Kerry Concedes Election To Bush

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."

Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

And let us move back to our normal bickering of Linux vs. BSD.

Sad sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad sad day for 50% of America.

let me be the first to say....

[Ishkibble]

what a shame, kerry would of lead the country in a better direction. it is truly a shame we have to wait another 4 years for some improvement to happen to this country

Well,

[brilinux]

So we saw this coming, I suppose, and while most of us do not like it, it is finished. This is a testament both to Kerry's character as well as America's democratic process. I wish the candidates the best of luck now that it is over, and I hope that America does not go to hell.

Good move

[jimmyCarter]

The last thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. Kerry did the honorable thing considering his slim-none chances of pulling Ohio out.

Life will go on. It's a sad day for sure, but life will go on. We are all Americans, first and foremost.

Congratulations

[Brown Eggs]

While I am no Bush supporter, I want to congratulate him on his victory. And I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election.

TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall.

Re:Sad sad day

[JavaLord]

More like 48%. Lets count the numbers correctly.

If you consider non-voters as not caring either way, then it's probably a sad day for 28% of the country.

Thank you Mr. Kerry

[kuwan]

It's being widely reported by the AP, CNN, Fox News, CSPAN, ABC News, CBS News and others that John Kerry has already called Pres. Bush to concede defeat. Apparently he'll speak to the nation at 1:00 PM EST.

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

And congratulations to Pres. Bush.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Congratulations

[Aggrajag]

I just hope for all of the American people that Dubya doesn't do anything that will make rest of the world hate you even more.

This is a sad day.

In Spite of.

[Anonymous Coward]

So despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, CBS, the NY Times, China, Osama Bin Laden, and Slashdot to swing the election the Kerry, it didn't work.

Congratulations.

Re:The horror...

[r1ckt3r]

In the South and Midwest, I'm surrounded by them.

Still not sure how I feel about this

[raider_red]

I'm glad not to be stuck with seeing Kerry on the news for four years, but I'd have liked to have at least one house in Congress controlled by the opposition. That way, we might be able to get a better check on spending for the next term.

TO: the world FROM: the USA RE: election

[spookymonster]

From the bottom of our collective hearts:

We're sorry.

I'm sure future historians will mark this day as the offical turning point of the fall and decline of the American empire. We had a good run; good luck to the next guy.

Glad to see no protracted fight

[CrimsonAvenger]

There will be bitching and moaning enough, without the prospect of another election decided in the Courts. It's good for the country that the election didn't get into the hands of either the Democrat or Republican lawyers.

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[btlzu2]

Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

It's not true, but if you believe it you must leave. Good bye and good riddance. I'm SO SICK of hearing people threatening to leave whether jokingly or not. It's damn immature and pig-headed.

Re:one nation under god

[the_2nd_coming]

wal-mart nation? surly you mean Born-again nation.

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

so, now that Bush thinks God wants him to be president and he things God is telling him how to govern, we are in deep shit during his Legacy term.

took the high road

[Ubergrendle]

Looks like Kerry took the high road and decided to avoid a long drawn out affair. New Mexico and Iowa don't mean anything at this point, with Ohio representing the presidency.

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

Ohio still has the responsibility of counting those ballots, though.

Re:Well,

[kfergos]

I absolutely agree. I'm glad that Kerry had the strength and honor to concede - whether or not that seems fair or not - rather than drag this out like Gore did in 2000. Now our best hope is to pray that GWB leaves some environment for us to clean up and doesn't alienate the entire world in the next 4 years.

Now maybe

[BJZQ8]

Now maybe Bush can get around to doing some of the things that he thought might not get him re-elected during the first term...lets see. Iran, North Korea, ummm...who else? Also...anybody else see what oil prices are doing? [bloomberg.com]

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

The country deserves further division. We just put a stamp on the last four years, and I personally want to distance myself from it. The more division the more it appears that America is rational despite this outcome.

I for one...

[IronChefMorimoto]

...want to welcome our new Republican legislative and executive overlords. I look forward to mandatory Sunday School for at least the next 2 years. My parents (Baptists) will be proud.

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

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

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

My 2 cents.

IronChefMorimoto

Tragic stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

I just can not fathom how many people in the States are willing to believe the lies. This is a tragic moment in history, dooming America to four years of decent into a new dark age. It will take a generation or more to repair the damage.

a victory for America

[Dr Kool, PhD]

I think the voters made the right decision yesterday. It was a record turnout, more Americans went to the polls in this election than any election before, and they chose George W. Bush to lead them as their next president.

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

Anyway, I'm going to party like it's 1776, because a victory for Bush is a victory for America.

Re:Good move

[sakusha]

The one thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. The GOP dirty tricks can't be exposed any other way. But it's too late now. Bush is intent on establishing a one-party system, Rove has explicitly said his goal is the complete destruction of the Democratic Party.

Bin Laden says he intends to bankrupt the USA, just like he bankrupted the USSR with their protracted misadventure in Afghanistan. He's succeeding again. We can't afford 4 more years of Bush, but that's what we've got. And Bush is just stupid enough to fall into every trap Bin Laden sets. America is dead.

Only Good thing for the Dem's

[evilned]

Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC.

Re:one nation under god

[jayhawk88]

Yeah, because Big Business was really on the run during the Clinton years.

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

Re:Finally!

[Reducer2001]

No more privacy! A constant state of fear! More for the haves! Fuck the have-nots! Go to jail for having an abortion! Health care? Don't get sick!

Here we go......

[acoustix]

...with all of the conspiracy theories, about how the country will self-destruct, the world as we know it will end...

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

Independant voting not spoilers

[SuperKendall]

One note from looking at the results is that it seems like in vrey few (if any) races were independant votes any kind of factor. I fear that third party candidate vote totals were lower than ever.

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

Re:Here Lies...

[mc6809e]

Liberty and Freedom
1776-2004

Nah. 1776-1932

Re:Sad sad day

[nanoakron]

Actually, It's a sad, sad day for 100% of Americans.

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

-Nano.

Re:"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the stores around you look anything like the stores around me, you can start buying your candy canes and other holiday crap and start decorating.

Key items to note:

[FLOOBYDUST]

Despite the alleged "split" in the country.... 1) There were no riots in the street. 2) All candidates who started the election process are still alive today. 3) No cities are on fire and there is no looting 4) We all witnessed a historical election which will set the tone for the next generation and we all traveled to work as if it was a normal day. This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American

Re:Sad sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a sad day for alot more of America than that..its just that the "moral majority" is too stupid to realize it.

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

So what's wrong with Fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to know when the process became about picking the president the fastest, as opposed to hearing the "voice" of the people? Whatever that voice may be saying.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[GodsMadClown]

Amen. Brilliant venting. Wish I had points to join in the inevitable mod-fray.

Re:Still not sure how I feel about this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad not to be stuck with seeing Kerry on the news for four years, but I'd have liked to have at least one house in Congress controlled by the opposition. That way, we might be able to get a better check on spending for the next term.

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

Ah well, it's not the end of the world. At least, I... wait, what's that light in the sky?

Re:It's official, America is a nation of idiots.

[the_2nd_coming]

it is official, OHIO is a states of idiots. they were hit the hardest of any state with unemployment and many other problems and they ended up voting for bush because he is a "Moral" man...

oh that and the Democratic precincts had 1 voting machine per polling place.... yeah, that will help keep the Kerry supporters from being heard.

Re:I need directions . . .

[archen]

In capitalist America, civil war signs up you.

"Immature"

[kmmatthews]

Haha, I love it when you tell someone else they're immature AND pig-headed in the same sentence...

Re:Oh Canada!

[DogDude]

It's damn immature and pig-headed.

No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.

Let me tell you why

[Reality Master 101]

There will be much ranting and raving and cries of how stupid the American people are, but there are some very simple things at work here.

Bush didn't win, Kerry lost.

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

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's damn immature and pig-headed.

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

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

Re:Well,

[radiumsoup]

while most of us do not like it

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

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

I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush - so I am totally prepared to be moderated flamebait. Whatever.

The devious Gay Marriage measures

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Something that wasn't covered very well on the news was the number of Gay Marriage measures in different states.

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

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

Evangellical Christians only show up when they can vote a fool into power or restrict personal liberties. I left my home town because of those fascists...

Wow.

[Gannoc]

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

Its not even that Bush won.

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

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

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

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

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

Christ.

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

Re:"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"?

[LurkerXXX]

Watch lots of our troops get blown up. Watch more of our civil right disappear. Watch the taxes for the rich go down while the deficit goes up and up. Watch our world popularity drop several more notches.

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

Apologies, Anyone?

[kfergos]

Is there anywhere we can publicly apologize to the rest of the world for our fellow Americans' foolish behavior? I'd sign a mass letter of apology to the world that would have voted Kerry into office with an enormous margin. The clock's ticking: how long until Iran is invaded, the environment completely trashed, our personal liberties destroyed, and our international relations damaged beyond repair?

Re:Glad to see no protracted fight

[Baki]

He would not have, as could be seen 4 years ago.

Re:what have you done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Kerry was really going to make that much of a difference...

(That's sarcasam, people).

Re:Sad sad day

[koi88]

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

Re:two words

[Dante333]

Conservatives voted.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[pavon]

I agree that conceding is a very gentlemanly thing to do, but comming from one of the states who hasn't even finished processing our ballots I am a little annoyed. At this point, the electoral votes in are 254 to 252, with 32 votes out. Even if the exit polls showed that it was likely that Kerry would not win, it is the votes that determine the election not the polls. It wouldn't have divided the country any more to have given those states time to complete their tallies and then concede. But oh well, splitting hairs I guess. I am glad it is over, and here's to hoping the next 4 years will be better than the last.

The rest of the world must think we're idiots

[Junks Jerzey]

Seriously, Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed; it's not my simple-minded view. He does things that no one would tolerate in the person running the company they work for, let alone a powerful country, like completely ignoring all the facts presented to him and making calls based on unfounded instinct.

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

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

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

A sad day indeed.

Re:took the high road

[YrWrstNtmr]

Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle.

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

Re:The horror...

[djocyko]

I hope the rest of the world remembers that nearly half of the voters did not want Bush back in office. This was no affirmation that 'Americans' agree with Bush. This is proof of what strategic campaigning can do, and it is proof that our country is still rabidly divided.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you want to stick around for four more years of this shit only to vote again with no effect.

-an Ohioan who voted Kerry and who is now looking to move north

Re:one nation under god

[jedidiah]

Yeah but the Democrats will at least stay out of your business. Perverse enough as that sounds, it's true.

The Republican party has become the Theocratic party.

We're f*cked

[grendel's mom]

Once again America has elected a nearly illiterate moron. I never thought I would say this, but today, I'm embarrassed to be an America.

Proof Kerry is the better man...

[SnprBoB86]

Kerry clearly did not want America to spend a month re-tallying votes in Ohio. He conceeded for the good of America!

Wanted: real alternative to Republicans

[Ars-Fartsica]

The Democratic party is over. Gonzo. Bye Bye.

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

Re:disappointment

[Bull999999]

I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters [cbsnews.com] which proven record of voting and won.

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

Re:Well,

[cje]

um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all. .. I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush ..

I suspect that's what he meant by "us" .. Slashdot readers, not Americans in general.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[aacool]

The mood with everyone I see - online & offline is Tired out, knackered and conflicted.

The talking heads never stop! Make them stop!!

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

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

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

OK with me

[whitelabrat]

Although I think that Kerry wouldn't have made a bad president, I do think that keeping Bush in office will be more effective in the long run. I'm assuming that his administration has long term plans that need to be pushed through the next for years to be fully effective.

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

God Bless America!

Maybe after 4 more years of Bush...

[LilMikey]

...the country will be ready to stand for the things that made it great. Maybe if the gap between rich and poor keeps expanding, the national deficit balloons even higher, the average wage drops even lower, the trade deficit continues to soar, the air and water go to shit, civil rights are further eroded in the name of 'safety', enough troops die for weapons that don't exist and fake ties to terrorism... maybe then this country will open its eyes and make a change.

Until then, just keep standing on your stump yelling 'Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorim! Patriot! Patriot! Patriot!' and 51% of America will really believe you're a patriot fighting terrorism. This day is sad.

Re:And with Record Turnout!

[the endless]

Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history.

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

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

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[The Grey Clone]

Maybe because it's actually a 51/48 split?

Bush got 3 million more votes than Kerry. He was elected, man.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Agreed, a real alternative badly needed

[Ars-Fartsica]

Both parties to quote Gore Vidal have simply become two branches of the Property Party. Both parties are primarily interested in feeding the special interest groups that they rely on for funding (yes, this goes for Democrats too).

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

two words

[Frequanaut]

electronic voting

Here's a question...

[pogle]

Legally, what are the implications of the concession?

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[btlzu2]

Um, it's a bit different to whine and say you're leaving a country because you didn't get your way compared with pointing out how stupid that is.

WHAT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Union has the strongest economy in the world. I guess you haven't evaluated the Euro lately.

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

And the very reason why the U.S. will ultimately fall just like every great civilization is they will forget the globe is a mighty big place, and they have neither a monopoly on wisdom nor morailty.

Re:Oh Canada!

[hey!]

Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy?

Tell that to the marines.

Re:Sad sad day

[koi88]

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

Hitler was elected in a regular election. So it must have been the right choice, no?
BTW, after his election, he made some kind of "state of emergency-laws" to protect the state against Communists (today, he would call them terrorists). These laws basically took away civil rights and gave the state more power. Does this approach sound familiar?

Liberal Flip-flopping?

[CtAhBeAbNoAy]

WOW - what a difference a day makes. Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America? I understand having passion for your beliefs, but now it is time to join together!!! America is great because of its individuals and its morals.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Izago909]

Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last

I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.

This is the story when bad meets evil

[rattler14]

So that battle between socialism (nationwide health care, expanded government welfare, progressive income taxes) and facism (patriot act, patriot act II?) will be faught again another day. Each side doing what's "best for america", meanwhile eroding our liberties away.

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

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

alright, now flame away. But I had to get that off my chest.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[gamgee5273]

While you could have been a little more subtle about it, I think you are quite right. At this point there is no one to blame but those who voted for Dubya. He is no longer an unknown commodity... people knew what they were voting for going into this...

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:one nation under god

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

and that, my friend, is why I voted Badnarik.

Re:Congratulations!

[Eohl]

Yeah, I'm pretty much saying that fearmongering, warmongering, and war profiteering are not exactly moral. I'm also saying that enforcing your RELIGIOUS morals onto people who may or may not share those tenets of faith is kind of uncool. I'm saying that this world is filled with shades of gray and compassionate, moral people recognize and embrace those with differences, allowing those people to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

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

To me, that's moral.

The votes reported by the precints say Kerry loses

[raehl]

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

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

Democracy doesn't mean the best man wins, it just means the majority is responsible for who they pick.

Re:Oh Canada!

[blueskies]

I'm lacking the conviction to send my friends over there to die for a lie. Do you also know the number of civilians that died in Iraq because we thought it in their best interest to free them (think orders of magnitude above our own casualties)? It's good we freed them...from this world.

A black day for the country.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last four years, I have been able to get up in the morning by telling myself that the 2000 election was stolen through dirty tricks and that most voters didn't understand the issues, and thus that Americans are NOT knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual, theocratic, warmongering, superstitious, bigoted, arrogant, foolhardy, small-minded, antigrammatical Neandretals, but were in fact simply misled, swindled, and outright cheated into voting for a hard-right ideologue in the clothing of a "uniter, not a divider".

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

Today, I am afraid of my fellow citizens and ashamed to be an American.

Re:Just like he ran his campaign

[snopes]

I grew up in a Republican dominant environment and had to seek
sanity on my own. The problem is, I haven't found that with the Democratic
party. Don't get me wrong. I voted D all the way yesterday, but not because
I love the party. And that's part of the problem. It's become the
anti-party.

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

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

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

The Democratic party once again gave this election away by delivering a
message percieved as weak. I agree. It was weak. The most impressive part
of their campaign was the ability to deliver such a flat, dispassionate,
unarousing message in the midst of so much turmoil. Maybe it was Kerry's
delivery. Surely that was part of it. I see it as an issue across the
entire party. I see it only resolved by growing to understand what's really
behind the loss of Southern Dems. It's about emotions and egos. It's about
projecting an image of strength and confidence. It's about not thinking
those are dirty words.

Re:Key items to note:

[EngineeringMarvel]

Nice to see someone looking at the bright side of things for once. This is only the 2nd time I have been eligible to vote (age) for the president and both times I felt important and very powerful after I walked out of the voting booth. Not so much about the presidental election, but the more local ammendments, congressman, and senator elections. Only a small portion of this planet's population really gets the satisfaction of that feeling and it is a shame that so many Americans take it for granted.

Yes, there is a lot of BS and bureacuracy in American politics and government, but to me it is still so much better than what a communist or strict republic government has to offer.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[tarogue]

But when half of the states are divided by only 1 or 2 percent, dont' you think that final 10% could hold the deciding tally?

I never understood the concession thing. Why run a marathon, then quit just 100 feet from the finish line? If you're going to lose, then lose, don't quit!

Re:Oh Canada!

[btlzu2]

THIS is good. I agree with you Liberals should stay and fight. We need balance and, although I lean Libertarian, I believe in everyone fighting for what they believe in. Leaving is NO solution--it's emotionally-charged nonsense.

On the other hand, I don't recall hearing conservatives threatening to leave during Clintons' terms. Yes, they whined and complained profusely, but they dug in and fought.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

The popular vote should have been enough. Other countries count that as sufficient - he's not being partisan, just commenting on the feelings.

Re:The horror...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a very different perspective here in the US. There seemed to be very few voters who truly wanted Kerry as president. The majority of those who voted for Kerry were really voting "not Bush".

Re:Sad sad day

[sjwaste]

There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates. Have a look at this:

Economists against Kerrynomics [nationalreview.com]

Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office. The surplus was dissipating as the tech bubble burst and the market took a dive. The subsequent accounting scandals didn't help. 9/11 didn't help. I'm not saying Bush didn't overspend, he did. What I'm saying is, he's planning to spend less than Kerry. To be quite honest, that's the main issue I voted on.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[woodhouse]

Strange. In the UK at least, we count all the votes before working out who has won, and then if the results are close, we count them again. What a warped system you have in the US.

Re:The horror...

[YrWrstNtmr]

nearly half of the voters did not want

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Re:I need directions . . .

[Jerf]

Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

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

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

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

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

Grow up, kiddies. You lose sometimes. Now is a chance to rebuild and refocus. Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.

LeftWing Propaganda Machine needed to match Right

[Cryofan]

The reason we lost is because we have not justified and defined a real leftist agenda. The Rightwing, on the other hand, has spent 30 years or more defining and justifying the RIghtwing agenda. We all "know" that low taxes are good for "The Economy" and we all "know" that productivity should be ever high and we all "know" that low labor costs are good and we all "know" that welfare states are bad and we all "know" that government managed healthcare is a disaster, etc etc etc. And why do we "know" all these things? Because the rightwing propaganda machine has been pushing them down our throats via the teevee, radio and newspapers for the last 30 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teach America the game theory of politics.

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

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

----All about Leftism

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to be funny? Or is this just another case of "stupid uninformed american, opens mouth, half truths and bullshit spews forth".

The line is

"I stand on GUARD for thee"

Close.

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

It's done.

[Timex]

Let's agree on two things, shall we?

1. The Kerry supporters (and, by proxy, the Gore supporters from 2000) should agree not to whine for the next four years. It's okay not to be happy about the result, but one can voice one's displeasure without whining.
   
