Election Day

[Plain Old Jane]

ya know what, why should I leave, he's the one that sucks!

[Mike]

Jep, stop pretending like you're not part of the problem. Stop threatening with that bullshit that you're going to move to France, or Canada, or wherever the liberal masses decree they're moving to. If you really don't want to be here, then nobody is preventing you from moving. You live in a country where you can control how much money you make, make some more money, buy a plane ticket, and move.

I voted for Bush, though, it didn't matter, as I live in the most liberal state in the Union. While I obviously wanted Bush to win, I wouldn't have even minded had Kerry won... As I would just have to deal with so much less bullshit from my colleagues. The part of me that cares about America is pleased that Bush won, the part of me that cares about myself is somewhat stressed... just because day in and day out I have to put up with the bullshit that comes with living in Massachusetts, going to a private college, and being a teenager.
Mike

[Mike]

I hate the south now... yea... I hated it before, but now I REALLY hate it...

Yeah, damn the South ... and ... the rest of the geopolitical landscape of the United States.
Mike

[johnny]

are the white blocks areas that were won by an independent, or is that image incomplete?

[raublekick]

the funny thing about it is that it looks like Bush slaughtered, which isn't the case. Obviosly for Kerry to be even remotely close, the blue areas have to be extremely high density populations.

That in itself raises some issues with me. One of the biggest factor of this election was "morals" (i.e. voting to take peoples rights away (i.e. WTF are we back int eh 1950's?)). People who voted for Bush are generally the "moral" people while Kerry voters were the "anti-moral" people. Since Kerry voters reside in the high denisty areas, it can be deduced the the people who are for gay rights and women's rights are the people who live around diverse people, and actually have to see and deal with lots of different people. Bush voters live in rural areas where they only have to deal with "their kind". It's this sort of intolerant BS that pisses me off, mostly the fact that in this day in age people can actually vote to hurt other people.

[Plain Old Jane]

Originally Posted by Mike

Jep, stop pretending like you're not part of the problem. Stop threatening with that bullshit that you're going to move to France, or Canada, or wherever the liberal masses decree they're moving to. If you really don't want to be here, then nobody is preventing you from moving. You live in a country where you can control how much money you make, make some more money, buy a plane ticket, and move.

now you know that isnt true, as americans we like to tell eachother that america has no caste aspect, that we have full vertical mobility in the whole gammut. The truth is that there is most definitly a caste aspect to our society, the very poor stay poor, and the most extreme portions of the rich, stay rich. We like to tell ourselves that we can get there some day, but we never will. And with Fuhrer Bush in power again, your going to see a lot more legislation that raises that lowwer-lowwer caste bar rise, your going to see the fall of the middle class, and your going to see that 1 percent of the rich caste people get even richer. And your going to see a LOT of the kids who voted for Kerry(or werent old enough to vote), die in wars they never believed in.

I'd be FULLY willing to go bush if someone could give me a honest reason why, but in four years, I havent heard one. Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how we're liberating iraq, and his stupid tax plans that failed big time.

and mike, theres only four million more votes for bush than kerry, and its THAT much space to fill that gap, that map cant be entirely accurate.

[edit] I'm also not going to venture to guess just how I'm part of the problem... I WAS kidding about the france thing, I'd prolly move to belgium or amsterdam (where they have souls...). But I swear if you meant my gender issues... I will hunt you down and have sweet rough sex with you.

[Stormy]

My vote didn't matter:
http://sbe.vipnet.org/nov2004/085.htm

What really upset me with this election was that Bush won the masses with his stance on issues of morality; gay marriage and abortion, mainly. These are both steeped very much in an ethic code that is biased towards religion. Such issues shouldn't really be a part of a candidate's ideology due to separation of church and state (i.e. in France, marriage is something dealt with by the church, whereas "living conditions" (say a platonic brother and sister living together for an extended period of time) are dealt with by the state). In such a circumstance, the siblings would receive the same benefits as a married couple, without having to find "life lasting love." If we applied that same solution to gay union, and simply left "marriage under God" to the church, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead of discussing issues like the oil reserve in Alaska, Bush's aversion to legislation concerning regulation of automobile polution (both of which affect, not only the US, but the world as well) or the unequal tax cuts, he got most people's votes because he prays every day, and his wife used to be a librarian.

