
    Kerry New Jersey........ 21.2
    Bush. North Dakota...... 21.2
    Bush. Virginia.......... 20.9
    Kerry Maryland.......... 20.8
    Bush. Oklahoma.......... 20.6
    Bush. Florida........... 20.5
    Bush. Tennessee......... 20.5
    Bush. West Virginia..... 20.5
    Bush. Arkansas.......... 20.4
    Bush. Colorado.......... 20.3
    Kerry Illinois.......... 20.3
    Bush. Kentucky.......... 20.3
    Bush. North Carolina.... 20.3
    Bush. Alabama........... 20.2
    Bush. Texas............. 20.2
    Bush. New Mexico........ 20.1
    Bush. Georgia........... 20.0
    Bush. Louisiana......... 19.8
    Bush. South Carolina.... 19.3
    Bush. Mississippi....... 18.8


    As you can see the top 10 states as ranked by ACT composite score all voted for Kerry and of the bottom 10 states 9 voted for Bush. I don't know what to make of this but I need to keep typing to get around the lameness filter. So this line goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
  • by Cernst77 (816740) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:35PM (#10718286)
    you know what? I used to be a christian, now I am not one, I know all about the damn bible and I don't like what it says and I refuse to live by it, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your god.
  • by eco2geek (582896) <eco2geekNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:47PM (#10718401) Journal
    Many ignorant people in the OECD have criticized the United States for having such a huge military budget while having no social programs. Well guess what? That is another sacrifice that America has made for the past sixty years for Europe. We had to invest all of that money in to our military after WWII in order to deter Stalin because Europe was too poor to defend itself.

    As "mzeig" put it so well above, in post #10716763:

    I voted Bush, and did so for primarily moral reasons, but didn't give a thought to any of the examples you listed. Rather, I (and others) consider the current "progressive" tax code to be innately immoral ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

    IMHO, there is very little welfare in the US as it is, especially compared with the enormous amount the US spends on the military. And IMHO, even if the US didn't spend that much on the military, people would still think it "immoral" to have the same kind of "socialist" welfare programs common in Europe.

    You see, here in America we don't give handouts, we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and we believe wholeheartedly in stories by Horatio Alger [wikipedia.org]. It's social Darwinism in action. Anything else is seen as immoral.

    The idea that we're "sacrificing" for the sake of Europe is curious, but disingenuous.

  • by scoobaspeaz (828075) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:51PM (#10718433)
    I suppose that we should have waited for the U.N. members to finally ok the liberation of iraq. I mean after all we didnt really give the inspectors enough time to do their job. Saddam was really working hard to remove any stumbling blocks so the inspectors could look wherever they wanted at any time for weapons of mass destruction. I mean after all we ONLY gave saddam 12 years to allow the UN to compleate their goal. Plus i mean i guess its ok that saddam was paying the families of hamas who lost members in sucide raids in isreal. Sure that must be ok.

    As far as us Americans careing about moral issues what were we thinking? We have no right to care about moral issues! We should be going with what the rest of the world does and feel how they feel. After all we are here to serve you. Next time im sure we will consider your feelings on morals before we vote about them. /end sarcasim

    As far as war goes who are you europeians to point fingers at us? England, France, and Spain were enemies for centuries. After all france took a great intrest in our independance war soley because we were rebelling against England.

    Germany started what 2 world wars?

    France was the first to get involved in vietnam. France also, as i mentioned above, have had strong naval wars of conquest against England and Spain. France who are you to condem our views on capital punishment? After all you had something far worse in terms of human tourture have with the French Guiana that you formally dropped after WWII and left them there to die. At least we make the death penalty quick and swift for our convicted murderers.

    Russia...U.S.S.R. and their world B.S. for centuries that countries around the world asked the U.S. for assitance when it came to deterring the Soviets from invading their land. Plus isnt russia currently invovled in a bloody civil war themselves right now with Chechnya? Not to mention Putin is now enacting so many new censorship laws that their own democracy is going back to the old Soviet days in a hurry. Why isnt there a world outcry for the Chechnyians and the civil liberty violations in Russia right now? Also the U.S. has pumped a lot of money into many economies around the world including the post Soviet fall in Russia.

    The United States entered both WWI and WWII to fight along side the remaining allies to liberate france and surrounding countries and to drive Germany back to berlin and Japan back to tokyo. We have helped in times of crisis around the world when asked. We have defended Post WWII western Germany from the invasion of Russia for 4 decades. We protected South Korea from a North Korean invasion since the 50's. We (the South Koreans and Americans)are currently still in a state of war with North Korea.