   
2. The Bush supporters should agree not to gloat. Yes, we won, but the margin was still pretty close. Fortunately, it was a little more decisive that the 2000 elections.
   

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

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

Oh, shit

[bcmm]

Oh SHIT!

congratulations

[non]

you're not any safer.
your deficit isn't any lower.
you're not creating new jobs.
your government isn't any smaller than before.
and you'll probably never _elect_ anyone ever again.

Oh Lunada!

[Rob Carr]

I'm non american, so can I leave the planet now? The moon is looking mighty good right now.

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[Dr. Hok]

Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy? (Score:5, Funny)

No way this is funny...

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come ON. First of all, a few people saying "that's it, I'm moving to Canada" hardly constitutes a significant sample of Democrats worthy of making ANY generalizations about.

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

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

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

Are you saying that if the people of your country voted to have you kept under constant surveillance, jailed, and sent off to get shot at by people defending your country, you would just say "well, the people have spoken, and my life isn't really that important in the grand democratic scheme of things"

At least popular matched the results this time

[SuperKendall]

One good thing for the coutry as a whole is that the popular vote matched up with who won - that should help eliminate a whole category of people proclaiming the winner was not really the winner and make the results less embittering to some.

Re:Just like he ran his campaign

[lunartik]

When will we realize that whining about problems won't work when the majority of the population doesn't want to think about problems? They want a bed time story, and someone to turn the light on and off for them.

Democrats may start taking back red states when you stop viewing them as morons who are beneath you.

Re:Key items to note:

[Halcy0n]

"In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished."

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[Valar]

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

Re:Congratulations

[gorbachev]

"I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first Nazi post in the thread! Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking idiot. You disgust me.

Let me ask you a simple question.

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

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

Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Frymaster]

Bush got more votes than any American in history.

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

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

Re:Key items to note:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better to be an American only becuase we are still living off the fat of our "good" behavior, in general, for the past 200 years.

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

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

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

Evets

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

>The middle east has been propetually in conflict.

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

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

you people really are very frightening indeed.

four more years of idiocy, ignorance and brutality. you brought it on your own stupid thick fat heads but i don't see why the rest of the world should suffer because 50% of shit kicking hicks couldn't be bothered to look past fox news and their lies.

Expect the entire world to now disengage..

[tobe]

.. from the US.

Honestly..

Democratic, yes.

[imurchie]

> You got Bush, in democratic elections

Yes, we got Bush in democratic elections. I have no problem with that. He got more votes than Kerry. I DO have a problem with being in a country where that would happen. The lunacy of living in a country where slightly more than half the population believes a complete idiot bent on making America the next Empire is fit to run things. I thank God that I am over the age of the coming draft, and that I've already done my service (8 years, Force Recon... yes, I've killed (many) random strangers so we can enjoy the "freedom" we have). I'm scared for the youth of this nation.

Re:one nation under god

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an outstanding example of why the Democrats lost. Those that mock and demean religion are vocal liberals. (This does not mean Democrats mock and demean religion.) The Democratic Party must distance themselves from you nuts if they hope to win another election. Why would a religious person vote Democrat when all those that publicly ridicule their innermost beliefs are shouting for them to do so?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[flibuste]

Bush got more votes than any American in history.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[andrew_0812]

I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology. Suppose the Popular Vote had gone the other way. If you voted Kerry in Alabama, your voice is not heard. The election is always decided in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. Why let the few in these states decide the whole election. Use the Popular Vote, drop the Electorial College, and every vote truly is equal.

So was Walden O'Dell (diebold CEO) correct?

[svallarian]

So was Walden O'Dell, the diebold CEO, successful in his boast of carrying Ohio for bush?

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

Steven V>

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EddieBurkett]

Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too. (Previous leader was Reagan in '84 w/ 54 million.)

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

Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving

[That's Unpossible!]

- Calculate your share of the National Deficit

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

- Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

Re:Key items to note:

[CommieOverlord]

1) There were no riots in the street.

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Skjellifetti]

Bush got more votes than any American in history ...

for exactly the same reason that he also got more votes than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln combined.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[pixelpusher220]

Perhaps change so that either Popular vote decides the election, or in a compromise do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state. Seems to me to be a true representation of the people's will doesn't it?

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[krog]

I can accept that Bush won the election. What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

Perhaps New England and Quebec could each secede, and merge. All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.

Ultimate Power

[mrnick]

So, now we have a President / Commander in Chief during wartime. He has a Republican House and Senate and does not have to worry about pleasing the American people because he cannot run again.

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

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

God bless America!

Nick Powers
http://www.nickpowers.info/ [nickpowers.info]

God vs Country?

[Painaxl]

While I find him unbelieveably deplorable, you've got to hand it to Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

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

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

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

If there is one thing this election has proven, it is that Americans no longer desire a separation of church and state. And that frightens me more as a Catholic.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Methuseus]

How about changing us away from a 2-party system. How about counting *every* absentee vote, regardless of whether the race is close or not. How about not announcing even preliminary results until all votes have been made and all absentee votes have been counted. It's way too open in the US. People getting ready to vote at 3 or 4 PM may watch the news, see that one candidate is winning (when about 25% of the vote has been tallied, if that) and not go to vote when they could have possibly made a difference seeing as the votes they saw were from a different state or district.

So, what happens if...

[AugstWest]

...the counting in Ohio shows that Kerry actually won?

How binding is this concession?

Re:took the high road

[PMuse]

Kerry did the math, that's all.

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

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

I feel like going door to door and yelling at my neighbors. I feel worse that I didn't do it last week.

Re:Why did Kerry lose to Bush?

[jafomatic]

I'm horrified to agree, but I really believe you're correct in this last statement. I think this is precisely the ONLY type of campaign that can ever hope to "win" (not end, win) any war on terrorism. Not just in fallujah, or any part of one specific country, but throughout the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Sad sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

> Reagan, popular as he was, ran into trouble in his second term

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

Remind me how that's a backlash again?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Golias]

I disagree. We are better off as a federal union of states in which the government of that union is presided over by somebody elected by the states. If Bush had lost Ohio and Iowa, then it should have meant a Kerry presidency regardless of the popular vote.

Not that it matters this time around. The parent to your post is correct: By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

Bush-bashing--mod up please!

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, Kerry never lies (Cambodia, anyone?). Bush is all lies. Must...bash...Bush. Cannot simply admit being wrong.

Mod up accordingly, please.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[Chester K]

This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race.

But it does remove the possibility of contentions over results, lawsuits, recounts and hanging chads. So, yes, Kerry conceding is important; even if by some miracle Ohio comes out as a Kerry win and Kerry ends up in the White House.

ONE thing on the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

four more years of hilarious Daily Shows.

Re:Bad move

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you who believe Bush is the worst thing for this country are simply delusional. There's an unreasonable hatred for Bush. You are simply expressing that view. And you hate corporations, but you probably work for one, one way or another. Without corporations, we wouldn't have so much that we do. For example, you want to build your car? How about your computer? Who do you think made the components, a 10 person shop?

Best of the best?

[z3r0w8]

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

Re:Let me tell you why

[trongey]

He WAS a terrible candidate, but he was the INCUMBENT terrible candidate which will always beat a terrible challenger.

A halfway decent incumbent would have won by a landslide.

Re:Oh Canada!

[squidfood]

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion according to national studies.

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

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[binner1]

Doesn't it make you sad that in one state (can't remember which) only 17% of the votes actually counted? That's downright pathetic!

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

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

-Ben

Not entirely

[beh]

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

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

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

Bush one of the most influential politicians?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the beginning of his administration, President George W. Bush asserted that he was a unifier, not a divider.

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

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

--This SIG was sold and put on a bumper sticker.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[SQLz]

Heh. Your assuming that the midwest cares about people on the rest of the planet.

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

Get up
Pray
Walmart
Pray
Sleep

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[DogDude]

How is the USA becoming a "religious police state"?

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

Misunderstanding

[SuperKendall]

I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash.

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

So how does your assumption hold true?

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

Instead they should try and think about what led so many middle class, non white-trash people to vote for Bush and try to put forth a candidate that those people would vate to vote for, instead of a simple Anti-Bush.

Re:Key items to note:

[straybullets]

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

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

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

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

Congratulations, war mongers.

Re:Sad sad day

[dfj225]

"four more years of the rich getting richer"

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

"the middle class losing jobs"

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

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

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

"more hatred against Americans"

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

"less freedom in the US"

Kerry supports the Patriot Act, Kerry (along with every senator but two) voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry also has a very poor history when it comes to civil liberties. I do think that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, but I do not think that any of the Presidential canidates with a chance of winning will help to fix this.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, F***

[dmccarty]

Uh, hello. How was this modded anything but the flamebait expletive-laced troll that it is? A bunch of pissed off moderators today, maybe?

Re:I hope Bush *does* alienate the entire world

[jc42]

One thing the rest of the world has to come to terms with is that roughly half the voters in the US have just expressed their approval of what George Bush has done. They approve of invading another country on false pretenses. They approve of killing civilians by the tens of thousands. They approve of putting religion into government (and probably don't approve of whatever religion you may follow). They approve of putting companies like Haliburton in charge of projects in your country through no-bid contracts and no voice for your citizens. They don't care whether your countrymen may have done anything at all against the US; they'll still approve attacking you just because of what you might be capable of doing sometime in the iindefinite future.

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

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

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

Re:two words

[smooth wombat]

No, conservatives did not vote. It was the far right-wing, hyper-religious, I-hate-anything-not-christian, anti-equal-rights, creationism-is-a-theory, neo-cons who voted.

Please stop trying to claim that the above people are conservatives. They are not. They are the American version of the Taliban.

Re:The votes reported by the precints say Kerry lo

[Symbiosis]

Actually, the U.S.A. isn't a democracy. It's a Federalist Republic. The popular vote was never intended to elect the President. In fact, the framers of the Constitution designed it such that the popular vote wouldn't elect the President. We are a representative democracy where what we're actually voting for on Nov. 2 is memebers of the Electoral College who will, in theory, vote for the candidate that we put down on our ballots. Technically they are not bound to vote either way, but that's just the way the system has developed.

Those crazy guys back in the day didn't trust in the transient will of the populous or "tyranny of the majority." Do you? ;-)

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[geoffrobinson]

The electoral college ensures that a winner needs broad-based support throughout many regions of the country. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.

What if Bush solidly won every state except for extreme landslides in NY and CA? Do you really want two states to rule over the other 48 states?

Draft coming soon...

[Tufriast]

I've got several military sources, that will go unidentified, whom I attend college with. If you don't think a draft is coming, think again. Look for a draft in March-May of 2005. Here is the latest ruleset for us college students. http://www.sss.gov/viet.htm "Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year."

Re:Wow.

[Professor Oompa]

This is too accurate. According to CNN, 22% of voters stated that "Moral Values" were their primary concern in the election. Of those, 79% voted for Bush.

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

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

11 of 11 states that had "define mariage" proposals on the ballot passed them, most by a landslide. Maybe I'm naive, but I learned something new about this country last night.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Surt]

Except that the current system actually resulted in neither candidate visiting quite a few undisputed states.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Kentamanos]

If the popular vote was all that mattered, why would any candidate focus on anything but the 10 largest CITIES in the US. Forget about states...

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

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

Hate

[Wyatt Earp]

Hold up now. The statement that 49% of Americans who voted hate W is a bit much.

Or is it?

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

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

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

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

"Yes he has!"

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

"Yes he has! Millions!"

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

"Hate is the generic word, and implies that one is inflamed with extreme dislike. We abhor what is deeply repugnant to our sensibilities or feelings. We detest what contradicts so utterly our principles and moral sentiments that we feel bound to lift up our voice against it. What we abominate does equal violence to our moral and religious sentiments. What we loathe is offensive to our own nature, and excites unmingled disgust."

Re:saddest day in my life ...

[Bromrrrrr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you're screwing with our asses and we'd love for you to stop doing it.

Democracy = majority rule

[querist]

I agree with everything you have in the parent except for your last sentence. Democracy is exactly about majority rule; what you have described (reaching a compromise that maximizes societal welfare) is a Republic, which the United States is supposed to be according to our Constitution.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy the next four years, fella. They're gonna be swell. :)

Re:saddest day in my life ...

[thunderpeel]

We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this.
** nice of you to sit back and wait until it was in your best interests to help tho.
Do you really think you guys are free of this? We're the target cause we're prominent. If we don't stand strong. Guess what...for all your support of liberal ideas and thoughts, homosexual marriage, etc. It will be moot.
** You're the target because of your ultra agressive foreign policy. Not to mention you back a state that is DIRECTLY in conflict with Muslim interests. THEN DONT EXPECT THAT CONFLICT TO COME TO YOUR DOORSTEP?!
You want us to not defend ourselves or the right to be. Guess what...if we don't. It will be extremist fanatics killing every gay in Canada in the name of Allah. Destroying every bank, savings and loans. Forcing your women to wear excessive garments.
** You honestly think that if the Natzi like regime falls out of power that a MUSLIM govt will be put in place? Holy fuck, you are a sheep.
Man you don't get it...but you euro-minded people never have. Would you like to give Austria and Poland to NAZI Germany now or later?
*** Well, Nazi Germany exists today! IN AMERICA!!! YEE HAW .. Lie to the people, extort and control the people, wage private war FOR the people.
You in your dismal lack of understanding think this is a pride USA #1 issue. The irony is this....
The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.
** the actual funny part is you BELIEVE what you are told .. perfect sheep... continue believing blind, like religion, because it will all end up the way you want. poor poor sheep.
Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...
Let me ask you this...what do you think would happen? who do you think would be the ones allowed to live? moral conservatives....or the supporters of homosexuality and non-traditional morals?
**Personally I dont think that North America would ever be "taken over" by muslim warriors. This is how the FEAR has taken you .. you actually believe this.
We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.
**YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR FUCKING MONITARY INTERESTS SO DONT FUCKING PLAY THE BRAVE SOLDIER TO ME YOU FUCKING SHEEP! THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DEFEND YOURSELVES IS BECAUSE OF YOUR BACKWARDS PROTECT OUR OWN GREEDY INSTERESTS VIEW OF MORAL SOCIETY. IF YOU EVER REALLY KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A BROTHER TO ANOTHER WORDLY BODY YOU WOULDNT BE SUCH A FUCKING CLOSED MINDED SHEEP AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN WORLD ISSUES, INSTEAD OF STEPPING IN AND TAKING OVER.
SIEGE HAIL BUSH

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Daengbo]

Your view of "the rest of the world" appears to include only Europe.

Re:Sad sad day

[deltagreen]

Most Bush-voters think the Iraq war was justified, but many purely on the grounds that they still believe Iraq had WMD and/or Saddam was behind 9/11. Some of these voters might be disappointed by what they learn during the next four years.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[scotch]

If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election.

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

Advice

[fizban]

My advice to the Democrats:

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

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

It's time for the democrats to fall back and watch for a while. It may be a lot to suffer, but I think it's the only way for us to get past the divisiveness. If the Democrats continue to fight the Republicans, they will continue to get blamed for the lack of progress in this country and continue to be labeled as whiners and obstructionists. By not making challenges, then they can't be blamed for mistakes, and if there are costly mistakes, it will be easy to turn the country in a different direction and start again. For the liberal America, this is your trial by fire.

Re:Don't let the door hit you in the butt...

[Malc]

The funny thing about all these people who are threatening to move abroad is that they probably won't be given visas! Relocating to different parts of the US is relatively easy. Perhaps this is what makes it deceptive. Crossing borders is much much harder - I can hardly see the US signing up to mobility concepts like those that exist within the EU.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Just like we did after WWII [64.233.179.104].

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Mr. Ghost]

Wow, that was extremely rude and narrowminded.

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

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

I thought "your side" was supposed to be much more open minded with respect to people who have different belief systems than you do, I guess I was wrong.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[nine-times]

CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way.

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EllisDees]

> If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.

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

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

But they don't. At all.

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

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

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

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

1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.

Education...

[c.herwig]

"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Gogl]

No, not quite.

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the whole "full of steaming hate" thing, well, yes, they're often frustrated and even hateful. But that's just ad hominem, you should decide based on the actual issues. And frankly, the frustration and hate is quite understandable, if you bothered to actually look at the issues.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[SpaceLifeForm]

Unfortunately, it's under 50%. Even with a record turnout, it was just too scary for many people to change presidents now. The status quo feels 'safer'.

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

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

Re:Key items to note:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know of at least one founding father who would disagree with your assessment:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Key items to note:

[williamhb]

This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American

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

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

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bush

[slcdb]

The results of this election reveal that most Americans still understand the truth about the state of the world today, despite what the mass media would like them to think. If the remainder of the populace (i.e. the Democrats) would stop and think about the reality of the situation, then all of the hysterical reactions to the outcome of this election could come to a stop.

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

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

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

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

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

God bless America!

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[starling]

Man, that was beautiful. Thanks.

Oh would you cut that crap?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the rest of the world we don't view the USA as solely one man, we know that there are about 300M of different people there. We also sorta worked out that Bush jr is not Bush sr and that G.W. Bush is more or less advised by neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz who do not have the wide scope view of people like H. Kissinger.

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

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

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

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I was absolutely appalled when reading last night that 11 states had approved gay marriage bans. I'm not gay, but I do believe that any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should be able to enter into a civil union and enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married people. It's a no brainer to me.

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

We have a loooooooooooong way to go... I'm sure these backwards values will still plague our society when every one of us is dead. Sad, sad, sad.

Re:Oh Canada!

[hey!]

They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

Because, as a citizen, it is my job to reason why.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Defeat means it's time to regroup.

[Skyshadow]

This is probably far enough down the thread that it'll never get read, but:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not really see how your comments are interesting, but I thought as part of the 51% I would help you understand some things that you seem to be missing.

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, perhaps you do the work once in a while to go get the information yourself instead of just listening to what they tell you. But then it is always to just hate and blame someone without reason than it is to be truely informed about the world around you.

Re:Oh Canada!

[MustardMan]

because you didn't get your way

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

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more concerned about the 2,138,800 voters in New Mexico and Iowa (figures taken from the BBC website) whose votes ultimately don't matter because of the way the system works.

But hey, I'm just an outsider looking in.

Re:one nation under god

[Larthallor]

I agree.

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

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

Democrats need to show those with faith that the values of Jesus are the values of the Democrats. This will mean downplaying things like gay rights and abortion.

No, here's what the Democrats need to win...

[JInterest]

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

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

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

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

Why don't people like you get it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[mike_the_kid]

They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

If I believed in what they are doing over there, I'd be over there, why aren't you?

Please tell me i'm wrong!

[cavac]

For the last few years, all i've been hearing in europe over here from the U.S. Leaders was following this theme:

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

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

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

LLAP & LG
Rene

Re:The president should reflect people's values

[gingerTabs]

and if the majority wants something, in a true democracy they would get it, since that is the defin,ition of democracy.

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

That's democracy kids...

Re:Oh Canada!

[neves]

In my country Liberal means a business friend politic, nearer the right. I've always get som cognitive dissonance when I read definitions like Orkut's "very left/liberal". It's an oxymoron. USA political environment is so conservative that any democrat candidate would belong to the right in other countries.

Re:Oh Canada!

[__aanebg9627]

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

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

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

Re:Invade!

[jlanthripp]

Bring it on! The people of the United States have 222 million firearms - or just over 1.5 for every adult in the country. I personally own 8, and about 2000 rounds of ammunition in total. When I see a "peacekeeper" in the US, I don't plan to stop shooting till I'm dead or out of ammo. And there are 50 million or so more, just like me.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[yupie]

First of all, popular vote causing a Democrat to win because of some states "having the most population" doesn't strike me as utterly unfair. More population equals more votes.