There are obviously exceptions to this (I see Mike as being one of them), as my friend Stephen has shown me. He voted Bush for national security, not because he likes to go to Church.

[raditz]

meh, gotta keep editing my posts so i can stay out of this.

asdfasdf

[Mike]

Originally Posted by NorthernCross

now you know that isnt true, as americans we like to tell eachother that america has no caste aspect, that we have full vertical mobility in the whole gammut. The truth is that there is most definitly a caste aspect to our society, the very poor stay poor, and the most extreme portions of the rich, stay rich. We like to tell ourselves that we can get there some day, but we never will. And with Fuhrer Bush in power again, your going to see a lot more legislation that raises that lowwer-lowwer caste bar rise, your going to see the fall of the middle class, and your going to see that 1 percent of the rich caste people get even richer. And your going to see a LOT of the kids who voted for Kerry(or werent old enough to vote), die in wars they never believed in.

YOu mentioned that the very poor stay poor and that the incredibly rich stay rich. Well, you missed the largest segment of our population: the middle class, who typically weign and wax between lower, middle, and upper class. WHen I said that YOU have the opportunity to make as much money as you want, then, legitimately YOU do. I don't think that you're in the poorest class of citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are desparately poor and instead of buying food or struggling to afford heat, you can buy a computer, a broadband internet connection, and hundreds of dollars of sexual cosmetics--or whatever. It's quite apparent that YOU can make as much money as YOU want to make. I did not say that "THE POOR" can make as much money as they want to make, I said you, and from my understanding of you, YOU must have the ability to get $350 and get a one way plane ticket to Europe. Sure, it won't be first class, but, hey, to sit in first class would be anti-democratic.

A libertarian or republican model for economy is that which does not discriminate. The discriminations and the hitches in our economy that hold back individuals--hold back the poor from climbing out of poverty--are the discriminate systems created by "progressive liberals" (who are now more entrenched in the past than any other time) who want to make divisions between people. They want to give free money to black, job-less, despondent urbanites... because they want to keep those people jobless and despondent. They want to put those people in dire situations where they cannot climb out of ... so they give them free money, they perpetuate their laziness, and inturn, the people NEVER get out of the ghetto, but they ALWAYS vote Democrat.

I'd be FULLY willing to go bush if someone could give me a honest reason why, but in four years, I havent heard one. Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how we're liberating iraq, and his stupid tax plans that failed big time.

His stupid tax plans didn't fail big time. Why do you think that jobs went down in 1999, and throughout the first two years of his first reign as president? Because the rich--the corporate business owners--were still being fucked by taxes. Who do you think creates jobs? The rich, corporate business owners. You don't see the $2 ho on the corner of Main St. making jobs... You see the corporate businessman making jobs. They can only make jobs if they have money. We had an incredible surplus that was unstimulated... there was no stimulation in our economy, so naturally, it dropped.

You're looking for an "honest reason" why to "go Bush." First, I'm not asking you to "Go Bush," because that is beyond the capability of somebody who gets their information from MoveOn.Org, DemocraticUnderground.com, or Bono from U2 (not saying that you necessarily do, but over the years, I've noticed that it's impossible to sway anybody from their opinion when they're getting their information from the extremes. Just like those who get their information from Rush, you can't budge them).

If you want an honest reason, I probably can't give you one from your own perspective, because your perspective of honesty is far disconnected from the perspective of honesty that I have, or that President Bush has. I would consider it honest to admit that abortion is murder [though, apolitical], I would consider it honest to stimulate the economy, and I would consider many other things honest. However, considering that you're probably a relativist (based off of conversation we've had in the past), I doubt that you would tend to agree with me.

and mike, theres only four million more votes for bush than kerry, and its THAT much space to fill that gap, that map cant be entirely accurate.

The map is not entirely accurate, because most of the counties of Maine went republican, and many of the greys that were not filled in were information that had not been divulged, or was not considered accurate. The rest is very accurate and is based off of the same information that can be accumulated by the public, from lawful websites. It doesn't mean that all of those counties went 99% Bush and 1% Kerry, they could be 50/50 percentage wise, with the majority going Bush. It's just a majoritive map. Not only that, but the massive populations are in urban centers--and those are accounted for. The West Coast of California, Seattle, the Missisippi River basin, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, much of Connecticut, Urban Maine, half of New Hampshire, all of Vermont... New York City.