    After all this do i ask for the world to kiss our asses? No i do not! I dont expect anything out of anyone but the common courtesy of letting us vote for who we want for whatever reason without belittling us for doing so. We could care less who you all vote into office. We only care who you vote for when you are being forced to vote for that one person. When your civil liberties are violated and you are unable to vote or make your own choices to run your lives.

    Iraq will soon be able to vote for who they want into power. We may not like who they vote in ,but at least now since the United States and other countries liberated that country, you can now vote.

    In the United States we are all made up from immigants that came from countries around the world. I myself have a strong German history in my family and i feel very closely to Germany for that reason. I am compelled to learn as much as i can about that country and one day hope to visit.

    The point of all this is the United States is asked to help in the world and most of the time we do so. Obviously we cannot answer the call all the time. We in the U.S. are brothers to the rest of the world from our immigrated ancestors from the past.
  • Re:Hug this (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lucifer_666 (662754) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @09:15PM (#10718646)
    Please come to Australia.

    We welcome you with open arms.

    Sure, we're a western country, and we did send a few of our best troops overseas, but you can live here without the constant propaganda on the news, no-one will have a go at you for expressing your beliefs, you can say what you like about America, your kids will get a great education, even without health insurance our doctors will see you for free, medicine costs about US$2, our roads are great, lots of things to see, great and varying culture, nice people who will help you out in a bind, no guns on the street, no need to fear when walking the streets at night, big cars, mate the chicks in Australia are second to none, we also have Australia Zoo (Steve Irwin) which may be of interest.

    Plus, you can say you're living on the worlds largest island.

    I really feel sorry for any American with similar politcal beliefs as I, only slightly, slightly left wing.

  • by ylikone (589264) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @10:14PM (#10719086) Homepage
    "As Christians, we are praying that God grant President Bush four more years because of his support for the sanctity of human life, his strong commitment to the protection of traditional marriage and his stance on religious freedom and liberty in the public square," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.
  • by guildfordnz (814141) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @10:48PM (#10719297) Homepage
    "We hate America and we want to leave."

    I think America is going the way of Iran or the Saudis.

    I am an EX-American, but was born a 4th generation northern Californian (Ohio before that, Virginia before that), and can highly recommend New Zealand if you only wish to speak English. I left in '85 during the "Evil Empire" days, and had a good look around before settling down here. Obvious trade-offs. I've been avoiding the US lately, but it is quick enough to visit if you want to. The Net means you can still be in touch as well, even work for US clients.

    It was clear when I left that America had some big problems that no-one was interested in talking about let alone dealing with - runaway WMD, social security deficit, victimless crimes and the American class war. My simple answer was to vote with my feet, but I still have a soft spot for the Constitution, the Founders and much of the history (see Zinn) and end up defending Americans generally around the world. It really hurts to see what it has become - essentially a loose cannon and theoplutocracy.

    I, too, am REALLY disappointed in this election - until now I was clinging to the "most Americans are really not so dumb and pretty decent" and "democracy works" memes. I could understand the citizenry getting fooled and railroaded a few times. Now I must consider the possibility that they actually want to enjoy the benefits of throwing their weight around, and then also have the luxury of protesting their innocence and good intentions (or a "higher purpose"). But in a democracy I don't believe that you have that privilege.

    It also seems to me that at the end of the day Kerry was a quitter. He had a blank platform to beat GWB, yet he was willing to walk away stranding hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Ohio (perhaps millions nationwide) who been cleverly forced to vote provisionally by being illegally black-listed, profiled and challenged. That single act makes me seriously question whether he was ever really serious or just a Skull & Bones stooge to keep Dean and Kucinich at bay.

    Talk about demoralising voters! Imagine having waited for hours in the rain and then only being able to vote provisionally - or struggling for weeks to get an overseas ballot - and then have Kerry walk away without even demanding that your vote be counted! I guess I'm sore because I still secretly hope that there WERE more decent and non-gullible people there who saw the damage that Bush was doing both inside and out.

    Anyway, as I once told a US friend who regarded "overseas" as a Mars expedition - the food works; the air works; weather is the same.

    All the best.
  • Re:That's pretty sad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deagol (323173) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @10:53PM (#10719330) Homepage
    Regardless of your political beliefs, it is pretty sick that you are so petty that you think we deserve to get attacked because Kerry didn't win.

    Not because Kerry didn't win, but because Bush did. There's a big difference there.

    Hell, I'd take another Rupublican. ANYBODY but Bush.

    And there's nothing sick and petty acknowledging when you've messed up and deserve to reap what you sow. Putting Bush in for another 4 years seems like a pretty bad thing to do for the rest of the world, never mind us at home.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:35PM (#10719709)
    I must start by saying I love GW, now, hear me out, he is in fact brilliant. That's right, Bush, is a very good politician, I don't know about leader, but he's a great politician. Any man that can convince a poor working class guy in the south to give even more money to some rich guy is a brilliant politician as far as I'm concerned.