But even if you want to respect the state-biased system, why not keep the actual numbers of "electoral votes" per state (e.g. 20 for Ohio), but dividing them according to state bound results (e.g. 55% for Bush => 11 electoral votes for Bush). This would remove (or reduce, at least) the unfairness of swing states calling the shots.

A dim outlook for the next 4 years

[cOdEgUru]

Why did Kerry lose? Why did Democratic pary lose more of its share in the senate?

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

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

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

It will be interesting and we will all be watching the road ahead with trepidation. There is a possibility that the current administration, takes the permission to rule fairly for the next four years, as a god given right and squander it, infact, its not a possibility, it is certain. This President had a chance to unite the country 3 years ago, but he didnt. I dont think he will start now. We will have 4 more years of the same, but more over, we will look back on this day and wonder why we voted to give him 4 more years.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[E_elven]

The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

That sure worked well with Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin [sic], etc.

Re:The president should reflect people's values

[slartibart]

When you see the moral standards of your society being destroyed, what good man would not act, if the decline could be stopped, or at least slowed by simply showing up and voting NO? If he does not want homosexuality to become an accepted practice, surely it is the right thing to do.

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

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

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

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

Flamebait, my ass!

[Deagol]

Whoever originally modded this as flamebait is a moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well of course they do!

[Merk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[the morgawr]

we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population

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

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

Re:The first Nazi post in the thread! Here here!

[vyrus128]

> Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies. Because obviously /. is the entire US. And obviously it doesn't matter if OTHER people are arrested and detained indefinitely on trumped-up charges, just so long as they aren't _us_. "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[TrentTheWiseA]

As another midwesterner, I agree with the g'parent post. How can someone vote for a president with arguably the WORST record on any subject in U.S. history continues to mystify me.

Many midwesterners have seemingly turned into sheeple, not thinking about long-term consequences

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Glendale2x]

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Vote counts are not signed, sealed, and officiated yet. There's still some outstanding deadlines for stuff like overseas votes.

Whiners

[COMON$]

Why is it that most the posts I see on here are assuming that the majority are morons and only the liberals know what is best for the country. I guess you need to get it out of your system, rant away. I think most of you forget about all the other facets of the country's Gov't that shapes our future. It is not one man. I think as an american people we need to stop whining so much and actually do something about the economy and the events around us. We love to talk but we hate to do anything ourselves. Let someone else do it and bitch about how we could have done it better. Great mentality. How about we do something different for a change. Support the Gov't, work on reforms as a people. If you dont like something, DO something to change it, start a petition, talk to your representatives. Just stop whining....

If Kerry and the Dems were smart...

[pappy97]

It seems that Kerry tried to ride the anti-Bush sentiment into the White House and it didn't work.

Instead of conceding he should do this:

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

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

Now either McCain is elected President, or more likely:

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

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

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

Too bad Kerry and the Dems are dumb.

Re:This is the story when bad meets evil

[VTBassMatt]

I agree that the plurality vote is bad, but IRV is flawed, too. Approval voting is the way to go. Read a good summary of the issues at ElectionMethods.org [electionmethods.org].

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Wicked187]

Wow, I am really glad that the moderators came to their senses and voted this flamebait instead of interesting, as it started. This is a large mess. You really should use your frustration in a productive manner. You could have rented a 13 seater van and brought sandwiches and $5 bills to young voters in Ohio and you could have driven them to the polls (I was going to be extremely depressed if Bush lost, and I would have blamed myself for not doing this)... Heck, they could have even registered on the spot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[ash]

"I can tell you you 'whiny left wingers' are the only americans for which we keep some respect. Gosh... for the rest of the world your democrat party is right wing... so imagine our idea of who your people elected..."

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

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

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

An opposing foreign opinion.
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/SunSpec/Oct04/ind ex145.shtml [davidwarrenonline.com]

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Dashing Leech]

Nope, it likely includes most of the rest of the world. It certainly includes Canada, the closest neighbour, ally, trading partner, and most culturely similar country to the U.S. Based on surveys, news, and workplace discussions, we can't understand how anyone could vote a major fuckup like Bush back in. On Sept. 11th, 2001 the U.S. had the sympathy of most of the world. Within a year Bush pissed off everyone and thumbed his nose at the international community. He's taken away freedoms of the American people in the name of security. He started a war for reasons that the world told him were wrong, have since been more than proven wrong, and it has turned sour just like everyone said it would (except Bush and friends). And he still says everything is fine. And the American people voted him back in.

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

Re:one nation under god

[vinniedkator]

I find it interesting that in the areas of the country at the highest risk of terrorism most people voted against Bush. New York City voted almost 5:1 against Bush and D.C. 9:1. However, in rural America people feel he's the best one to take on the terrorists. Funny how things become clearer when it's your ass on the line.

Stop whining -- something about it!

[bshroyer]

Wow. What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers.

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you try to nominate Hillary.

Re:Congratulations

[aardwolf64]

You say that the country is more divided than before, but it's simply not true. In fact, the majority of the nation voted to re-elect President Bush. The distance between him and the runner-up is even greater than before. How is this more divided? If anything, more of the country is united in support of Bush.

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

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

Your side lost... get over it.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[zurab]

There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones.

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

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

It should always be that 1 citizen = 1 vote towards the federal election, not a state all-or-nothing tally; no matter where you live. Sure, people living in more populated areas will have more effect on less populated states or counties. The principle here is majority rule, minority rights [state.gov]. The electoral college doesn't guarantee that.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[surprise_audit]

But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up. Bush may win, but the popular vote is still quite close, which means that roughly half the voters didn't want Bush .

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[macdaddy]

I'm another midwesterner. I'm an actual midwesterner, not from the so-called Midwestern state of Ohio or Michigan (that always pisses me off). I'm from Kansas. Fortunately I'm atypical and don't match the other poster's list. Whew. We should start a support group for people who live in state's where their vote doesn't count. We might as be voting for Nader in these states because we'll never outnumber the people voting strictly down the party line. That has always disgusted me. I can't think of a more irresponsible way to vote than by voting down party lines. Toeing party lines is the ignorant man's game. It's easy for him. He doesn't have to pay attention to what's going on around him. He just has to remember which party he always votes for. People like that don't cherish their right to vote. In my honest opinion they shouldn't have that right if they misuse it. The whole system is screwed up. I don't know what a possible fix would be like but there's got to be some better way of doing things. Uh oh. There's a black hellicopter landing in my front yard; men dressed in black are heading towards my front door. I guess I shouldn't have questioned the status quo....

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

>"A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
>
>Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else do you expect when someone attacks our freedom, attacks our livelyhood and threatens our safty so that they can line their pockets with money????

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why America is the ONLY superpower left in the world... and why our economy makes the economy of your piss poor, back water, know nothing country look like piss in a bucket.

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

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

Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a plane ticket and see how the rest of the world lives.

The most important what?

[MasTRE]

This was said to be the most important election of our lives. Does anybody still feel that way, considering the outcome?

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

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

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

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

Please note that lives are lives, and it is morally wrong to make a distinction between innocent foreigners and innocent Americans when it comes to dieing. Yet this is accepted as common practice in this country.

Oh, shove a sock in it.

[dfenstrate]

What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

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

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

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

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

You need to think long and hard about what that is. I have my own ideas, of course.

Re:Oh, fuck

[jmulvey]

Well, your disdain for the American electoral and political environment is part of the reason the election turned out as it did.

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

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

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

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

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

Or, take the easy route and say everyone who doesn't think like you is just "dumb".

Red State hatred

[CaptPungent]

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

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

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

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

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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

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

No, just naive.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Hug this

[|/|/|||]

Yeah, I was pretty sure that Kerry would win because of the high voter turnout. Guess not.

Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him

I think you underestimate how many people hate GWB. He's fucking over our country pretty royally, and showcasing just how ignorant and gullible half of our population really is.

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[xThinkx]

"The most powerful and successful country in the world"

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[hb253]

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

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

The list goes on...

The Democratic Party Lost

[FJ]

Look at what happened to the Democratic party as a whole.

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

The Democratic party was hit hard in this election.
It will be interesting to see what the restructuring effort will be.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[mankey wanker]

Terrorism: OBL, excellently attired, looking fit and tan, gave a speech last week. He was living proof that Bush has failed to protect us from terrorism. I take Bush at his word, I don't think he is bothered by OBL as long as he can use OBL as an excuse to blanket over the rest of his misguided agenda. War is good business for these guys. Big profits!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned...

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/index.html [conceptualguerilla.com]

Re:Stop whining -- something about it!

[doppleganger871]

That was one of the very few well thought out comments to ever appear as a comment on this article. Well done. And, i'm a conservative, and a geek. It's a tough mix.

I enjoy computers, I enjoy guns, I enjoy shooting computers with guns. Go figure.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, kudos to your self control. But this brings to my mind the question oft echoed in these pages -- how can *anyone* not criminally insane actually support Bush? I guess you are a supporter. I'll feed your troll.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually do know people like you. Self-satisfied, infintely full of your own self-importance, hypocritical, morally blind swaggering "god

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Analogy Man]

A coworker was just moments ago saying that when he goes to India he tells everyone he is from Canada. A cab driver yelled at him all of the way from the airport to his parents home on a previous trip when he said he was coming from US.

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[Jonas the Bold]

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

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

You've turned the republican party into a tool of the christian right, something that is no longer fiscally conservative in any way, shape or form. Congrats on moving America backwards. Maybe you'd be happier in a theocracy. Just look at the existing theocracies of world, Iran for instance. THAT is the direction you're moving us.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Scrameustache]

Well, as one of the apparently meaningless midwesterners, I will be praying for you and your ignorant view of the midwest.

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

That...sorta confirmed it.
;-)

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[greenrom]

There are a number of good reasons to keep the electoral college. Here are a few that come to mind. I'll leave out the ones about ensuring representation for rural states, since that one usually comes up in the discussion.

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

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

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

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

Dear World,

[stinky wizzleteats]

Many of us are just as shocked and disappointed as you are. I and 55,124,615 of my closest friends did our best to elect a non-madman, but we ultimately failed to an administration that invaded a country without cause, "lost" $2 billion to Halliburton, and had enough political capital left over to win a second term on a campaign targeted exclusively at their own base.

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

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

Re:All I need now

[AhtirTano]

Since we're getting serious, where did all this draft talk come from? I've heard the President flatly deny plans for a draft on more than one occasion.

"Read my lips, no new draft."

Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving

[Luyseyal]

- Calculate your share of the National Deficit
Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.

Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-l

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[toddestan]

The democrats need to start presenting canidates that people like (Dean), instead of canidates that they think will "win" (Kerry). And don't ask me why the democrats don't think popular canidates with a large grass-roots movement behind them won't win, because I really don't know.

Axis of Evil

[TamMan2000]

Yup, Iran [japantoday.com] is pleased with this outcome...

Anybody else?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[iocat]

That stock should surge: the CA initiative was a 3 BILLION dollar investment in stem cell research. The NIH typically invests far less than that nationwide over the same period (sorry, I'm unable to provide links or more evidence of that; just heard it on the radio).

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

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

As a Canadian, here's my take

[DG]

I'm a Canadian who works in the US, and I'm retired military to boot, so I've been following this election with some interest. Here's my take.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DG

Re:Oh Canada!

[Karma Farmer]

Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

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

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

We were wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I woke up this morning, it was to the news that the United States of America is not the country that I thought it was when I went to bed last night.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html [pipa.org]

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

Americans may not be dumb, but a large percentage of them are surely living under a rock! And that's certainly not the fault of "liberal" Democrats.

Fundemental misunderstanding.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

You are correct, Europe and the US have seperated ideologically. And as you state, "respect" is in short supply. But, rather than "whine" about how wrong the "others" are, why not try to gain some fundemental understanding of why people think the way they do. Far too many people in this country ( USA) and across the world get caught up in this "Us" versus "Them" mentality without even stopping to debate the real issues at hand. I had hoped that slashdot's political section would be a place for such a dialog to take place, but it seems that we get the same crud here as everywhere else.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Slime-dogg]

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[3terrabyte]

I knew this would be brought up. Your idea on how the math works on this is incorrect.

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

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

--But they don't. At all.

I agree with you 100% there!

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

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

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

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Dirtside]

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

Remember back when democracy arose because the people of a nation were sick of being oppressed, and not because some other country decided to invade them for no good reason? How exactly do you force people to want self-government, exactly?

Re:I don't get it.

[pclminion]

The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?

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

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

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

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

Re:one nation under god

[Vile Slime]

> You are an outstanding example of why the Democrats lost....The Democratic Party must distance themselves from you nuts if they hope to win another election....

I,

Totally agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Dark Fire]

When the country was first formed, our legislative branch was setup such that each state was permitted 2 senators regardless of size and a number of representatives in the house proportional to population size. Why would a state with a smaller population want to join together with larger states and be dominated over in the elections? The electoral college also reflects these early compromises. It represents the mortar of the compromises which built this country. Should California have the right to dictate who becomes president? Iowa, Nebraska, and other smaller population states don't think so. Oh, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to change the matter. Which means it won't be happening anytime soon. If you don't like who won, work to change people's minds, not the rules. Remember why such compromises exist, they made us a country and keep us a country.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[jrexilius]

sadly, that is often the case. In the last election less then 9% of the San Fran population voted for Pres. Bush. The numbers were also very lopsided in most other cities.

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

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

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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Ayandia]

Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico were still counting votes as of this morning at noonish EST.

Since we live in a society where you can be approved for a credit card in minutes, buy toothpaste over the internet with that card AND ship it overnight so you can brush in the morning, I wouldn't say there's no case for SOMETHING to be fixed.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[Scrameustache]

Tell me, if you guys are so damn smart, then why are you out the presidency, why are you out more senate seats, and why are you out a few more house seats too?
(Note: Americans are dumb is not an acceptable answer.)

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

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

48% to 51%.

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

Also, you're blindly following a guy who can't say "nuclear", who says things like "catastrophic cucess" and who says "mission accomplish" when things are just getting started.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[blueberrry]

You feel good for choosing GWB as a president? Feeling good in what way? In the way that closing your eyes makes you feel better than looking at the cold, naked truth? In some ways, ignorances feels really good when you a look at the world now.

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

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

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

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


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

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Slime-dogg]

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

No. If Alaska had the same number of electoral votes as New York, then you'd have a valid point. Since New York has something like seven times the number of electoral votes that Alaska has, one vote in New York is just as valuable as one vote in Alaska.

1 person, 1 vote is quite possibly the worst system that we could have. The US is a democratic republic, not a full democracy. The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be. States rights are the issue in this argument, and I think that they should not be impeded.

There is nothing wrong with the system, except that it seems to generate whines from the sore losers. Look at the number of states that Bush won compared to Kerry or even Gore. How could either Kerry or Gore be the best choice for all of the states, if the majority of them don't want them?

The real problem is the ignorance of US citizens, and the failure of the education systems in the states. If citizens think that it's better than LA, NYC, and Chicago be given governance over piplines in Alaska, or the beaches of Hawaii, the citizens are grieviously mistaken. The power for real law and governance lays at the states' feet. The power for regulation and interstate commerce lies with the feds. Leave it this way.

Insightful? Nothing so far.

[kollivier]

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

What he was referring to, albeit rather poorly, is this odd idea called "cause and effect." That is, actions cause reactions, and thus that terrorists' actions are in part (if not majorly) determined by the world in which they live. The more injustice seen by muslims around the world, the more they will consider becoming terrorists, and the more resources a terrorist organization will have. More resources mean more likelihood of a successful attack. Is this not logical?

Of course, there's the definition of 'injustice', which is somewhat relative, but I'll get to that later.

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

This is a mindless jab at the Democrats. Kerry also refuted a draft, so your contention here is just as justified as the one you're responding to (that GWB/Rep = draft).

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

And what if China thought the US becoming communist would significantly reduce the amount of conflict in the world, and thus invaded us - and won? Would that be 'just' or an 'injustice'? It certainly would have been a justified war in the eyes of the supporters of communism, just as installing democracies around the world is seen as justified by - surprise - democracies! But I have a feeling Americans would feel that it was actually an injustice done to them. So what you see as a 'just' and necessary overthrowing of a tyrant government, most other people see as empire trying to expand it's own reach and violently forcing its ways upon people who never even asked for help. So for you America is spreading 'hope', but to the people who feel they're being occupied, it's spreading 'oppresion'. Or, as someone in that region might say, 'more of the same'.

Forcing your ideologies on other people is based on a belief that your ideology is right for everyone - including those who you don't understand or identify with. You talk like you're intimately familiar with matters of the Middle East, and know what's best for everyone there, yet if you're like most people I've talked to, you've never been there and know little more than what you read in the papers. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong, of course. And the ironic part is that you later go on to say that the rest of the world doesn't know what's right for America! (But we do, in fact, know what's right for the rest of the world, right?)

Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).

The Old Testament says an eye for an eye, but the New Testiment says turn the other cheek. By your logic, if rules as serious at those in the Constitution are not meant to be 'dynamic', Jesus had no place challenging the "eye for an eye" law, and we should be using it as the basis of our legal system as well. But the world changes, and the law needs to change too. And spare me your response about eroding the Constitution, no one is intending to do that. (The Patriot Act and DMCA probably come closer to that than most of the things you're actually responding to anyways.)

In any case, your statement ignores the fact that *interpretation* is as a matter of fact a dynamic process that depends on the individual interpreting. If it needs to be interpreted at all, there was in fact some ambiguity in it. Possibly the Framers of the Constitution left a little ambiguity in there for a reason? Democracy thrives when there are many different interpretations being debated, not when the only people being heard are all on the same side. I don't believe th

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[rizzo420]

130,000 votes is still less than the number of provisional and overseas ballots that have yet to be counted. the republican secretary of state in ohio said on cnn that no one should concede defeat until all those votes have been counted (a possibly 300,000 additional votes). it has also been said that a good majority of those votes are in favor of kerry.

i have a feeling the main reason kerry conceded was that either he was bullied (unlikely) or they don't want to wait the 11 days for a decision (more likely, as the guy from ohio also mentioned that hey won't count those votes until 11 days after the election).

it's most likely that bush won, but there is a slight possibility that in some of those states that are very close, counting the extra ballots could make a difference. in which case, who is president if kerry actually won the electoral vote now that he's conceded?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[schon]

If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.

You can't *possibly* be arguing that the US is a "grown-up", and the rest of the world's countries are children, can you?

Perhaps it's *you* that needs to get some historical perspective.

The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

The thing is that the US is *NOT* a leader. In the context of your analogy above, it would be like one of your children being a 3-meter tall, 500KG mutant spoiled 6-year-old, and *TELLING* you that they want candy for dinner, and beating the shit out of you when you try to tell them to eat their vegetables.

And the sad fact is that you *think* that invading another country for no reason is "leadership".

Who's policies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush took office less than 9 months before the terrorists attacks that started all this. Even if we assume (which is unlikely) that the terrorists move as fast as possible, they needed several months to work out all the details. Not to mention teach their people to fly. There is evidence that this group had attacked the US before Bush took office, so perhaps we should blame Clinton's policies. (this would also be wrong - Clinton might have been able to prevent them, but there would be other costs to that)

You might not like Bush's policies. That is fine. You can say they are making things worse, many would agree, and many would disagree. You cannot say his policies caused this. He was not in office long enough for his policies to change much.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[tverbeek]

By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

Re:Hate

[Politburo]

Assuming your tale is accurate, I would like to inform you that you based your vote based upon the opinions of others. Next time, why don't you analyse the candidates and issues, instead of listening to what everyone else is saying.