[edit] I'm also not going to venture to guess just how I'm part of the problem... I WAS kidding about the france thing, I'd prolly move to belgium or amsterdam (where they have souls...). But I swear if you meant my gender issues... I will hunt you down and have sweet rough sex with you.

Assuming that you're a democrat, you, like many democrats, are looking for excuses for why they lost--Men voting Bush, 23% of the population voting, the South, "Fuhrer Bush", perpetuating the liberal propaganda lies (the bit about the middle class disapearing, kids who voted for Kerry dying in wars [the democrats wrote HR-163, the Republicans are the opposition to that bill]), and delegitimizing the opinions of the majority of Americans ("Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how he's liberating iraq, his stupid tax plans"). See, what's wrong with the Democratic party today is that they're not willing to shake things up to get their power basin back. Clinton, while the strongest democratic politician in the last 30 years, fucked the party... because of the way that the party perpetuates itself. Every Democratic candidate tries to play off of the successes of past successful democrats--Kennedy did it with FDR, LBJ did it with FDR, Clinton used Kennedy, Kerry used Clinton. It only works when they're citing a strong president who is seen well in history. THe Democrats had to scrap to rebuild a strong image, because the image of Bill Clinton has tarnished throughout the last six or seven years (this coming from a strong Clinton supporter, always have been, always will be). When a candidate cannot make a name for himself and become his own entity, and he is forced to build off of the character of a man who's character was more in question than any president in 35 years, he almost eliminates his chances completely from succeeding.

The Democrats get beat more often than not, and when they succeed, they try to repeat that success--but nothing works in replication. They've got to stop looking for external reasons why they lost and accept that the Democratic idealogues are wrong and they MUST Change in order to get reelected, or to grab back some of the power that they've lost.

By pointing fingers at anybody but your own party, you're part of the problem. If the democratic party wants to succeed, it has to change, and it has to change to reflect the opinions of the American people. The rumors of Hillary in '08 just mean that our presidency will be ruled by the Republican party until 2012.
Mike

[Mike]

Stormy, I agree with just about everything you wrote, but I think that we look at it from a different perspective. When the majority voted for Bush, and a strong percentage of those numbers were the "moral majority," Bush being president is expressing the will of the people, and this being a government of the will of the people ... It makes sense to involve morality.

The separation of Church and State doesn't apply to a President's morality, because we all get our morality from somewhere. It would be equally as unjust to not recognize morally derived from a religious perspective, because, boiled down to it, it all just becomes people sharing ideas, and not much else.

While I am a very strong Christian, I am pro-choice (from a politician's perspective; wholely against abortion morally), against Gay Marriage (from a politician's perspective, not from the perspective of my morality), and I don't go to Church much at all. My votes for Bush came from Republican tax ideology, national security, some other things that would take too long to explain, and my stark opposition to John Kerry, as I've lived under him for my entire politically-relevent life and would distrust him with the reigns of the United States.
Mike

[johnny]

Originally Posted by raditz

meh, gotta keep editing my posts so i can stay out of this.

asdfasdf

not that i have any problems with some posts that say "asdfasdf" (see one of my previous replies ).. why do you have to stay out of this? say what you want.

[raditz]

maybe i will post something after i gather enough resources to make a legitimate post defending my ideas, but until then, what i've learned from this site is that it's futile to argue with anybody about anything. i'd rather just be frustrated with peoples opinions than to be frustraded with the reaction to my post.

at least for now.

[Cid]

I don't understand why it has to be an "argument". I mean, I have my thoughts, and you have yours...cool. Whatthefuckever.

I'm not "pissed" that Bush won, and I'm not going to go kill myself or anything. Clearly there are people who think that the whole national landscape would have changed had kerry won...where, really, it wouldn't. Gay marriage bans would have passed, even had Kerry won; and there are plenty of Republicans in the senate to stop him from changing that. Rich people would have gotten taxed a little more had Kerry won, but I don't think that would have affected many of us...unless you could "the trickle down effect...it trickles down, see".

I think you're just being a big whiny pussy by editing your posts, Rad. If I took back every stupid thing I've ever posted...I think I'd have like 12 non "asdf" posts. If you don't have good reasons for your vote now, then how you can you possibly be so strongly convicted in your choice? It seems like you voted Bush because you're ideology made you, or you were brought up that way...but it doesn't really seem like you have your own honest feelings on the matter...if you're not even willing to express them to your friends.