    I've realized why the rural working class of the south and mid-plains (west) are the poorest Americans in the nation, it all came to me right after I realized that some yokal in west b'mble hills dumb state is more concerned with whether some gay man wants to but slam some another gay man, and he can go out and shoot the two of them with his new automatic AK-47, than whether he can provide a decent living for his family or take them to the doctors when need be and it not cost his family literally their arm and leg.

    The whole lot of 'em are too busy toting a bible they can't read, screaming about the sanctity of life, while they wrap a noose around a tree limb or in more modern days flip on a light switch, as some dude who probably went crazy and stabbed and raped his sister, "after learning to kill some babies with a hand grenade or a tomahawk cruise missle in some war in some foreign country and rationalizing, hey murder ain't so bad", get's ready to fry.

    When a man can make moral hyprocacy seem divine mandate, the rich getting richer benefitting the masses, and deny any fringe benefits like health care and proper education to the have nots seem as the way things should be, I can not help but applaud his brilliance. Subidize the rich but don't subidize yourselves? Any man that can make that point get over, we would have to say in conclusion is a great politician.
  • by lavar78 (573962) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @11:54PM (#10719816)
    The very first thing the Democrats need to do is find a way to win at least one Southern state. Seriously, it's always going to be hard to win if you're conceding the entire South. If we can't find a charismatic Southerner in the next couple of years, it's going to be rough again. I've heard rumblings about the governor of my state (Mark Warner), but that's not encouraging when I sincerely doubt he (or any Democrat) could carry Virginia. I agree with you, though -- particularly about family values. I'm mystified how a belief in "morality" became synonymous with Bush.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:03AM (#10719873)
    Facts:

    1) Proportionally the poorest members of American society are in rural portions of southern states and rural areas in general.

    2) Consistenly lowest scoreing states on standardized test are southern states.

    So, yeah, I would say the education and wealth in the south is lacking, or disproportioned to an extreme small minority in those southern states who steer the lambs to slaughter. And I clearly understand why now.

    Furthermore, what the f'k does the number of seats you won have to do with your intelligence. YOu only further prove my point. That would prove your consistent, not intelligent, consistently dumb.

    I'm not a democrat, but I'll explain why they are losing, they have yet to realize that rational doesn't exist in the red states. Once they realize that gods, guns, and gays supercede education, health, and wealth than the dems can tailor a message to your stupidity. ATleast, you'll be sick, poor, and only confined to f'king barn animals but have your AK-47 to shoot them when the barn animals decide to press charges.
  • Manhattan vote (Score:2, Interesting)

    by qtothemax (766603) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:05AM (#10719884)
    Manhattan results: 82% Kerry, 17% Bush I know its historically a very liberal area, but you'd think the terrorism threat is a lot more important there than anywhere else, and it was still a democrat landslide. Not that it matters now... all those people on farms in Nebraska were too worried about terrorism.
  • Elitist crap (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slashing1 (818431) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:11AM (#10721448)
    I despise much of Bush's policies, but seeing supposedly "progressive" elitist crap like this makes me sick. We talk about the horrors of voter disenfranchisement, but then trash voters whose IQ might be below 90? Surveys show that the Democratic party, on average, is significantly better educated than the Republican party-- I fear it might be simply the Democrats driving away the "inferior" people with their intellectual disdain.

    News flash. Constitution says: one person, one vote. Your vote isn't more important just 'cuz you were fortunate enough to attend college.

  • by kelnos (564113) <bjt23@corne l l . e du> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @06:16PM (#10728983) Homepage
    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.
    No. That's not how you fix problems like this. That's a band-aid. You fix the root of the problem, you don't patch the symptom.
    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.
    If there's a state of emergency in New York, likely they'll just postpone the election in that state until after the emergency subsides. And besides, why design a complex system that has many present-day flaws just to account for the _possibility_ for a disastrous event?

    A specific point on regional voter apathy: if people are too lazy to vote, they don't get a say. Period. There's no reason whatsoever to balance for voter apathy.
    # 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.
    No again. There's a reason why they're ineligible to vote: either they are deemed unable to make an informed decision, or they are legally not allowed representation. If a large portion of a state consiss of people that are not allowed a say, then there's no reason why the state itself should get more of a say. At any rate, I believe the allocation of electors in the electoral college is based on official census data, which does not include illegal immigrants.


    I have no argument with your final point, about the electoral college providing a "definite outcome", except to say that disagreement with the way a particular state's elector's vote is still an important problem that makes a "definite outcome" somewhat pointless.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...