Perhaps you might consider...

[tiefling]

That the United States did not officially occupy or annex Germany and Japan after World War II, but instead it unofficially made them its satellite states. In France, Britain, Germany, Japan, and many other countries you will find U.S. Military installations. How many of those countries have a base in the United States? None.
The United States does indeed have a global military hegemony, and does indeed have a group of defacto satellite states.

Re:one nation under god

[justins]

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

We'd also be a lot better off if we stopped pretending that the current parties have any sort of ideological foundations, even the very simple liberal/conservative dichotomy you've described. Anyone who thinks Dubya is a conservative doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This Too Shall Pass

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hmm considering 9/11 happened after 8 years of Democratic administrations, thats a very lame argument. And it happened less than a year into
George W Bush's presidency, long before he had done anything outside the US. And if you want to blame the first Gulf war, thats the one completely authorized and supported by the United Nations.

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

The phoney draft cards that got mailed around by the democrats, was the last straw that made me support Bush, anybody but Bush is not a viable plan.

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

Yes Iraq is a mess, in retrospect it was a bad move to go there. But virtually everyone including Bill Clinton and John Kerry supported it.
But Afghanistan did hold an election (free and fair as certified by international observers). More than 10 million people voted, I think thats a massive
change from the Taliban regime that ruled before.
A time when people got taken to a soccer field and shot for listening to music.

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

The rest of the world has disliked the US for a long time, long before George W Bush became president. Most of it is just people not liking the fact that US has the most powerful economy, and American culture relentlessly creeping into their countries via TV/Movies/Music etc. When a single entity dominates for so long, lot of people
will cheer for the underdog. Its the reason why
so many people dislike the New York Yankees baseball team. The reaction to 9/11 in this '80%'
of the world you mention was one of concealed glee. To a lot of them it was the dominant player
finally losing.
Even if a democrat had been elected the '80%' of the world would still dislike America and Americans, Bush is just an excuse for them to express their dislike openly.
America voted decisively for Bush yesterday, he won by more than 3.5 million votes. Whats more
the republicans gained seats both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. If the democrats want to win elections they ought to listen to the electorate, not what someone in Canada or Sweden thinks. People from other countries dont vote in their elections worrying about what the Americans might think, dont know why we should be worrying about what other countries might think about our president.
John kerry ran an ad on tv, one where he was the hawk and Bush was the Ostrich with his head stuck in the sand. Only right now its the Democratic party who have their head in the sand, refusing to see the writing on the wall.
I have always been more aligned to Democratic party policices than the Republican party's. But this time with only the hate Bush rhetoric coming from the democrats and no real ideas for progress. I had to support Bush, albeit with heavy reservations. And I suspect looking at the popular vote, lot of other people around the country felt the same way.
And no the US isnt just collapsing, our economy
is strong, we have 5.4% unemployment, compare that
to over 10% in most of the rest of the '80%' of the world..including France and Germany.
For those who voted for kerry..repeat after me....this too shall pass :)

Goodwin's law and liberals

[nsayer]

I've heard from about a half dozen liberal friends about the election so far, and without exception each one has instantly run afoul of Goodwin's Law.

In my book, it goes quite some ways towards explaining why they lost.

Re: BAD! Advice

[skippywalker]

I've had my .2 second thought about this. But there's one problem - in W's second term, we don't know how many people are going to die as a result of his policies. I'm not comfortable laying down to watch X,000 or XX,000 young American soldiers, or XX,000 or XXX,000 Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Phillipinos, Thais or whomever get killed because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is a need for a war against terrorists, sure. W's plan is not that type of war. His war is a crusader's war and that cannot be swallowed whole and without resistance.
Organize to defend our rights or literally die.

Re:Hug this

[randyest]

This opinionated, factless claim is not in any way informative.

Sore loser.

You see, what's funny

[fluxrad]

Is that you think that hate and fear-mongering are exclusive to the left. Interesting to say the least, being that tactics perpetrated by the right exhibit the same properties you claim to be so discusted by (read: voter intimidation in 2000, swift vets for truth, the assertion that the bible will be outlawed and gay marriage will run rampant...just to name a few.)

Let me tell you why I strongly dislike George Bush.

• Discouraging stem-cell research.
  
• Invading Iraq and only paying lip service to the UN
  
• Tax cuts primarily for the wealthy while running up the budget defecit by ridiculous amounts.
  
• Passing No Child Left Behind and then not funding it (terrible act to begin with).
  
• His neoconservative cabinet and sub-cabinet members (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft)
  
• Violations of the Geneva Convention under his watch (no one has yet resigned or been fired.)
  
• He supported amending the constitution to outlaw gay marriage (But ran to the left as soon as he realized it wasn't going to get him votes).
  
• The PATRIOT Act.
  

These are just a few of the many reasons I think George W. Bush is entirely unfit for the office of the president. Also, please bear in mind that the above proposals were done in his first term - a term where he knew he would be seeking reelection. What's the man going to do now that he knows he's got nothing else to run for?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Skjellifetti]

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.

To expand on the parent's theme, why did Dutch "peacekeepers" stand aside and let the Serbs massacre Muslim Bosnians in Srebrenica? What has Europe done to solve the civil war in Rwanda and the Congo? Why has Europe has nothing to stop the rapes and killing in Darfur? I don't know which pisses me off more -- unilateral US intervention and our pretensions of moral superiority or European complacency and their pretensions of moral superiority.

1. I did not vote for Bush. I do not even like him.
ditto.
2. I am not a Republican.
ditto.
3. I do have a passport and it has stamps in it from the EU to asia.
ditto.
4. I did server in the millitary and have seen combat.
Fortunately, I never saw combat.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EinarH]

But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

First let me say that allthough I had hoped that Kerry would win, Bush victory was the most likly outcome. Disappointed? Yup. But it's _not_ the end of the world. USA will continue to be a somewhat decent country to live in compared to many other countries, even if the differences among people within USA will increase as well as the social mobility. Some folks may get insanly rich other might get a job in growing areas like small bussiness, debt collecting, flipping burgers, homeland security and security personell in the next rouge state to be liberated. The big losers will be those in the middle class that don't get to participate in the party and get their share of the economic growth.

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". How peolpe manage to prioritize these areas above Economy/Jobs, Iraq and terrorism is beyond me. Some of them are classic conservative areas but historically not to the extent that GWB has campaigned on them.
And those few qualities that I find magnetizing; fiscal responisbility and a small to medium sized effective non-intrusive non-religious state, they are _completely_ abandoned.
Do people expect a second Bush administration to win the "war on terrorism" on these qualities? And do they belive Bush can create a stronger economy while at the same time winning the "War on Terror" _and_ keeping the deficit from sliding into an almost unrecoverable state?
The voters will get what they requested on the "Moral value" issue essentially on gay marriage and abortion but my prediction is that they will _not_ get what they want on Economy/Jobs and "War on Terror".

The fact that people are voting increasingly on "values" leaves little room from critical thinking, unpopular/controversial choices and nuanced viewpoints. Among the people that said "Will bring change" (25%) is the most important quality Kerry got 95% of the votes. But among those that said "Strong Leader" and "Clear stand on Issue" are important Bush got 86% and 78%. So people voted for Bush because they belive he is the right Leader. To me as a foreigner that looks like a classic case of a country both divided and unsecure about the further course. People belive the President as a Moraly and Strong Leader can accomplish things that realisticlly are unlikly to happen.
Througout history many citizens have voted for the strong commander to miraculously lead them out of the trouble and a lot of the times it has only brought the into more problems. (To avoid long flamewars I will avoid naming any specific country and leave that to the historicans.)

I have seen this for a long time that USA is turning more right than the rest of the world. I will expect to see even more focus on the Wars (Crime, Drugs, Terror,), increasing amounts of security and surveilance creep and religion afflicting more of the public life. Bush needs to cut somewhere in order to finance the war on terror and my bet is on either health care or social security. Not drasticaly, but steady. Civil liberties will remain mostly intact but will have to cease in those areas where they threaten to disturb important policies. I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world.

who will be our allies

[chrysanthalbee]

when bush totally alienates the USA from the rest of the world. this is one of my biggest fears. the brand called "America" has been tarnished by this administration's bullying and selfishness. if we cry wolf (read "WMD") next time who's gonna help?

Well...

[xeon4life]

If you're really concerned about politics than vote at a local level. Local representatives can do a whole lot more to your life than the president can.

Re:sigh....

[dfenstrate]

So he provides some evidence, and you respond with "but I didn't want *that* evidence!"

I suppose I should have pointed out HOW MANY MILLIONS OF TIMES i've seen his 'evidence.'

Suppose I grant you his 'evidence' is true, and widely accepted. Kerry still would have lost, because of the fundamental problems I'm talking about.

'Evidence' for various sides has been batted back and forth ad naseum on this and countless other message boards, and i've been at bat many times.

The only thing we can consistently see is that the democrats lose.

But you want a reason that the democratic party failed. Here, I'll try one: the democratic party is less able to mislead people into believing that they share an agenda.

Keep telling yourself that you just need to fool the people more, and fight dirtier. See how far it gets you.

And if you believe that GWB and crew are actually republicans, and not self-proclaimed neoconservatives hijacking the republican party, then you have some more research to do

Although I don't agree with everything Bush has done, I think he's the right president at the right time.

As for the republican party, I'm hoping that the Democratic party will finish dying soon, so another party can rise up that's actually closer to my beliefs. Maybe constitutionalists, some folks along those lines. Until then, I'll pick whoever's closer to what I want.

My point was that the Democrats continue to lose without bothering to question if there's anything fundamentally wrong with their beliefs and platform.

I don't want to argue about any shortcomings of Bush or the republicans, as I'm familiar with them, and I can live with them until a credible alternative comes along.

It should be obvious by now, however, that the shortcomings of the democrats are near fatal in comparison.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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

I'm a Democrat, and I totally agree with you. You're 100% right, and it was just demonstrated to us, again. So the question becomes: do the Democrats finally learn their lesson, and make changes? If so, what are those changes that they have to make to win? I don't know if the party will learn the lesson from this election: there was interesting talk radio about that today; but the posts that answered you weren't appropriately self-reflective.

Naturally, I'm not a Democratic party decision maker, but it'll be interesting to see if they implement any of the things that I think that they should do to win: A) Get focused, and don't be afraid of being angry. I think the Dems need more Dean and less Kerry, even if some folks get their feelings hurt. B) Learn how to communicate the Democratic belief in values. We have a belief in family values; we don't define it the same way, is all. We need to be able to communicate what that value is. Democrats love their children too.

I think that's where the Dems should start, at least. If it's done or not remains to be seen--but I think this loss will tear it, and some heads will roll. If those strategies will work or not I think remains to be seen also--but at least it'll be more competitive.

Re:Accepted.

[petrus4]

This is truly an illustration of exactly the kind of human being (and I use that phrase exceptionally loosely, here) that Bush and the people who re-elected him were. Someone expresses their misery and desperation over

1) Very likely having their child drafted to be killed or maimed in a foreign war
2) The US most likely becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the planet
3) The loss of life that will result in continuing terrorist acts in response to Bush's activities,

and not only does this most quintessential of Bush advocates continue trumpeting the usual rhetoric, but has the gall to cuss the parent author out for expressing their pain. I am gasping...I honestly can't believe this. And I know it's only going to get worse.

Re:The rest of the world must think we're idiots

[delete]

You do realise that people exist outside of America, right?

Re:Oh Canada!

[pla]

Please, please, please encourage all of your liberal buddies to push this agenda hard.

You might want to keep in mind the overall trend of tax money sources and destinations...

To an astonishing degree (shocked the hell out of me when I found this out), tax money flows out of the blue states, and into the red ones.


So yeah, you can bet that I'll push that agenda amongst all my "liberal buddies", and try my best to cut all you damned red leeches off blue-funded welfare.

But look at the bright side... Companies in blue states might grace your sad red economic state ("in the red"... tee-hee) with a few bucks from outsourcing. Now go make me some Nikes, boy!


Oh, and remember -- all of the nuclear weapons are in "red" states.

But, for balance, all the engineers capable of maintaining them live (or at least got their education) in the blue states. So enjoy them, until they rot and pollute your groundwater, finally eliminating the vast tracts of redness via radiation-induced infertility.

Have a nice day. ;-)

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Golias]

Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

Good point! It can't possibly be true that reasonable people can disagree. It must be that all of us who voted for Bush are short-sighted idiots. Thank you for contributing so much to the sensible dialog between political viewpoints.

It must be nice to know for certain that nobody who disagrees with you could possibly understand facets of our national debate which have eluded you, because you are so wise, and we are so incapable of thought and reason.

It must also be nice to be so sure that the problem with us is that they simply have not been made to understand your arguments yet. If only you could find a way to enlighten the poor, misguided boobs from their prison of ignorance. If only we could just glimpse the light of left-wing thought for the obvious One True Way that it is, perhaps there would be hope for America!!! What more can you, the elite, possibly do to raise us from this morass of childishly thinking that low taxes, limited government, and an aggressive offense against terrorism are good ideas!?

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a US citizen who left the United States in 2001 as a direct result of the election of Bush. My father was a presidentially-appointed government employee under Clinton, but Bush replaced him with a Republican (as is standard operating procedure when a president from a different party is elected). Dad therefore got a job at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ictr.org] prosecuting war criminals from the Rwanda genocide and my entire family moved to Tanzania.

Overall I am glad to be in Tanzania, and out of a country where people are so phenomenally stupid, misled, or uninformed that they would consider voting for a president responsible for the destruction of America's economy, budget surplus, international image, and at least 14000 [iraqbodycount.net] innocent lives. Most of my friends here are from Europe or Asia (I attend an international school) and it is refreshing to encounter other people with real leftist, liberal views (as opposed to the current US democrats who are more conservative than most countries' conservative parties).

I was very much hoping for a victory for Kerry because I think a renewal of US ties with the rest of the world and a gradual pullout from Iraq would make the world (and the US in particular) a safer place, because it seemed like Kerry's economic policies had the greatest chance of decreasing the US deficit, and because I think the US needs to catch up to the rest of the developed world in government support for education and health care. I was initially planning to attend university in the US, but now that Bush has been elected I don't think I want to, both due general anger over the removal of civil liberties and other problems that have resulted and will continue to result from Bush's control of the government, and because of the specific fear, however unlikely, of a military draft. Given this election result, I will likely attend university in the UK, as Blair is at least fairly sensible from a domestic policy point of view (despite his tendency to be subservient to Bush in international policy). The rest of my family will likely remain in Tanzania until 2008, by which time the American public will hopefully have emerged from their brainwashed stupor.

Re:Lots of Vitriol

[drfreak]

You are not an idiot, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, separation of church and state should be a consideration in your vote too. Having faith is all well and good, but it is up to us to take care of things here on Terra Firma.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[ash]

What standards are you using for power?
Economic, as that underlies all else. Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product. If you're unfamiliar, GNP measures total money value of products and services produced by a nation in a year; GDP is similar but limits to production done within the country.

As of the most recent measures (2003) not only did the United States have the largest GNP, but Texas by itself ranked #8, right behind China.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/303148theconomy .html [state.tx.us]

For GDP, the United States again tops the list easily.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2001rank.html [cia.gov]

Most successful eh?
See Conductor's response; I'm not going to point out the error of your social state panacea, but again, I submit the above. Perhaps it can be argued we're not as our GDP per capita is 2nd behind Luxembourg. But I would argue Luxembourg cannot scale to match the U.S.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php [worldfactsandfigures.com] ..all of those countries...
What is your measure of power & success? You mention diplomatic power. Do you have a metric by which to judge this? Are you aware that the coalition of countries that the US put together for the Iraq war was larger than that for the Korean War, and this was done without the UN's backing? After the invasion, the UN then gave its permission for the continued occupation of Iraq, after initally opposing it. For that matter, who funds the UN? Or that the US was able to hold the first democratic election in Afghanistan just recently? I think the US has far more diplomatic power than you speculate.

Please submit 1 country who you believe is more successful and powerful, and what measurements you use to determine such. Take into consideration whether that country could have accomplished even one of those items I just listed.

Finally...your knee jerk reaction of "military power" tells volumes about how you perceive both power and those on the other side of the political spectrum from you.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[zxnos]

i know i am going to get pounced on for this, and i am not trying to start a fight, but here goes... ...i am one of those 'ignorant' people who votes down party lines. i do this because in the u.s.a. politicians form their coalitions before running for office. for me, party trumps person. when it is all said and done the party that has the most 'heads' gets to chair committees etc. i would rather have the party that most closely matches my philosphy heading up committees.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Kymermosst]

I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash.

Probably because some of us who consider ourselves 'conservative' (i.e. me) have multiple college degrees with near 4.0 grade point averages. Not poorly educated, not white trash. Come to think of it, none of the other conservatives I know are 'poorly educated' or 'white trash.'

I know some homeless dope-smoking liberal college dropouts who won't get jobs, however. I won't use those to describe everyone who calls themselves liberal, though, because I also know plenty liberals who understand that it's better to earn what you have rather than have it handed to you, and therefore have nice homes, college educations that got them good jobs, and other amenities that they can enjoy.

Anyway, I like target shooting, the ability to keep my hard-earned money, and being able to choose for myself whether or not I need health insurance and where I want to invest my retirement dollars. What I don't understand is why so many people have a problem with this.

To me, 'liberal' is quite often near-synonymous with with this definition: Someone who wants to tell me where to spend my money, how to spend my money, where to work, how to work, how much to work, what I can and cannot own, and what I can and cannot do with my property.

Oh, you mentioned 'logging' in your post. I don't know where you are from, but here in Oregon I've personally witnessed a few big burly loggers in tears begging one of our Senators (you guess which one) to oppose unbalanced and extreme anti-logging legislation that put them out of work and threatened to put their children out of work and destroy the economic basis of their entire communities.

We've got hundreds of ex-loggers here attending retraining programs at local colleges, and if you ask them, most would rather be out cutting old trees and planting new ones than learning how to code HTML and/or fix cars or airplanes.

On a personal note, my wife's grandfather was a millworker. It's shut down two of three lines and laid hundreds of people off. Her father was also a millworker, that mill is now closed.

Can you guess how I vote?

Re:Oh Canada!

[glwtta]

Yeah, but they can show tits on TV.

Re:Advice

[evilviper]

In fact, whenever they ask you to support them on an issue, go willingly, go gladly and give them everything they want.

That's exactly what happened after Sept 11th 2001. For about 2 years, nobody said ANYTHING. Remember, you're not a patriot if you aren't parroting the president.

If John Kerry had voted against the Iraq war, he would have had a leg to stand on... Instead, he went into damage control mode, and said he supported it, but would have done it differently.

All I can say is, I have no idea why Howard Dean didn't get nominated. He would have actually been a candidate, instead of a spinless clone of the opponent as Kerry positioned himself to be.

Bush's plan

[AveryT]

1. Get your brother's and father's friends to steal the election for you and become president
2. Clear brush on your ranch all summer, ignoring warnings that bin Laden wants to fly airplanes into buildings (until he does)
3. Convince your gullible voter base that you have made them safer because it only happened once and win re-election
4. Profit!!!

No.

[StarKruzr]

The existence of the electoral college implies that the federal government is a creation of the states. The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[dtfinch]

There's a lot of anger out there. Republicans see that they won the popular vote, and Democrats see signs of widespread election fraud. I think Kerry believes that an early concession would prevent an already bad situation from escalating.