I'm not the most political guy, I just don't agree with the way Bush goes about some things. I don't like his religion based babble...I shouldn't HAVE to like it. I shouldn't have to feel like an outcast in my own country because I don't give a fuck if God blesses the USA.

[Plain Old Jane]

Originally Posted by Mike

YOu mentioned that the very poor stay poor and that the incredibly rich stay rich. Well, you missed the largest segment of our population: the middle class, who typically weign and wax between lower, middle, and upper class. WHen I said that YOU have the opportunity to make as much money as you want, then, legitimately YOU do. I don't think that you're in the poorest class of citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are desparately poor and instead of buying food or struggling to afford heat, you can buy a computer, a broadband internet connection, and hundreds of dollars of sexual cosmetics--or whatever. It's quite apparent that YOU can make as much money as YOU want to make. I did not say that "THE POOR" can make as much money as they want to make, I said you, and from my understanding of you, YOU must have the ability to get $350 and get a one way plane ticket to Europe. Sure, it won't be first class, but, hey, to sit in first class would be anti-democratic.

not sure what you were going for here, all I got was that I'm not poor... and that I lack lower class perspective... (fair enough)

A libertarian or republican model for economy is that which does not discriminate. The discriminations and the hitches in our economy that hold back individuals--hold back the poor from climbing out of poverty--are the discriminate systems created by "progressive liberals" (who are now more entrenched in the past than any other time) who want to make divisions between people. They want to give free money to black, job-less, despondent urbanites... because they want to keep those people jobless and despondent. They want to put those people in dire situations where they cannot climb out of ... so they give them free money, they perpetuate their laziness, and inturn, the people NEVER get out of the ghetto, but they ALWAYS vote Democrat.

can you cite an example of "free money" for me?

His stupid tax plans didn't fail big time. Why do you think that jobs went down in 1999, and throughout the first two years of his first reign as president? Because the rich--the corporate business owners--were still being fucked by taxes. Who do you think creates jobs? The rich, corporate business owners. You don't see the $2 ho on the corner of Main St. making jobs... You see the corporate businessman making jobs. They can only make jobs if they have money. We had an incredible surplus that was unstimulated... there was no stimulation in our economy, so naturally, it dropped.

yea, they did fail. Bush cut taxes to big business by a lot already, and jobs are still dissappearing... Bush gave "tax relief' to america, by giving a tax break of (on average) 50,000 to the rich, and about 600 to middle class. I'll give him that, he gave middle class 600 bucks, but his legislation raised fees by over 20 billion. His medical legislation alone gives more to pharmacuetical companys than anyone else. Americans spend 14% of their income on medical bills, and studies show a rise of 7% a year (due in part to the medicare bill)

Bush had a fantastic oppurtunity to use the surplus that clinton left behind towards the earned income tax credit program, one that would give proportional tax credits to blue collars and impoverished people, and help them move out of lower class. But he used it to propogate his failed tax cuts. He cut off his retreats and we (the middle class) have to cover the cost.

The map is not entirely accurate, because most of the counties of Maine went republican, and many of the greys that were not filled in were information that had not been divulged, or was not considered accurate. The rest is very accurate and is based off of the same information that can be accumulated by the public, from lawful websites. It doesn't mean that all of those counties went 99% Bush and 1% Kerry, they could be 50/50 percentage wise, with the majority going Bush. It's just a majoritive map. Not only that, but the massive populations are in urban centers--and those are accounted for. The West Coast of California, Seattle, the Missisippi River basin, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, much of Connecticut, Urban Maine, half of New Hampshire, all of Vermont... New York City.

I meant that the map should be based on score difference, bush won by about 3 percent of the popular vote, and only 12 electorals. The map is geographically correct, but geopolitically, the east and west coasts should be much bigger, and the space in between should be much smaller. but, we're splitting hairs here

Assuming that you're a democrat, you, like many democrats, are looking for excuses for why they lost--Men voting Bush, 23% of the population voting, the South, "Fuhrer Bush", perpetuating the liberal propaganda lies (the bit about the middle class disapearing, kids who voted for Kerry dying in wars.

The middle class IS dissappearing, downsizing continues and CEO salaries keep increasing by the hundred thousand, and the wages keep decreasing. Outsourcing is increasing, Jobs are decreasing. War spending is increasing, debt... is also increasing. The only good thing I can see coming of this is the corporatization of gov't (which is the inevitable next step. but from what I can tell, the neonate is severing its ties, which either means its stupid, or preparing to dine and dash and leave us with the bill.) Bush's policies are favoring this cycle.