Half the country has just entirely lost its representation in the US government. The House, Senate, and Presidency all belong to the Republicans now because of this election, soon to likely include the Supreme Court, and there's good evidence that we won't be able to change that. This kind of shift in power is what led to the bloodiest war in US history. While I doubt we'll even come close, the next 4 years doesn't look good. Anger won't solve anything, even though justified. Prolonging the election dispute will only help that anger to grow.

If the vote turns out in Kerry's favor, then all will be well. If it doesn't, litigation is unlikely to change the outcome. And neither will protests. The best we can do is work to educate the other half of the country. And eat less. That'll teach them.

The vote is in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here lies wisdom.
Rest In Peace.

Count me out

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one do not salute our old fear-mongering, xenophobic, crusading overlord.

Re:Red State hatred

[SmittyTheBold]

Similarly, I live north of you, in McDonough county [radiomacomb.com]. Being a more rural area, there is more of a Republican leaning to this area. Thankfully, the university crowd brings in a liberal contingent from the cities (StL and Chicago, primarily) to counteract the the religious conservative natives.

(You'd think with more farmers, there would be more Democrats thanks to farm subsidies and the like, but apparently being "right" with Jesus is more important than being right with the world.)

And, considering myself a rather devout Christian, I still don't understand the thought process (or lack thereof) at work. I know many of my friends just don't take the time to understand the reasons for voting are more than just a stance on abortion.

After all, Jesus himself gave a pretty clear model LAST time he was here. WWJD? NOT FUCKIN' START A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, that's for sure.

You are wrong

[nycsubway]

Your contender in the meeting was saying that Bush has authorized the rape and murder of millions in Iraq. The number is much lower than that, but her interpretation of what has happened is akin to Hitler in WWII. He personally did not kill millions, but he authorized it. If you feel that Bush was innocent, then you feel that Hitler was innocent.

Also, you are doing exactly what you say you dislike: voting for someone specificaly because of 'hate'. You dislike the hatred from democrats so much that you voted against them. You're a hipocrite!

Re:Let me tell you why

[Sigh Phi]

I disagree strongly with this analysis. First, I'm a middle-of-the road independent (don't declare affiliation with any party). Most of my friends are Democrats. I have many friends and relatives who are Republican. Most of them voted for Kerry. I live in California.

Kerry did everything right in my opinion, which is why I am so disconcerted by the outcome. He ran against his opponent's record, not against his opponent's intellect or morality. He stuck to the concrete and the tangible, and hammered it home. He showed calm under pressure and demonstrated a command of nuanced and complex issues. His platform was pragmatic and populist. He had a record of bipartisanship and a history of public service. Kerry was a great candidate. Who would have appealed more to moderate Republicans? Not Dean. Who would have appealed to Environmentalists? Not Lieberman. Who would have appealed to people who initially supported war but were now having second thoughts? Not Gephart.

Exit polling showed that the #1 "issue" for a large number of Bush voters was "morality." They were voting on abortion and religion. Kerry voters were voting on war, the environment and the economy. Kerry didn't lose because he was a terrible candidate. He lost because evangelicals and secularists have dramatically different priorities, and there are more people who identify with the former group than the latter. This was a very important election with two strong and extremely different candidates. The outcome is a reflection of America, not of John Kerry.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote but acted as if he had a 60% mandate. I shudder to think what the next four years portend, with Bush's very real 51% victory, a subservient House and Senate, and an increasingly conservative federal bench.

Re:Lots of Vitriol

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think you are an idiot, I think you miss the point of our nation as a whole.

This nation was founded thanks to the desire to be free of a leadership based in religion. Yes, it was originally founded to give those who came over the right to worship the christian god the way that they chose rather than the way they were told to worship by the governance of Britain. We have lost the ideal of religious freedom in the united states of america (lowercase on purpose, as I have lost all respect for our populace)... It has become the new trend to enforce christian (and dubiously at that) views on all of this nation, rather than following our own beliefs for ourselves, and allowing others to worship and act as they should for their religions. It pains me, but america has become the country that our founders fled from. The worst of it, is that there's nowhere for those of us who still believe in freedom to flee to.

I disagree - I am a European with respect for Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident and citizen of another country I can tell you that I have much more respect for those with truly American courage who are not afraid of taking the risk to remove dictators from power
than of those preferring waiting.

Bush is not smart and made a lot of errors
but he is man of action and I respect it.

I am a European with memory - if not for
American action we would be speaking German or Russian now. It is also tough Reagan's 'star wars' what economically killed USSR.

Re:Stop whining -- something about it!

[Anonymous Coward]

My family (wife and three kids) supported Bush this year. Not because he's the magic bullet which will fix America's problems, but because he's much less dangerous than Kerry.

Please explain what is so dangerous about Kerry.

Then ask yourself if it honestly is less dangerous than our current crusade against terrorism?

When people have gone to war over ideological and religious reasons the outcomes have never been pretty.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[eclectechie]

What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

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

Americans are (justifiably) proud of their technological achievements. These don't just happen; some of the best, brightest, and most highly educated people in the world worked hard to bring them about.

I would like to point out that most of this excellence took place in the blue (Democrat) areas on the map.

I know there are

• Intelligent, educated Republicans
• Intelligent, educated rural people
• Intelligent, educated southerners and midwesterners
• Intelligent, educated Christians

but the fact is, less- or under-educated people are more likely to vote Republican.

And as for why the less educated "don't get it", there was an article on Slashdot a few months ago about how a minimum level of competence in a field is required before learning can take place (sorry, can't find the link). These people "don't know that they don't know."

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

By definition, people of above average intelligence are outnumbered.

If that was insightful, here's the flamebait: In the interests of re-election, the best Republican policy on education would be much talk about improvement, but no action.

Re:Wanted: real alternative to Republicans

[RocketScientist]

I agree completely.

My cousin is a democratic party fundraiser for a local congressional wannabe (he lost against a strong incumbent). I asked her why the Democrats couldn't put together a candidate that people wanted to vote for, and she said that since the party is so diverse, it couldn't come to a consensus of what a good candidate is, and the only thing they could agree on "Anybody but Bush".

The democratic party needs to kick Michael Moore to the curb. That loud, obnoxious, lying, smelly, steaming pile of crap needs to go. Start your own political party, and get less than 1 percent of the vote so we can all safely ignore your sorry ass. Or, constructively, Michael Moore needs to write a solid, positive book/movie about what he'd do differently and how he'd like to see things made better. Something well-researched and well presented, he's a pretty creative and clever guy with good wit (when he wants to use it).

The Democrats need to build a party that's pro-Labor, around a platform of antiglobalization (getting rid of NAFTA, GATT) and pro-socialized-medicine and pro-eduction. Quit attempting to appease the environmental and peace activists. The Democrats don't need to appease the environmental and peace activists because they are sure as fuck not going to vote for a Republican.

Democrats should concentrate on the things that made the party work: Big Labor and progressive socialism. Run FOR a set of goals, instead of against a set of goals. Have a plan for progress instead of a litany of complaints, because all the Democrats had this election was a list of what's broke, and either none or poorly publicized ways on how those things would be better if a Democrat was in the White House.

I'm not saying that this is a party I'd vote for, because it really is a party I'd vote against. But it's a party that a lot of people would vote for. And that's a lot better than simply having a party that's there to vote against the other guy, which is what has been run the last two elections. When the only positive thing the party has to say in an election is that "I'm not the other guy", it's just not enough to win.

Re:The Democratic Party Lost

[SoTuA]

The error was to have a candidate whose electoral platform was "I'm not Bush".

The "anything but" platform seldom works out. That shit almost cost the current Chilean president the election in 2000. It cost the Chavez opposition in Venezuela the referendum on Chaves staying or going. And now it cost the democrats the white house.

The election only goes to show

[arodland]

that if a candidate ran on a platform of "I hate baseball and apple pie, and I eat babies for breakfast", 51% of the voters would still vote for him if he was nominated by the Republican party. Most people know nothing about any "issues", they just know how to pull the red or blue lever like they're told. And, before I get flamed, the Democrats are no less guilty, they're just slightly less numerous.

That's pretty sad

[paranode]

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

Well you certainly do if you believe that. And still the Democrats wonder why they lost this election. It is this general elitism and malice (towards our own people even) that drives undecided voters away from the liberals and into the arms of the conservatives.

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. You're like a child who's lost a video game and wants to break the machine. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Stop whining -- something about it!

[justins]

Kerry was a very, very poor candidate.

Nonsense. He came within spitting distance of defeating a sitting president during a time of war. As fashionable as it is to view our little footnote in history as being fantastically unique, that would have been a great accomplishment under any circumstances. And he almost did it.

Show the American people that you're not run by left-wing nutjobs

If nominating a pro-war candidate rather than an anti-war candidate wasn't enough to do that, nothing will. The democrats had some "left-wing nutjobs" take part in the primaries, and they rejected them soundly in favor of the centrists.

The feeling

[Rei]

I couldn't exactly describe the feeling I've had all day... until I saw a poster on another site mention it, and it hit me when I'd last felt this way before. And I don't know why it is, but all day, I've felt the same way I did the day of 9/11/2001. ... I can't really say why, though....

Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving

[That's Unpossible!]

Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.

The spending bills were not partisan.

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

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.

It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose.

Sorry. Luck goes both ways, good and bad. SOME people are lucky and get rich. SOME people have really bad luck and become poor. The rest of us can blame ourselves, or give ourselves credit, for our success and failures, for the most part.

Democrats like to pretend it's all luck either way, so that we won't feel guilty about taking some of it away. Most rich people have earned their money, or had parents that earned their wealth (and thus earned the right to pass it on to their families).

Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"?

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.

Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic.

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.

It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.

I really don't follow this logic. Presumably you think the sales tax would be raised to pay for the war. In reality, my guess is we will continue deficit spending just as we do now. Sadly, those in Congress can't see the key is to cut spending across the board.

Re:Oh Canada!

[SmittyTheBold]

No. They are 'ignorant', for example, because they support the teaching of creationism in schools.

They're not saying to exclude evolution, so you, by EXCLUDING a theory about unrecorded history are promoting ignorance. As soon as you can explain all the holes in evolution (and if you don't think they are both present and significant, you're more ignorant than we thought) I'll explain the holes in creationism.

They are 'gullible' because they reelected the President after he ran on a platform of national security

THIS is the major one to me. And I think it's a mixture of gullibility and apathy. It's well documented the way this President has misled and deceived the public, but people don't care because either (a) they expect politicians to lie, and to them one lie is as good as another or (b) listen to the unfiltered propaganda coming from Crossfire rather than thinking critically about it and realizing how self-contradictory this President has been.

Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues...

[CptChipJew]

I think this has alot more to do with Kerry not being able to get people excited than anything else. I'm a republican, and voted as such, however I seriously wanted someone else to vote for.

This is a fine example of what is wrong with the American public. You don't vote for a man that you feel doesn't deserve to president! If you really think Kerry is that bad, then vote for one of the third-party candidates.

You voted for all of things Bush did that you didn't like, and all of the creative shit we all know he is going to come up with over the next four years. Afterall, imagine what he can think up without having another election to win.

It is something I like about Bush, politicians need to stop being afraid to piss people off, like the saying goes "If you're not on someone's shit list you're not doing anything important.."

When a politician pisses people off, said people don't vote for him.

And obviously Bush isn't afraid to piss people off. When the president of the US cannot correctly say "Internet", I get quite pissed off.

America, YOU FAIL IT.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[TheCaptain]

I'd like to second what Pii just said here. I have been to a few countries as well, in my humble travels. Alot of them are very interesting to visit, but when it comes to a place to live - I am sticking with the United States.

And remember kids...socialism is good because the socialist bureaucrats told me so.

Please mod me down with the rest of those willing to hold an unpopular opinion here.

Re:Stop whining -- something about it!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers

Sorry, didn't know I had no right to say what I want. I'll get back to the Non-Republican internment camp. Is that "Mein Kampf" you're reading?

My family (wife and three kids) supported Bush this year

Are your kids old enough to vote? Are they old enough to understand the issues and ask questions of their own? If not, you and your wife supported Bush - leave your children out of it and let them make their own decisions.

"Kerry might win. If he does, he's going to be our president for four years, and we'll do our best to support him."

Why? You have the right to free speech and to disagree with whoever you want - including the president. If Kerry was elected, you have the right to bitch and whine about it - just as I do about living with George Fucking Bush sitting in the White House figuring out how to remove civil rights from the unwashed peons.

Re:The devious Gay Marriage measures

[gymell]

Well, if we fight for civil unions, then we need to fight for all of the other legal benefits of Marriage. It's a much longer road. Why not grant the same rights at the start?

Simply put, because the majority of Americans have a hangup about the term "gay marriage" and are opposed to it. Of course, this doesn't excuse their hypocracy, because anyone who's really concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage would be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning divorce. But that's simply the way things are.

I also think gay activists are hung up on the term "marriage," as if nothing else would be acceptable. Personally I don't care whether it's called "marriage" or whatever term you want to use. And yes, it's a long road, but major cultural changes like this don't happen overnight. Forcing the issue through the court system is not working.

But this is the same Bush who wanted to mess with the Constitution.

Yes, that's true, and I completely disagree with his stance on this issue. A lot of Republicans do as well, including people like Bob Barr and John McCain. But recall that when this whole marriage thing heated up this year, Bush was silent for a long time on the topic. He caught a lot of flack from social conservatives for saying nothing. Finally he came out in support of this amendment after he had no choice. I don't condone him for doing that, but I do recognize that the left used this as a political issue in an attempt to force his hand and hurt him, just as the right uses it as a political issue.

Why on earth would you vote for him? Really, I'm curious.

Because I don't vote on a single issue. I agree with much more of what Bush says than what Kerry says, on issues from taxes to the economy to national security, which are all more important to me than gay marriage.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[tverbeek]

It must be that all of us who voted for Bush are short-sighted idiots.

No, not all. Just most. I've listened for rational intelligent arguments, and I do hear some from folks like my father, my sisters, and so on. Maybe that's what led you to vote for him. But that's not at all what Bush supporters on the whole have been saying to pollsters. That's been mostly Christian dogma, uncritical loyalty, the doctrime of "me first", and/or comments about positive traits like steadfastness that the flip-flopping Bush (2000: "America must be humble"; 2004: "America must be proud") simply does not exhibit.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[number]

Nobody is pushing for compulsory prayer. Just the freedom to pray. That is an exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.

I have no issue with allowing prayer in (public) school, as long as all religions are allowed - with say excerpts from the Koran on the wall alongside the 10 commandments. Time in the day allowed for prayers towards Mecca, etc. If all religions (wicca, satanism, etc.) are given equal time things could become unwieldly. Which is why it would be stupid for the school itself to conduct prayers, but let kids do whatever religious activities they want outside class time so as not to take time out of the other student's learning time.

Creationism is a widely held, not disproved, and scientifically sound theory. Teach it as a theory. Teach the other theories as theories as well. Show how they may coexist and how particular theories conflict with each other.

I suppose you could teach it as a theory. But how would you fill a lesson? "Some people believe that an invisible being created everything, by methods we do not know or understand. Any questions you have about this process cannot be answered because we don't understand the invisible being's methods. Lesson over."

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Lumpy]

I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

that's ok. so have many americans.

Re:The devious Gay Marriage measures

[gymell]

But the tradition of marriage has always been changing. It used to be that polygamy was an accepted and necessary norm. It used to be that once a woman was married, she lost all property rights. It used to be that interracial marriage was illegal. It used to be that marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. It used to be that people who committed adultery were stoned. It used to be that divorce was not an option.

So exactly which tradition of marriage do you want to preserve?

Re:Liberal Flip-flopping?

[Darby]

America is great because of its individuals and its morals.

But my morals tell me that it is wrong to make up lies as a justification to invade a country and murder 10s of thousands of its citizens who have never done anything to me.

My morals tell me that it is wrong to push my religion down other people's throats.

My morals tell me that it is wrong, in a free society, to call people who disagree with me traitors.

My morals tell me it is wrong to allow the energy industry to wirte our energy policy in closed meetings beyong the scrutiny of the public who said policy rightly belongs to.

You are right that America is great because of its morals, but it is these morals that make it so.
Forcing unwilling people at gunpoint to have babies is not a moral action, and certainly nothing to base a country on.

So you see, in this election actual morals lost to forcing certain religious beliefs down peoples throats.
That is why this country is so divided. It's the same attitude that caused freedom of religion to be put in the constitution in the first place.
Oh well, it lasted 200 years which is much longer than they thought it would.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[danbeck]

This is so typical of the Bush hating crowd. Another individual that has a different opinion, outlook on life or moral compass is an idiot who couldn't think their way through a Taco Bell drive through.

What kind of balls do you have to have, in order to be so arrogant as to think that your opinion is the "correct" opinion, simply because it's yours?

No doubt, our fair moderators here at slashdot will mod me down as a troll or flamebait when this buffoon got a +4 Insightful for his narrowminded, fascist comments.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[amightywind]

First let me say that allthough I had hoped that Kerry would win

Kerry lost this election that day in 1970 he appeared before congress spewing that bilge about American war crimes. Middle America would never trust him after that. Only in Massachussetts could be be elected to national office at all. He was a poor choice for the democrats. For all that he fought a tough campaign.

clarly not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world

Except for Israel, Spain, and Russia, the rest of the world have not suffered terrorist attacks. The rest of the world seems far more interested in restraining American power than fighting terror. That is their perogative, but our interests are not aligned.

right is rude

[poptones]

I grew up in the midwest and now live in the bible belt and I can tell you with complete certainty the majority of the people I know don't give a shit about the facts or reality. Most of them still believe saddahm worked with the terrorists that blew up the wtc, that abortion is their decision for everyone, that gay marriage is their decision for everyone, that "faith" should be their decision for everyone because "they are right." Most of the people around here, in fact, are believers in all that second coming bullshit - to them chaos in the mideast is a GOOD thing because it "clears the way for jesus." These goddamned wackos want nothing more than to see the world vaporized in a cloud of thunder, and this administration is not only catering to their whims, it's preaching those wacko beliefs from the state department.

Fuck your hypocritical "beliefs."

Re:The president should reflect people's values

[InfoVore]

This exchange is a great example of how people's moral beliefs affect their views. Let me demonstrate why the poster advocating gay marrage feels morally outraged by your position. I have changed some key phrases (the ones in all caps) in the post to illustrate. I translated it to a similar debate Americans had in pre-1960s America:

> The government allows RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES to have sex (in privacy like
> everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?

Not necessarily. But I don't want them to legalize it either by publicly endorsing RACIALLY MIXED marriage.

> So you would like to stop RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES from being TOGETHER and acting accordingly?

I would like to rid them of the delusion that what they do is normal and acceptable. A drug user knows he's wrong to do what he does. However he tries to rationalize his habit, he will never try to publicly announce it and he will not be proud of it. Likewise, RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES should know that they are in the wrong and correct that wrong, either by therapy, or by abstinence.

> I guess you still haven't answered my question
> as to how a RACIALLY MIXED marriage negatively affects you

But I have! I said it did not. But the thing is, if I am faced with a casting a vote for or against it, I have no doubt that I will vote against it. For me to do otherwise would be moral hypocrisy and I would be overwhelmed with guilt for allowing sanctioned SINNING into my world. Just as you are guilty of manslaughter if you allow a man to die by refusing some to take some simple action that would have prevented it, likewise you are guilty of a moral crime if you fail to refuse sanction to that which you consider immoral. I can not prevent the government from giving sanction to RACIAL MIXING if the majority votes for it, but if the government has the courtesy of asking for my opinion before enacting such legislation, I am certainly going to provide it.

> If a RACIALLY MIXED couple living right next door to you married,
> how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?

It will not change one bit. But I am a homebody; I don't even remember who my neighbours are. Someone who likes socializing with his neighbours would be affected more.

You feel moral outrage about gays activities and don't want the govenment to endorce it. The other guy feels just as much outrage about government sanctioned discrimination.

-I.V.

Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues...

[jafac]

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".

The simple, but inconceivable (to us) calculus is;
No matter what facts you present to "them" - THEY will not be swayed by people who call them stupid redneck bigots.

Let that be the lesson of November 2, 2004.

Please.

you ever consider the historical perspectives

[ProfBooty]

American history teaches us that many of the immigrants came here to escape religious persecution, or wanted to be self sufficent or for economic opportunity or for a more classless society.

It is pretty hard to sell leftwing ideals to a society which believes in upward class movement (look at some recent studies in which 20+% of people thought they would become rich), believes in hard work, and is one of the most religious western societies.

What benefits would it provide, to someone who works hard to improve themselves? One would have to appeal to ones ability for compassion, but how do you do that in a self centered consumer society which has no history of group cooperation? How can you convince someone that they don't deserve a new SUV or big TV that they have worked for (or put themseleves in debt for), so that someone else, may be able to get health care, or enough food to eat?

Where would funding come from to fund leftist programs? Obviously more taxes, because cutting military funding would take away from manufacturing and research jobs, and all of their supporting industries.

Re:Hug this

[Lumpy]

if you are only now disgusted by our entire country then you have had your head in the sand for a really long time.

americans in general are total assholes. you see it in the streets in not only how we drive by what we drive. You see it in the stores, in the lack of giving to the needy, the asshold gas station owners that change from the normal pricing model of set the resale price from their cost to adjust the price up if the cost per barrel on the market goes up squeezing every possible dime out of the consumer and knowing that they station across the street will do the same as that ass is as greedy.

Greed runs rampant in the USA. It's a fuck-thy-neighbor attitude and all it does is make us americans look like the rudest bunch of clueless assholes on this planet.

I know I'm going to get modded into the ground for this but it is the truth. Collectively we are exactly as I say we are. there are certianly some people that rise above it, but many do not.

If anyone is suprised as to why america and americans are hated, they really need to experience reality.

You Are the Center of the Universe

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do.

Here you've got 51% of the population who wants George Bush to be president. You voted against him. So all those people (51%) must be stupid right? After all they don't agree with you. If you honestly think like this, you probably stopped developing mentally at the tender age of 6.

There are a lot of issues that people disagree on vehemently. Your first step should be to understand why the people you disagree with see things differently than you do. Is it because they are stupid/crazy/bastards/wackos? ... possibly, but probably not. If you assume they are just stupid and there can't be a good reason to disagree with you, then you alienate yourself.

I've noticed this trend a lot here on slashdot. And if you'd like to keep thinking this way, by all means continue. But if you do, you'll see the next election decided by 4-5% instead of 3%. People don't like it when you look down on them because of disagreement. And that is enough to influence a vote.

Both sides are the same.

[ZxCv]

Kerry's shown some integrity and spirit in his concession. Unfortunately, he - and the DNC - showed none when they were running his campaign. For some reason though that ignoring the issues and focusing on FUD was a good idea.

If you think for a second that Bush and the RNC showed any more integrity or spirit in their campaign than did Kerry and the DNC, then I'd love to get a lead on the illicit drugs you must be smoking.

Anyone with any objectiveness about them could see both sides were equally evil in this campaign--they just did it in slightly different ways. Personally, I felt Bush himself was a little less evil, and thus voted for him. At the same time, I wasn't fooled into believing that his campaign was any less vile or underhanded than Kerry's.

don't even need the states for that

[poptones]

hell, just let the campaigners go to detroit, chicago and cleveland and they can tie up those three states!

Apparently' you're not familiar with the concept of population dispersion. Look at a county by county map of michigan, for example, and you'll see MOST of the state backed Bush. Yet michigan cast all its votes for kerry. why? Because MOST of the people in the state live in the metro detroit area, so the people in the country get to eat cake. Ohio and Chicago are the same way. So is NY, LA - just about every state has a major population center, but in some states the balance is really disproportionate.

Why should the candidates even bother with campaign stops? How many people actually show up for these hokey circle jerks, anyway? Most folks sit home and watch tv - the candidates don't even need to leave washington for that. Now that we have the web and literally anyone can speak their views those quaint "campaign stops" are even more a decadent waste of jet fuel.

One man, one vote is the only fair way. The "electoral college" was made obsolete by the communications revolution.

Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it seems to be that it's a "team" issue. My mother rallied on the Sox for decades. Any attempt to persuade her to cheer on a team that didn't suck was met with harsh words. I saw that in the election, where any attempt to convince a voter on the "other team" was met with the usual rhetoric of flip-flopper and coward and Vietnam-liar. The nation has turned into a bunch of mind-controlled, ifgnorant, god-fearing boneheads. The self-righteous arguing is illogical, unreasonable, and counter-productive. We need to stop, think, and start over. Maybe Kerry wasn't the "right" choice, but Bush was the wrong one. To everyone that voted for Bush, you deserve what you're going to get.

Re:Like it makes a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was "A Giant Douche" or "A Turd Sandwich". I like to to eat shit, so I voted for the turd.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

• ruining of Social Security

That horse left the barn several administrations ago. Social Security has always been a Ponzi scheme, and it is just a matter of which generation gets screwed in the end. I'm just as concerned about the rest of your points though. Why don't you GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? (Not you, personally, because, AFAIK, you did.) If every Slashdot complainer from the past 6 months of political threads would get out of their basements, and speak/work/persuade/volunteer/campaign, maybe a couple of swing states would have swung the other way. In the meantime, do what you can to limit the damage, or change the leadership the next time around. Democracy. Try it. (For the inevitable chorus of "oh, that is so naive" comments, just remember, as long as all you "sophisticated" or "cynical" types stay above the fray, the worst type of naive citizens -- the zealots -- will control the process.)

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[divisionbyzero]

I know the attitude sucks but your point about the social programs in other OECD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD) countries just encourages this kind of attitude. Do you know why you have these nice social programs? Because we have subsidized the military budgets of all of the other members of the OECD for the last sixty years.

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.

Eventually, when Europeans could afford to defend themselves, they let Americans continue to defend Europe so they could spend the money on social programs. So we became the most powerful country in the world. We prospered economically from the military industrial complex and all of the industries that it spawned. Many people got rich from this process and eventually these people decided that we don't need social programs. These people are now called Republicans.

There is no doubt that helping Europe and Japan after the war was the right thing, but when Europe took advantage and America (i.e. those who were in power due to the benefits that accrued from the military industrial complex) let them take advantage America's fate was sealed forty years ago. The American people missed out on the benefits of social programs, corporations took over politics, we became the most powerful country in the world, and the modern Republican party was born.

All of these things were affected by our relationship with Europe. Americans let it happen and deserve most of the blame, or praise depending on how you see it, but Europeans also share some responsibility for the state of things. Sure, we could have raised taxes, but our taxes were already relatively high until Ronald Reagan and since Ronald Reagan we have been running a deficit (that will necessitate a tax increase in the future) in order to afford a $500 billion/year military budget. The only thing that can stop this unsustainable and self-destructive trend is for Europe to develop an army that can address all of its securty needs and doesn't require the United States. There is movement in this direction but not enough.

Eisenhower saw it clearly (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/ indust.html) and he would be horrified by George Bush, which is why his son supported Kerry. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This trend has 60 years of momentum behind it.

So do yourself a favor. Learn some history, get some perspective, and don't be so hasty to reach for those Leftish cliches and prejudices to condemn an attitude and a situation that you, yes, you, helped create. Don't worry though. You aren't alone. Most Americans have no idea why we are in the position that we are in. The Democratic "strategists" seem to think this last election was lost due to a tactical error and most don't get the fact that a new strategy is needed. They need to use conservative (and I don't mean religious conservative) means to attain liberal goals, but that's a whole 'nother post.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EinarH]

Kerry lost this election that day in 1970 he appeared before congress spewing that bilge about American war crimes.

I don't think it made him unelectable but it certainly made it harder as some people were willing to create the Swift Boat Campaign and attack him on not his claims on war crimes but instead on medals and actions.
We could have endless discussions about how telling about war crimes ain't "spewing bilge" but let just agree to disagree on this one ok?

Except for Israel, Spain, and Russia, the rest of the world have not suffered terrorist attacks. The rest of the world seems far more interested in restraining American power than fighting terror. That is their perogative, but our interests are not aligned.

Apart from Western Europe and some other rich countries the rest of the world do have _far worse_ problems than terrorists attack or the war on terror. In many of these countries people are dying at the rate of hundreds each week. I don't think they care much about some islamist blowing themselves up even if they take with them some rich europeans or americans.
In Europe and the rest of the world many rich countries are interested in fighting terror. Most of them have forces in Afghanistan. Most have enforced legislation to track down terrorist funding. And most of them have helped USA diplomaticly or with intelligence. Apart from the Iraq issue I don't think European countries oppose the "War on Terror". We do however have some itches with that "we have the right to attack and reform any country if we suspect that they have WMD/support terrorists/is evil" attitude.

I belive that the long-term interests of Western Europe and USA are aligned, because the similarities exceeds the differences, but only if USA understands that it's not some unique country above everyone else.

We really need to do away with the commericials

[Steeltalon]

Seriously, part of the problem here is that people bought into personal attacks that had nothing to do away with issues... Many of which were lies. We need to ban campaign commercials on TV and Radio and just have a series of debates throughout the campaign that are non-negotiated and open to any national party's candidate. Make them debate in public. Make them answer the tough questions. Put in Moderators who will hold every candidate's feet to the fire. Then we'll start to see an educated public make decisions.

WE WILL NOT FORGET

[redog]

I don't know why I even read this page. It pisses me off to read comments from liberals or conservatives "moving to canada" if they don't get their way. It pisses me off reading opinions of liberals or conservatives who vote based on religion or lack there of. It pisses me off when liberals or democrats object to THE WAR.

To those who want to go to canada: GO, put your tail between your legs and go. You are a quitter, you will not fight for what you believe in you will quit and cry like a child not getting their way. You don't help this nation you divide it.

To those of you who are crying about Bush being a Christian or the "born again population of your state": Get over it. There are catholic priests fucking little boys, and there are atheist tv stars fucking little boys. No one said life is fair nor suggested it ever would be. Let the legal system sort them out and complain about that.

To the morons complaining about THE WAR: We didn't pick this fight. Do you think OBL, gave a fuck that there were atheists in the towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were Muslims in the trade towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were women and children in the trade towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were catholic priests, tv stars, politicians, or his relatives in the trade towers?

Do you think he is the only one thinking this way?

The world brought the fight here!
GET IT?
Either your with us or not, PERIOD
WE DID NOT START THIS WAR. WE WILL FINISH
At which place doesn't matter unless your soon to be one of the Canadian immigrants.

Personally I love the USA, I hate its politics, religious or otherwise. I hate the party system.
And I'd be happy to be the first to put a bullet into the Osama Bin Ladens, Saddams, David dukes, michael jacksons, Rev. boy lovers, or any other radical person haters out there who has NO respect for the people in this world.

I'm not the President of the United States of America. I don't have the authority, knowledge, wisdom, or nuts to to run this country. George W. Bush, certainly is not the best president that we have ever had but he is OUR GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING LEADER, SO LISTEN WITH A LITTLE BIT OF DIGNITY TO WHAT HE SAYS. Stop criticizing his grammar. This is life not usenet. Stop complaining about his policy's. Its easy to talk the talk but who here has run the USA? Who here has seen whats on the books? Who here can be president? Deeds not words. Now get back to work before china becomes more productive than the US and takes over the world.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[BeatlesForum.com]

If nothing else it's prophetic.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.

I will guarantee you that we will see more anti-homosexual laws on the books that are championed by the administration and their new-found morals, or should we say fair-weather morals.

Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.

I do think that marriage is between a man and a woman - that's the way the Bible intended it. I certainly don't want civil unions or gay marriage for moral reasons but also companies would be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex unions. You think health insurance is high now? Wait until civil unions/gay marriages are legal.

I feel sorry for the homosexual community.

I really don't. They want special rights, not equal rights. They have the same rights I have - to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[wilsonjd]

* ultra conservative supreme court appointments

The senate majority is not big enough for this to happen. The 44 Democratic Senators will make sure that Judges are (relatively) moderate.

* ruining of Social Security

It was ruined in about 1964 (under a Democratic president.)

* relationships with allies severed

Strained, maybe. Our allies understand that administrations are temporary. Money talks.

* inability for Americans to safely travel overseas

Neither party has a viable solution that will improve our safety.

* the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)

Move to New York or California, or another "blue" state.

* bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue

Both parties are working on this quite well.

Re:My generation

[Anonymous Coward]

> What do we have to do make it a video game to
> make you stupid fucks vote?

Duh, now there's an easy one to answer, even for a 48 year old European white protestant:

Organize a draft.

Why do you think the Reps don't want the draft the Dems requested ?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[NoGuffCheck]

"Except for Israel, Spain, and Russia, the rest of the world have not suffered terrorist attacks"

Lets not forget Egypt, England, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Japan, Germany, to name just a few off the top of my head, but if you like im sure I could put together a list of at least 50 other countries who have had terrorist attacks if you feel it neccessary.

" The rest of the world seems far more interested in restraining American power than fighting terror"

Have you somehow found a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, that the rest of the world is unaware of? Iraq was a Blood-for-Oil campaign, nothing else..

Re:TO: the world FROM: the USA RE: election

[donutello]

The prevision for USA is an economy decline, loss of status regarding its position among all the countries

You don't understand Americans do you? Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about them - not because Americans think they are better than the rest of the world, but because they evaluate themselves based on what they themselves think, not based on what others think. Americans don't care to be better than every other country - they only care to be the best they can be.

The European's guide to responding to the election

[Rimbo]

First, be sure to assert the stupidity of the American people for doing this. Doing so clearly defines your superiority to the unwashed masses across the pond, and lets any Americans who may be paying attention (not that they would, anyway) who's the real boss.

Secondly, be sure to bring up some of Bush's failures in the past four years. In the most expensive and extensive campaigns in American history, many important issues -- such as Iraq and the Economy -- were completely ignored. It's important to make those facts known, as they help with again clearly defining your superiority; first you told them who's the boss, and now you've proven it!

Last, be sure to mention something about your future travel plans, such as where you're planning on taking a vacation and more importantly where you're not taking vacation. Better yet, welcome them to Europe with open arms. No one's really attached to their home anyway and want more than nothing else to find a better place to live; by demonstrating your superiority so clearly in the first two steps above, they know where they can go!

IMPORTANT: By no means allow anyone who voted for Bush attempt to explain it! No matter how irrational or idiotic their reasons are, you run the risk of understanding their motives, which could cause irreparable harm to your ideology! AVOID AVOID AVOID! If they attempt to speak, interrupt them or silence them quickly before you become contaminated! Remember that you're the boss here! Show them who is in charge!

By following these instructions, you will... oh, I see most of you already have. My mistake!

What is wrong with american politics ?

[nbahi15]

There isn't any discussion of politics as they relate to people. Whenever I bring up politics here (Texas) it is immediately met with, "I hate politics", "politicians are corrupt", "let's talk football".

This disinterest in politics ensures that the voter is informed by rumor, innuendo, and electoral noise. People still believe we found WMDs in Iraq, Al-Qaida and Saddam kicked it at his palace, and poor people are poor because they are lazy. It is no wonder that Americans are left with Abortion and Gay Marriage, the two most unimportant topics, as major campaign issues.

Divisions

[SeanAhern]

Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted

That's a novel definition of "wide."

One could argue that a poll could be taken to determine just how widely such an opinion is held. Oh wait, we just did. 51% of the country disagrees with your statement.

While Bush certainly isn't the best person in the country to be president, apparently most people thought he was the best one of the people offered. I don't buy the argument that people are misguided, vote blindly, or didn't hear the opposing message. I think the Democratic party got out its message better than it ever has before. Consider Moveon.org, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bruce Springsteen. People heard the message and decided that they wanted someone other than Kerry.

I'm a strong conservative, one of those vilified people here on slashdot. But I hate it when I hear my conservative friends lump all people left of center as "evil" or "stupid" or "dishonest." Both sides have had their fair share of moments that they shouldn't be very proud of.

The blind hate needs to stop. On both sides.

In the interests of trying to heal the divisions of this country, I think all of us (me included) need to try and remember to view those on the "other side," those who voted other than we did, as intelligent people, as people who are worthy to listen to. I couldn't stand Kerry. I was very happy to see him concede the election. But I have to respect that he is doing, and has been doing, what he believes is right for his country. And that's very honorable and worthy of my respect, even if I disagree with his actions and positions.

I want to elaborate on this point for a minute. Where I work we have a number of people who spend a period of time in Washington, D.C., interacting with congresscritters and other Legislative and Executive staffers. After their stint there (1-2 years), they come back here. Every person I've ever talked to who has worked in Washington has said that they now have a different view of the people who work at that level of government. That every single person, agree with them or not, takes their job seriously and does what they believe is right for the good of the country. That's important. That says that the people we elect, and the people who help them, really are trying to be honest with us, trying to do their best to make this country strong.

We need to respect that sentiment.

This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see...

For another good read, see this article [colorado.edu].

Re:Oh Canada!

[Moofie]

Since the next President is going to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans have strengthened their grip on the legislature, it's not a very long step to "tyrant with supreme authority". It's certainly to the level of "able to destroy a large number of the freedoms we used to enjoy".

Re:You are wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

Well that's a bold statement.

If Bush hasn't personally caused the deaths of innocents in Iraq, then Hitler and the Nazis weren't responsable for the killing of innocents in WW2?

Yea, alright. Show me where Bush said all the problems of the United States were caused by the Arabs. Show me where the Republican Party ran on a line of discriminating against Arabs. Hell Hitler said Germany lost WW1 because of the Jews, so show me where Bush said we lost Vietnam because of the Arabs or anyone.

Actually, Hitler didn't even authorize the Final Solution, if you'll look at it, his leadership did in 1942, but you know, I doubnt Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh have meet to discuss the killing of people in Iraq.

Re:Oh Canada!

[jkauzlar]

Your friends with multiple college degrees are in the small, small minority as Tuesday's election has shown. Bush's supporters are primarily from poor, rural states (white trash, if you will) or states dominated by evangelical religious communities. But where Bush really came through was from the rural or suburban areas where people are apparently shaking in their shoes from fear of getting killed by terrorists. These are the same people that drive monster trucks and watch the most sports, and ironically they are the most afraid. Personally I think bin Laden got lucky once. Empirical evidence (i.e. undisputable proof, see the 9/11 commission report) shows that Bush could have done more about terrorism when he first took office (and in fact was asked to do more). But somehow Bush turned it into a win. Its the frightened bunnies in the rural and suburban areas that let him go on this oversight.

And its no accident that the most liberal areas are cities, where these people see first hand the poverty and crime, where people are most likely to come in contact with a homosexual or an Arab-American citizen or a non-protestant, vote in favor of the democrats.. This is where everything falls apart. In the racially and religiously exclusive towns and suburbs, people don't see the problems that exist and so they think everything's alright.

In you and your multi-degree-bearing friends' cases, perhaps you're planning to be rich some day, and keeping some of that money (which doesn't amount to much if you're poor) is of larger concern. These are your interests and its ok with me, but when your interests support things like poverty, universality of a single religion, and policies which impose on the freedom of others to choose between their own definitions of good and evil and in turn are tied to the support of big businesses and 'keeping honest workers down' then it starts to get a little irritating.

As far as the ex-loggers, I think we need to think about the future and predict how many trees we can afford to cut down yada yada yada. This would be based on science, which I know Republicans tend to reject. And I think the gov't would do well to find other professions or forests for these ex-loggers (would you count on Bush to do this?).

Re:Oh Canada!

[krog]

They're not saying to exclude evolution, so you, by EXCLUDING a theory about unrecorded history are promoting ignorance. As soon as you can explain all the holes in evolution (and if you don't think they are both present and significant, you're more ignorant than we thought) I'll explain the holes in creationism.

Carbon dating (you believe in that, don't you?) blows the Biblical creation story out of the water. As such, I don't think it should be taught as science in America's schools. The theory of evolution is the leading scientific explanation of the origin of life -- following the scientific method, and not the it-was-written-by-a-prophet method.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[An Onerous Coward]

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is proper for the U.S. Government to levy taxes in order to fund programs that promote the general welfare. Let's also set aside what the nature of those programs are, and whether broad categories of programs like military spending, welfare, humanitarian aid, environmental regulation, transportation infrastructure, etc., actually live up to the ideal of "promoting the general welfare."

Now, what's your beef with a progressive tax code?

Say the government decides to get the money it requires by taxing everyone at 20%. A person making $10,000 a year pays $2000, while a person making $200,000 a year pays $40,000. Sounds perfectly fair, right?

But it isn't. Taking $40K from the rich guy causes relatively little hardship, while taking $2K from the poor guy causes a great deal of hardship.

Why? It's the very basic economic law of diminishing returns [wikipedia.org]. It's rather straightforward economics to say that people spend their finite reserves of money in such a way as they believe will maximize their own happiness. So each additional dollar you earn will be spent on something that will do less to add to your own happiness than the dollar before it.

In practice, this means that the rich guy might have to buy a new car less frequently in order to pay his $40K tax burden, or go out to eat less often, or live in a somewhat smaller house. Meanwhile, the guy who is scraping by, in order to pay his measly tax burden of $2K, has to decide whether to turn off the heat to his apartment, or walk three miles to work instead of renewing his bus pass.

Taking the "shiny-car money" from the rich guy does far less to hurt the overall happiness of the rich guy than taking "bus pass money" from twenty poor guys.

Those who argue against a progressive tax system are basically arguing that it is somehow "more fair" to take more from those who are most hurt by the taking. Meanwhile, those who are more able to pay more without a significant impact to their quality of life are relieved of even that minor sacrifice.

I don't get it. I mean, when people call for a repeal of all welfare programs, it makes a twisted sort of sense because they believe that the recipients are just leeches on the system. But calling for a return to a simple flat tax is nothing more than asking the government to make the hard-working poor give up necessities so that the rich can have incrementally more luxuries.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I think you atheists and agnostics and such are a tad hypocritical when you cry about intolerance from Christians.

Whoa, whoa, slow down there!

I see NOTHING in that guy's post that says he is an atheist or an agnostic.

Me, personally, I am a religious-minded person and I agree with him that religious fundementalism of the Osama bin Laden / Pat Robertson style is BAD! Religion can be a good, positive thing, or, it can be taken too far and destructive. When people use religion to proclaim another group of people as "wrong," for example, that's bad.

Religion is not about judging people. And if it is, well then, it shouldn't be.

It's been my observation that people who vote straight Republican as a "moral" issue are confused. As are people who use "Christian morals" to justify their hate. These people should spend less time hating what is not "Christian," and more time genuinely applying faith and good will in their own lives.

Maybe then they would see that a President who believes in "blessed are the poor" would not lower taxes for the rich, cut social programs, et cetera. I've been wanting to smack Bush with a stick that says "Love thy neighbor" for a long time. In one of the debates, Kerry brought it up, and unfortunately no one really caught on to it.

Re:Stop whining -- something about it!

[greg_barton]

The Democrats were given the "Perfect Storm" election

And yet you still supported the candidate who presided over that perfect storm. Kerry can't help it if there are some people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if Bush allowed a nuclear strike on Washington. Just wait, we may yet get to test that...

Besides, the election was just about even, in popular and electoral vote. You say Kerry was unelectable, yet 49% of the voting public disagree with you. YOu clearly show your bias and lack of logic.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[xtort17]

I'm interested, what are these countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies AND shorter work weeks? To my knowledge, there aren't any...

It may be true that there are some countries with at least one of these, but there is not a single country in the world that has all three, because they're all trade offs. Countries that have shorter work weeks have higher unemployment. Countries with longer life spans are less industrialized and have lower GDPs.

The US isn't the most powerful country because of its military. You're wearing the blinders if you think that's why people think the US is powerful - anyone with a few hydrogen bombs has the power to destroy most of the world, and it's been a few decades since the US held the monopoly on that.

What the US does have is one of the strongest economies. She has low inflation, and a strong exchange rate. She has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates, She has amongst the highest life expectancies, and She has (barring the Vatican and possibly some other very small countries with few inhabitants...) the highest GDP and GDP per capita in the world. It's not the military that makes the US the most powerful, it's Her economic power.

Assuming everyone who thinks the US is the most powerful feels that way because the US has a decent military is a hallmark of stereotyping and shortsightedness... Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[einhverfr]

Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

True. It does seem that the reliance on paperless systems in key areas are problematic. This will be fixed if the Help America Vote Act is not overturned.

There are many things that need to be changed. Just not necessarily anything which *might* have made a difference this time.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[BeatlesForum.com]

I'm an Athiest. Don't try to preach to me.

Hi there! I'm a Fundamentalist Christian. Did I offend you?

There's an inherent problem with the President's moral values. He's trying to impose them on the population.

But who says that just because you don't see anything morally wrong with homosexuality that it's right? Isn't the homosexual lobby forcing me to accept their moral standards?

Do you have any idea how this country got its start.

Yes. The Puritans that came to this continent were sick of taxation without representation.

Oh, are you making a snide remark about HIV directed at homosexuals?

Nope. Didn't cross my mind until you mentioned it. It'll be higher because there are more people to cover (i.e. pay premiums for).

So if HIV is more of a problem with heterosexual couples than why would one expect insurance to faulter when it came to homosexual couples?

I didn't bring it up. I didn't ask that question.

Now that's short-sighted. They want the right to marry someone they love. They want the rights other married couples have in the eyes of the law. How can that be considered a special right?

So if a person wants to marry an animal because they love them or a grown man wants to marry a boy because he loves him, is it still okay? How low on the moral scale can one go before it's enough?

I got my sources too.

[sideshow]

And they are telling me that believing the bullshit that Timmy down the hall in your dorm tells you is a bad idea.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[mzieg]

Now, what's your beef with a progressive tax code?

Say the government decides to get the money it requires by taxing everyone at 20%. A person making $10,000 a year pays $2000, while a person making $200,000 a year pays $40,000. Sounds perfectly fair, right?

Yes, it does.

But it isn't. Taking $40K from the rich guy causes relatively little hardship, while taking $2K from the poor guy causes a great deal of hardship.

I hold that the purpose of taxes is to fund the provision of fundamental government services that everyone requires and benefits from. It is not the purpose of taxes to "levy equal hardship." Nor would I trust you to define what constitutes "hardship" for me.

That's like the Oracle pricing model: every customer receives the same product, but they try to price it based on how much money they perceive you to have. That's how used car dealers work, where the value of the product is only ephemerally connected to the price they set for each customer. I don't buy from those kinds of companies, and I don't want my government to use that model either.

You and I are using very different definitions of "fair". My version is strictly quantitative, based on an unbiased application of an agreed-upon percentage to a known quantity (income). Yours seems to be biased on subjective assessments of "how much pain a recipient can/should bear." I don't trust that subjective aspect, for the normal "three lions and a lamb" reasons.

Please don't take any of this as arguing heavily for a flat tax. Although I regard a flat tax as less-evil than the current progressive tax, I would much prefer a consumption (sales) tax. That's how pretty much everything else in capitalism works, and I like it.

I like the incentive structure (discouraging overconsumption rather than discouraging productivity, success, and promotion); I like the intuitive "fairness" of "paying for what you use". That definition of fairness goes beyond human ideology, and resonates profoundly with our most fundamental understanding of physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the toll-road model, and I believe it to be both fiscally and morally sound.

I am aware many Americans -- generally those below the $200K "rich folks" threshold -- hold the opposing view, that it is both right and proper to extract an equal level of "pain" from every taxpayer. (Rather like the educational idealistists who continue to clamor for "equal outcomes" versus "equal opportunity".)

I can only say that I will continue to use my vote to resist the economic policies of socialism and communism, which I believe are absolutely irreconcilable with America's capitalist foundations.

Cheers, and thank you for your thoughtful and courteous reply. That is the real mark of distinction between /. and Freepers/DU/Kos/etc.

Re:What a mess

[be-fan]

Another problem I've always seen, and it has always made me very wary of the "liberal" point of view is the attitude-the belief that only idiots and the brain dead would vote the other way, that if everyone were smart they would vote the same way you do.

I think a lot of this comes from sheer frustration than anything else. Outside the "True Believers", I don't think there are a lot of Democrats who'd say that even conservative republicans like Buchannen believe what they do because they are idiots. Many of us accept that they simply have a different ideology than we do, and rational arguments can be made on both sides.

The thing is, the statistics of this election were just depressing. In 2003, a study revealed the existance of large-scale misunderstandings about the facts in Iraq, and it's correlation with support for Bush. The post-mortem of the election showed that the #1 concern among voters was not the economy, or healthcare, or jobs, or even Iraq or terrorism, as everyone expected, but rather, "moral values." As if that was the President's concern! The fundementally bigoted gay marriage amendments passed in all 11 of the states in which they were on the ballot, and helped Republicans a lot by increasing their turnout. It doesn't help that the Republicans themselves are encouraging the stereotypes by attacking intellectuals and liberals, playing up NASCAR dads, and emphasising the President's down home folksy character. If the democrats are suspicious of the intelligence of Republicans right now, it's not because they have no reason to be.

That's all well and good, and the conservatives have much the same attitude, but they don't go around proclaiming that everyone who votes Democrat is a back woods hick with a first grade education and brain damage.
No, they don't claim we're back-woods hicks. They claim we're welfare-draining terrorist sympathizers who are wholly disconnected from reality because we've had too much higher education. Which is not wholly untrue, of course. We've got our embarrassing elements too, particularly the "protest everything" college crowd, and the extreme environmentalists, but they either don't vote, or have nobody else to vote for, so they wield little power.

In the media, the conservatives definitely have an edge on character attacks on their opposition. NPR might be leftist, but they don't sit there just attacking the opposition. There must be some "rational conservative" counterpart to NPR, but browsing amongst Rush, Hannity, etc, all I see are counterparts to the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken.

I'd love to see the Democratic party reform itself as a party focused on fiscal conservatism, a government that keeps its nose out of your personal business, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives without being told how to live day to day by the government, or anyone else for that matter.
I would love to see that myself, though I'd probably be on the liberal shades of such a party. I really thought Dean could have turned the democratic party in that direction, but the left won out. I'm really excited with Dean's new organization, though, "Democracy for America", which is trying to push fiscally responsible social progressives into the mainsteam of the democratic party. They even have a sensical "each state to its own" gun policy.

But,

[firephreek]

Is anyone else out there bothered by the fact that technically, because of the use of electronic voting machines and paperless ballots, there is no way to prove that Bush actually won the election?

Oh, sure, you can argue that we wouldn't know if Kerry won either, but still, either way, doesn't that bother anyone else?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Alsee]

It's promoting the false sense that it's better to have anyone else in office rather than the current representative. WRONG

By your logic you shouldn't bother voting against Hitler just because his opponent isn't Mother Theresa.

When you've got a lying ass like Bush in office it is indeed better to vote for anyone even half-way reasonable.

-

Re:Defeat means it's time to regroup.

[dpotter]

Bravo. One of the most meaningful posts I've read on Slashdot in quite some time. Thank you for the refreshing voice of moderation, words of encouragement and hope.

I'd like to offer another thought that has occurred to me. THE REAL LOSERS IN THIS ELECTION:

1. McCain-Feingold. By the time the final numbers are in, this election is likely to have brought us 30% more campaign spending than any previous election. Mostly brought through 527 groups (in support of both major parties), with far less accountability or transparancy than ever before.

2. Al Qaeda. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the great likelihood is that Al Qaeda would have preferred to inflict some type of election-disturbing attack on America, as they did in Spain and Australia. Yet the most they could accomplish was a video. Congratulations to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations for keeping the homeland safe.

Re:Emigrating to a secular nation...which one?

[Brad1138]

"yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else"

I find that the more religious someone is the harder time they have seeing the way religion is overtaking our country.

You don't see banning abortion/gay marriage etc. as a problem because it fits right into your beliefs.

Never has the separation between Church and State been more blurred.

Every major decision our current administration makes seems to be founded in religion. From Bush saying he believes he is doing the Lords work in Iraq(VERY, VERY SCARY) to banning gay marriage.

If the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else, then who or what is in the White House?

Its the end of the world as we know it ...(NOT)

[kommisar]

I didn't vote for Mr. Bush and I was disappointed that he won (Nader supporter). I think the biggest problem that the democrats have is that their socially liberal message is not attractive to a majority of US citizens. Someone once said (I forget who), that outside of the coasts, USA is as religious as India and I think this election is good evidence of this tendency. I'm not saying that being pro-gay and pro-abortion aren't noble goals. Unfortunately, these items are hot button issues with a lot of people in the crucial swing states. You see those deeply crimson counties in Ohio? Those are the anti-gay, anti-abortion people coming out to prevent the further advancement of those agendas.

I don't think that Bush's victory is a total doom and gloom scenario. First, I think his re-election sends the right message to the islamic terrorists that USA is steadfast in the pursuit of our goals. This message will most quickly get us out of Iraq under acceptable terms.

Second, I believe Mr. Bush now understands the consequences of military action and will be much less likely to get involved in any other foreign adventures. Notwithstanding Bush's state of mind, the army doesn't have the manpower to do anything other than Iraq for remainder of Bush's presidency.

Third, I think that the neo cons at the DOD have been discredited by the Iraq ordeal. This means that Collin Powel and the state department are ascendant. They are more internationalist and more likely to work with allies and the UN. I'm betting that the army is going to get expanded and more troops sent to Iraq. This will be a direct rebuke to Mr. Rumsfeld, whose hi-tech warfare mantra is one of the major reasons that invasion and occupation were attempted without sufficient forces in the first place.

So despite the horrible record of the first term, I think things will be better in the second.

Now what we really should be afraid of is that rising interest rates which will pop our real estate bubble. Unfortunately this was going to be a problem no matter who won the election.

Re:The president should reflect people's values

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaah. So your argument against homosexuality boils down to the "proof" in the bible, yet your views on it have nothing at all to do with the only source of negative feeling that you have been so far able to provide. In other words, not only are you dogmatically upholding outmoded beliefs from an ancient text, but you are also denying that your grievances come from this source.

I obviously disagree with the "it's-disgusting-so-i-don't-want-my-children-to-se e-it" argument, but I find it more worrying that you do not seem to recognise that your prejudices against something that doesn't affect you in any way, could be coming from a more sinister source.

In closing, for the benefit of people who do believe that homosexuality is wrong solely on what's written in the Bible, I would like them (you?) to see a two and a half minute segment from a comedy series that screened in my home country some time ago. The segment is not immoral or in any way offensive to the Bible. It basically consists of an interviewer asking the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen a question about a passage in the Bible (using comedic devices). Note how the Archbishop refuses to answer the very simple question, and has to resort to a humorous retort to avoid the embarrassment from doing so.

Paste the following link into RealPlayer, or download Real Alternative [free-codecs.com] if you don't like Real Player (as I don't). You will have to remove the space between "story" and "11.rm" at the end for it to work.

rtsp://media1.abc.net.au/cnnnn/20031023_2100/story 11.rm

My point is that blindly following any source, be it the Bible, (a limited view of) the media, your mother, or your friend's cat is a recipe for unfounded intolerance and undue friction.

WE ARE FUCKED

[Frobozz0]

I never rant like this. And I'm going to use some harsh words, so those who do not wish to be subjected to my rantings need not read further. But, if you want to know why a pissed off New Yorker feels completely alienated from the "red" states, read on. I've tried to make my rant as entertaining as possible, and hope a couple people will at least glean some fun from it.

I can not believe that Americans were stupid enough to vote for this guy not only once, but TWICE. WTF, people?It boils down, in my mind, to a great quote from a some nameless NASCAR meathead driver when interviewed about who'd he'd vote for:

"I'll vote for Bush because I ain't much on the issues but I know I'll get a firm hand shake from him. A man's hand shake."

Dear god. I'm not kidding. This idiot said that. I'm sorry, but you should have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues to vote, and/or have an IQ above 90. If you THEN decide to vote for a dolt like Bush I will at least consider your vote valid. Sure, you'd be voting for a polar opposite ideology from mine, but at least it'd be informed.

I suggest sterilizing this man and his offspring so we're not subjected to this kind of blindingly ignorant crap again. The people who swung the vote were, in majority, people who voted on party lines based on very superficial terms. I wish we had a way to throw their votes out the window.

And while I'm on a ridiculous rant (admittedly), why don't we cover the fact that this a-hole president sent us to war on false pretense and 51% of the country finds that acceptible. Because, I just LOVE it when some ass from Wisconsin says they're going to vote for the president that will keep us SAFER when he's the one that got us attacked in the first place and my apartment was 20 blocks away. I think New York's electoral votes should have counted DOUBLE for this election just because of that. No, it's not fair... but neither was the fact that I saw the twin towers fall with my own eyes. The grain silo down the road from you ain't gonna attract the bombs. And this is coming from a person who grew up in the country and had great respect for rural america. I'm not condeming it. It's just simply not the target of terrorism.

I saw the interviews in exit polls and saw people voting for the "president that will keep us safer." Um, where are the terrorists bombing again? Wisconsin? Nope. Kansas? Wrong again. Ohio? Nope.... f***ing NEW YORK!!! My back yard, dip shit! Not yours. So the next time a president wins a popular vote in part of whole based on the premise that he's making the country safer, let's give him the boot in the ass he deserves. The people who voted for Bush, especially those in a "red" state, are NOT IN ANY DANGER, and they can bite me. The only places attacked... NYC and Washington DC voted 80% Kerry and 90% Kerry, respectively. That's right. The guy that will keep us safer managed an average 15% of the vote in the only 2 places attacked.

Now I'd like to cover the list of stupid things Bush has done, and will continue to do. The reasons why I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH:

1. Supreme court appointments. We get to look forward to some nice Roe v. Wade decisions when Rhenquist and others are replaced by ultra conservatives. No more 4-3 votes in favor of letting people make their own frickin' reproductive decisions!
2. National Security. I don't think Bush knows what this means, as he has clearly demonstrated a complete lack of competance here. He waltzes our young men into a country who surely needs humanitarian aid and bombs the f**k out of them. Good job, Dubyah. I'm sure Cheney and Halliburton will be counting their money in hell. I'd also like to thank him for escalating a Jihad against America. Great foreign policy dip shit. Muslims are not evil. They're just not Christians. As an Atheist, I could care less... but I respect people's beliefs and think we should leave cultures alone unless we can positively in

Re:Listen up, NON-AMERICANS! BOYCOTT NOW!

[SengirV]

I hope you don't get sick anytime soon, or you might have to wait 12+ months to see a doctor. Either that or come down to the best country in the world. America said they didn't want your disastrous health care system and they didn't want a friggen Trial Lawyer in the whitehouse(he would actually have his own place, but you knwo what I mean). It's the trial lawyers fault for the unbelievable rise in liability insurance.

Just go cry in a the corner and let us deal with our own country.

Fraud At Polls!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems George W. Bush managed to get himself re-elected, which is a pity, because most Americans will not know the trouble they've caused themselves for quite a little while.

Now Kerry may not have been the most clear-thinking person who could have been president, but there is still no doubt, in my mind, that he would have been vastly superior to Bush - if for no other reason, than his fresh overview of our current situations, many of which have gone out of hand. This includes the war, the deficit, and religious zeal, to name a few.

As for Kerry supporters, I hope you should all at least take some comfort in knowing... well... actually, never mind. You have nothing to take comfort in, except if you are rich, actually. The one thing Bush's reign is guaranteed to do is make the rich even richer, and the poor even poorer. So, enjoy it while you can!

Some folks I know think the Democrats are always out of touch with the people. Perhaps the real problem is that too many people are out of touch with reality. The reality, for example, that the rest of the world thinks we stink. Or the reality that God is not going to come down and give us all a heap of great miracles, because we decided to ban gay marriages and stop funding of stem-cell research under His name.

Bush fought a dirty war - a very dirty war that fed off of people's fears and irrational beliefs. Even though the most citizens may have really voted for him, I still say there was a sense of fraud at the polls. (I'm not just giving homage to Citizen Kane.)

In the war between the rational, and the irrational, the irrational will always win - because they can fight dirty!

(Like what you've read here? Visit www.MitchLampert.net for more such verbiage.)

??? - Where to start

[The Master Control P]

First off, I think that the re-election of Bush will turn out to be a catastrophe. In 4 years, we've managed to piss off almost the entire world. Furthermore, we've gone from reducing the national debt to running it up faster than I care to say. That does not mean I like Kerry. I think that one is a moron and the other has no position other than "I am not bush." They are both complete and utter fucking wankers of the highest order, and I am ashamed that a nation of more than 350 million people could not find anyone better to compete for the office. I do, however, dislike Bush more than I dislike Kerry. Now you know without a doubt where I stand.

That aside, I think that there were a number of fubar events by the Kerry campaign. If we can figure out what went wrong this time, maybe we can fix it next time. Note that I live in Southern California, and thus wasn't subjected to 15 political bullshit sessions an hour on TV (thank God). However, I think that Kerry screwed up on:

• Slowness responding to the Swift Boat Veterans ads. I mean, I see this ad from the Swift Boat Vets slamming Kerry, and then jack shit from Kerry for weeks.
• I heard almost nothing from the Kerry campaign regarding Bush's complete disregard for the environment. This is one issue where I feel that Kerry could have had Bush by the balls: FFS, Bush didn't even acknowledge global warming for a time!
• I heard almost nothing from the Kerry campaign about Bush's favoritism towards huge corporations. 5/6 Americans think that corporations have too much power in DC: Why didn't Kerry say *anything* about this?
• Response to flip-flop accusations. I mean, Bush was going to beat that horse until it died; Kerry should have shot it. Possibly something about Bush flip-flopping on Iraq: We went because of WMD... to free the Iraqi people... Because Saddam is an asshole... To his credit, he stopped only just short of calling Bush an outright liar on Iraq ("Not entirely straight with the American people").

There are a handful of other things he could have done too, but I doubt they would have helped much. He could have tried to explain that trying to smash terrorist countries won't help, that you have to erode their base of support (*cough*Israel-Palestine*cough*) by addressing their 'issue', but I doubt that the average idiot would have understood, and Bush would have spun it was "Weak on terror!" in a microsecond. Another possible thing to go after would have been fiscal conservatives, on the basis that Bush took the largest surplus in history and turned it into a deficit that's growing at Warp 9. Didn't hear much on that either.

On the rather more negative side, he could have (long before 11/2) made a huge stink about e-voting paper trails. Beat the Diebold CEO horse ("Deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the President" sound familiar?) like Bush beat the flip-flop horse. In short, cast the legitimacy of e-voting precincts that went to Bush in doubt [One previous poster (unconfirmed) says that the exit polls and tallies were different by 5%+ for Bush in counties with paperless e-voting machines but not in those without or with paper trail. Can anyone confirm?].

I also feel that this election underscores a desperate need for election law reform in America. Why the HELL does a car commercial need to be more truthful that the campaign to decide who will be the most powerful man on earth? Of all the (thank God relatively few) political ads I saw, almost none of them offered anything positive about thier guy. All they did was slander the other guy's character.

Another thing that has to go is the goddamn electoral college. It does not execute the will of the people, as was demonstrated very clearly in 2000. Indeed, without the E.C. I wouldn't be writing an essay about how Kerry lost to Bush. Because of it's inclusion of Senators in the count, it gives a substantially inflated amount of influence to rural states (The vote of someone in Montana or Alaska is worth almost twice

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Joshua Green]

Some thoughts on these:

It isolates voting irregularities to a single state.

The trouble with this argument, as pointed out at http://www.electionmethods.org/college.htm [electionmethods.org], is that a small irregularity in a single state which changes the result of the election there is magnified by causing all of the state's electors to be changed! Small amounts of voting fraud in a few close elections could completely change the result.

It balances differences in voter turnout.

You're assuming that the people in New York who were prevented from voting would have voted the same way as those that did. If the storm prevents people in one area (who may be likely to all vote for one candidate) from voting, then the fact that their opinion isn't being heard is magnified by giving all the state's electors (instead of, say 30% of the electors) to a candidate selected by the other areas. This artificially raises the national importance of those who were able to vote by giving them more electoral votes/person.

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.

This cuts both ways. The electoral college does indeed help states with a large perecentage of people who are ineligible to vote. But that only means that the (relatively) small percentage of people in those states who are able to vote are getting more national importance than those in other states (similar to the case above).

The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome.

The last argument isn't very convincing--an accurate vote that is eventually agreed upon is much better (in my opinion) than a quickly counted vote that is just a guess of what voters want. If the popular vote isn't entirely one-sided, that is all the more reason to be sure that every vote is counted! Of course, the election must be decided before the new president must take office, but I don't see why the electoral college is necessary for that to happen.

Re:Eight years of Bush will mark the end of domina

[macromegas]

Youre right, just a little behind. There are not so many allies left to alienate (and yes, I forgot Poland) and the world watches its sole remaining super power`s failure live on TV every day. Add the threats the bushites emit on a daily basis to the danger the US deficit represents to world economy (and the unability of the US to sustain itself as the underlying econosocial reason): the US is a main source of instability now, instead of its guarantor. A change that took less than four years, creating enough reasons for about every nation on earth too rethink its position towards the US - its way more than mere antipathy. I wouldnt be surprised to see NATO (which is already irrelevant as a military alliance, as it is designed as a defensive alliance) fall apart soon. Of course that would mean nothing less than closer european-russian bounds... Bush may succeed, where Hitler and Stalin failed: in creating an eurasian powersphere from atlantic to pacific. They are a perfect match, from whatever side you look at it and all it may take is a perceived common threat. I dont think the average american has any idea how big a failure Bushs foreign policy is: nations tend to act based on their interests (an arguement usually brought on in excuse of Bush, so Ill hold the Bushites to that) - the art of diplomacy is to modify inconsistent interests of other nations, so they blend with your own. Instead he actively created interests that are contradictory to his goals. Given the stubborness demonstrated, hell continue on this path. Project for a new american century, well, there it goes down the sink.
Should have listened to europeans like this french guy. [amazon.com] Its the same guy who correctly predicted the fall of the Soviet Union a decade before it happened.

Re:Americans are the fattest 'cause we're the rich

[LionKimbro]

Then why is everyone here depressed? Why are studies showing that depression is far worse in the US than elsewhere? And why is everyone here working non-stop? Why do Europeans get 3 weeks of vacation out of the year?

Obesity doesn't correlate to prosperity. Obesity correlates to eating too much fat. People in other countries have easy access to food, they just exercise self-control and have healthy eating habits.

Re:WE ARE WINNING

[Col Bat Guano]

Irresponsible - Willing to kill for convenience

Not sure what you are referring to.

Not willing to stand up to murderers

The murderers who had South American presidents assasinated? The people who financed Mr Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Making others pay for your mistakes

Not sure what you are saying...

Trying to legitimize abnormal behaviors

If you mean by "abnormal" anything that you don't do, then you are not really saying much. If "abnormal" means what only a small group does, then parachuting would qualify as abnormal.
If you mean anal sex, then there are lots of hetrosexual people that do that. Do you mean oral sex?
Presumably you mean gay sex. Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to disagree as to whether that is bad or not. I don't mind if people do it, so long as they aren't in abusive relationships. I try not to have images of it much, but if it keeps people happy, and they aren't hurting anyone...

Valuing vegetation higher than human life

You need vegetation to survive. How much of it do you need? Do you think we need none (presumably not). Where would you draw the line and say "we've probably cut down enough trees". When they only cover 1% of the land mass? 10%? I suspect you'll agree that we need some, perhaps you debate the %?

Stealing wealth from the successful and giving it to the wasteful

Some people are wasteful with welfare. I would hope that the welfare that is handed out is given on a truly needs basis. Would you ever consider anyone to be worthy of welfare?

Re:Liberal Flip-flopping?

[utexaspunk]

Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America?

Clearly, it's Bush. I don't see how these two views (yesterday and today) contradict each other. No flip-flopping there.

Bush divides the country by making campaign issues out of things that scare a lot of people but that he really has no control over and no intention of really doing enything about. For example, the gay marriage thing- a)The President plays no part in the process of constitutional amendments (see Article V [house.gov]), b)it has no chance of ever getting ratified by 3/4 of the States. He's merely using it to make political hay.

Likewise, he appeals to the fool's sense of greed by making a big to-do of his tax cuts- throwing a measly few hundred to the poor while giving shitloads to the rich and running the government bankrupt with a costly war and corporate givaways. Little does the fool know that those few hundred he's getting (and the millions the rich are getting with it) are going to cost him the social programs that benefitted him and his fellow Americans and made this a great place to live. He has sold his birthright for a bowl of beans [google.com].

Clearly America IS going to hell, because either the majority of its citizens are too stupid to see through this kind of crap and realize that he's playing the fiddle while Rome burns or else they've got the system so well rigged that we can hardly prove it.

Cool down ppl!

[Eminence]

When I read comments here on /., especially ones like "We are f**ked", it appears as if the US has been invaded by some aliens. I can hardly believe that. Come on guys, this is democracy and this is just a 4 year tenure (last btw for this guy you all hate so much). Here in Europe no one despairs that much after the election doesn't go the way they wanted. Maybe it's that aggressive campaign style - maybe you really believe all those TV ads and speeches about how bad the other candidate is? But Kerry fought with Edwards for the nomination and I'm sure he wasn't telling then all those kind words he told him last night (well, at least night in my time zone).

Do you really really think there would be a significant difference between Kerry and Bush in real life? Isn't it obvious that there could be small adjustments here and there but the overall course of American policy has to remain the same since US interests and world challenges don't depend on who's in the White House.

Anyway - a word of advice from the distance (which gives some prospective). Democrats - cool down, this is not the end of the world as you know it. Republicans - rejoice, you won so you can have some celebration but don't stump too hard on the other side.

But both sides - remember, you are all Americans, you live in one country and would have to work with each other no matter how this or that election turns out. Too much wounded hopes on one side and too much triumphalism on the other lead to too much hate. And hate is not good for anyone.

Re:Not entirely

[beh]

Oh the ignorance...

I'm sorry, but - everybody learns by looking at others, but you explicitly make a point of politics not doing so?

It is an utter fool, who doesn't even bother about potential advice by an outsider - I know that I can't vote in the US, which is just as well, much the same way that you can't vote in Europe (now imagining the latter would really make me shudder - Europe getting overrun by religious zealots).

Have you ever paused a second, how you can call yourself a land of the free, if you let your government draw you into thinking USA Patriot act is a great idea? "America - Land of the Free and Spied Upon" seems a more matching description to me...

The idea, that airline passenger screening programs might prohibit some 2-3% of the population from flying just so that a potential 0.001% of people who might do something bad on a flight (like highjack it), also seems a bit over the top to me - and where's the freedom of those 2-3%?

Besides - do you really think that Al-Qaeda would be stupid enough to select people to carry out missions that would immediately fall within those target groups? Or - that they wouldn't go for something else this time, simply because (a) that's where the "security forces" are bundling their resources and (b) what kind of really symbolical targets are left that planes can even get close to?

Or what's the nonsense that passengers are now barred from taking nail files or nail clippers on board? Where's the danger in those, as compared to someone who would knock you down with a 10 pound Toblerone bar, or break a bottle of duty-free whisky and attack you with that... The latter two are regular carry-on luggage you can buy just before boarding a plane.

Also, what do you think of Al Qaeda's status right now? The war in Iraq didn't hurt THEM - but my guess is that Bush publicly called the war against Iraq a CRUSADE (a term for a RELIGIOUS war), is more likely to have driven loads of willing people straight into Al Qaeda's hands...

Re:That's great for you, BUT...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do agree that something should be done. Something effective. I don't feel like I have a good solution on more things to personally try, however. It just does not seem that the root level problems in America can be changed from the inside. The problems seem to have gone too deep into the culture.

While I was still in America I did try some things. Talking and explaining what I had learned to people proved to be a futile effort, even with my own family (they all voted for Bush btw, if they actually got out to do it). To quote my sister quite precisely: "I don't care about what happens to people in other countries, I have *my* family to worry about raising. I'm too busy to care about that." The things that were said behind my back were a bit worse. What can be said to combat that mentality? The only people who have given me a fair hearing so far have been people I talk with on the Internet, and I don't have to be in America to continue using the Internet to do that.

I went to about 6 anti-war protests in Washington and New York. In the end, I didn't like what I was seeing. In the biggest ones, it was multiple thousands of essentially helpless, unarmed people walking through the streets, flanked by metal gates and riot police with huge clubs and tear gas guns, the protest being mostly ignored by the media and fully ignored by the warmongers in the White House. I have come to think that protests of this type only work if there is some reason for the government to actually care. With the majority of the population being culturally trained to see people who attend protests as being silly, pot-smoking, flower-holding, short-sighted goofballs as depicted in some movies intended to display 1960's culture, the last possible reason for the White House to functionally care about a protest seems to have been removed. That's not to say that protests are wholly useless; minimally, they serve to remind the individuals in the protest that they are not necessarily alone in how they feel. Because protests are covered by international media, they also serve to show the rest of the world that some Americans are aware of the problems and would like to see things change. But protesting today does not seem to be an actual tool for change. It's a form of public complaining that is easily ignored in this culture and state of technology.

(btw.. I read that the French Revolution was effected by around 20,000 people. Several of the protests I attended had over 200,000. Times sure have changed. I wonder what difference a couple hundred riot police and a dozen water cannons would have made for French history.)

I can't liken my leaving to being like walking away from a crime scene without helping. My situation in America was more like this: living in a house with a parent who, every night, keeps taking money out of my wallet and using it to buy bullets to threaten and occasionally kill people with. It's not possible to hide the wallet and live in safety from the parent as long as I'm living in the house. I had to choose to either continue trying to talk the parent out of it, which was not working, or move out so that my wallet was no longer accessible. It did not matter to my sense of personal accountability that all the other kids on the block were having their money taken at night too. Over 50% of them had been talked into believing that the bullets were being used to protect the house against criminals, and the ones who knew better weren't able to organize forcefully enough to realistically make the problem stop. The choice I could live with seemed clear.

What would Kerry Do?

[Ceyan]

You know, one of the biggest arguements against Bush is his actions in Iraq and with the UN, but realistically speaking, would Kerry have done much different? I never see anybody comparing what could have been done differently with any realistic ideas.

Sure people claim going into war (both "on Terrorism" and in Iraq) was wrong, but what could have been done differently?

Yeah, Bush may of alienated a good portion of the UN when they refused aid, but did anyone happen to notice the UN didn't speak up until after the worst was over? I'm not going to claim Bush couldn't have been a bit more diplomatic, but does that excuse the UN from staying quite when it counted, and then opposing the US when it seemed safe to do so?

And with all the acts on the home front, again, would Kerry have done something else? We're not partial to the information the President has, it's very possible that Kerry would have reacted in the same manner dependent upon the intelligence reports he got.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[1lus10n]

The way I understand it is that the people who control what is allowed on the air in canada are just as strict as the FTC and require "canadian" oriented content. FOX didnt want to comply, and hence got bounced. IIRC the same thing happend to the vatican channel quite a while back, they were eventually allowed to broadcast.

You do understand why russia hated/had a problem with afgahnistan right ? Because we supported them during the cold war. We put the taliban in power and gave them weapons.

"You want to know why Iraq was an imediat threat? That isn't the issue. "

Somebody better tell bush that since he has repetedly claimed they were (First the WMD's, then the materials ... etc etc). Somebody also better buy some commercial time and a time machince to let the 54 million people who voted for him that they have been hoodwinked.

Say it slow: Iraq is not terrorism. Iraq is an oil war. The 9/11 commision stated that there were no significant links to terror in recent times. (and dont even try the whole "... 10 years ago" spiel, because 15 years ago we were supporting terrorism to)

Let me make sure I have this straight, we are going to enforce global law, without consulting the globe. Thats bright. Perhaps you should look back at the first bush's war in the middle east, he apparently was smart enough to listen to his advisors when they told him not to invade the whole country because pulling out would be logistical hell. This dumb son of a bitch in office. Nah, he dont need no stinken advisors. He's right jesus said so.

"If the Israel acted as you would hope the U.S. would then they would have been killed in the early 70's. Because they acted with force they are still around today. You may not like the fact that Saddam is no longer in power, but your kids and grandkids will appriciate it."

My kids and grandkids wont be born in the US so I am sure they really wont give a fuck since at the rate this administration is going this country will be economically kaput by the end of the decade. Also of note is that saddam had no effect on my day to day life prior to our invading him for things he did 10 years ago, or at least thats the excuse of the week from the republicans. Isreal is an illegal abomonation. Perhaps you should read exactly how that country was created and how it has handled itself since, including its relentless killing of innocent people and expanding like an empire.

"As mentioned above, he had 10 years, how long does it take to comply?"

What sanctions was he violating ? He didnt have WMD's, he said he didnt. He didnt even have the materials, just like he said he didnt (as did the UN). Hell there was a several thousand page report that he gave about his weapons programs and the materials that the US didnt even bother to finish verifying before they ran off to war.

You keep saying germany and france were on his payroll, like he could afford to payoff the government's in those countries. I have not seen anybody anywhere who doesnt have there head up their ass even remotely think this. Just because France and Germany disagree with us doesnt make them terrorist, or wrong. Just so we are clear france said they would not support action against Iraq without proof and approval from the UN first.

"You say "we", so I will assume you are an American. I can assure you that "we" were NEVER loved. Other countries HATE a strong America and always have. Well until they need our military support or our money. Then when we give it to them they either complain that it wasn't enough or that we should forget about our loans."

I am going to go out on a limb and assume your one of those flag waiving stupid fucks who only listens to what you want to hear. Have you ever been to any countries outside the US ? Other countries helped make america stong by forming alliances with us and investing in our economy (and giving us loans), other countries hate tyranical asshol