By pointing fingers at anybody but your own party, you're part of the problem. If the democratic party wants to succeed, it has to change, and it has to change to reflect the opinions of the American people. The rumors of Hillary in '08 just mean that our presidency will be ruled by the Republican party until 2012.
Mike

extrapolating the answer before we even ask the question is the sign of an assumptive mind. Lets go over just what "the problem" is...

[Mike]

not sure what you were going for here, all I got was that I'm not poor... and that I lack lower class perspective... (fair enough)

I wasn't going for that. My original post said that you would have a means for getting out of the country, as you're in the middle class and have an opportunity to succeed. You took this as meaning "EVERYBODY" has a chance in the United States ... and I stressed, yet again, that I was talking about "YOU." Hence the word "you."

can you cite an example of "free money" for me?

Welfare. And don't pretend like nobody is cheating the welfare system. It happens more often than not.

yea, they did fail.

No, they didn't, and you only assume so because you have an innate hatred for Bush. You don't begin to see the effects of economic strategies until several years after they're implemented, hence why the economy took a turn in 1999, and continued throughout the first two years of Bush's first term. By the end of Clinton's second term, he had done nothing to stimulate the surplus, figuring that he could ride on its self-perpetuating success.

Clinton didn't "leave behind the surplus", he inherrited a growing economy that continued to grow, and then, due to his lack of stimulation, began to fail. You can cut taxes to as many blue collared poor people as you want, but the only thing that will get them out of poverty is increased jobs and their will to do well.

The middle class IS dissappearing, downsizing continues and CEO salaries keep increasing by the hundred thousand, and the wages keep decreasing. Outsourcing is increasing, Jobs are decreasing. War spending is increasing, debt... is also increasing. The only good thing I can see coming of this is the corporatization of gov't (which is the inevitable next step. but from what I can tell, the neonate is severing its ties, which either means its stupid, or preparing to dine and dash and leave us with the bill.) Bush's policies are favoring this cycle.

Irrelevent to what I had written.
You're stuck in the mentality of two years ago.
Wages are not going down, they are increasing. source1, source2, source3
Outsourcing has decreased in the last 8 months--though if it's the companies perogative to outsource, let them do so. I'd love to see those jobs in the US, but I'm sure that some 20-year-old Indian guy would love to see jobs in his neck of the woods, too--and I don't known the corporation, the CEO does. If he decrees he wants to move, I'm not going to tell him not to. I'll find another job.
Jobs? 337,000 new jobs in October. source1, source2, source3, source4, source4
Debt, yes, has increased. War spending has increased. Unfinished sentences have also increased.

extrapolating the answer before we even ask the question is the sign of an assumptive mind. Lets go over just what "the problem" is...

Everybody has assumptive minds, don't pretend that you don't.

I explained "the problem" and then you went off on things that haven't been true for more than a year. Maybe if you didn't interpret comments the way that you want to see them, you would have seen "the problem." The problem is that the democrats have lost all of their majoritive power in the United States and will continue not to have that power until 2012, because they are in denial. THey're looking for excuses for how the Republicans are cheating them out of power, and they're perpetuating their failure. They're pretending as if those Americans who voted for Bush are less than they are, and then, in turn ignoring them for another four years. They only potential candidate who seems like the person could carry the party is another Northern Liberal. The Northern Liberal hasn't won for the Democratic party in 45 years, and even then, there were scandals and questions surrounding that election... that decided the results.

I'm sure that you'd admit the complete self-destruction of the Democratic party as "a problem." I sure would.
Mike[/url]

[Cid]

Ya know, I just realized something. Political discussion sucks balls. It's great to have your own view, but just coming in here and being all "I'm completely right, and you're completely wrong" is just stupid. You guys are bickering like 2 little bitches...like you're going to convince someone of your views. It's great to think that you have it all figured out, and that no one can agure with you because you're the smartest most politcally educated person on earth...but you don't, and you're not...so let's all just talk about dreams or board themes or just go back to not posting like we do every other month of the year.

[Stormy]

and I'm not going to go kill myself or anything

I'm sure you were alluding to it, but...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/gro....ap/index.html

[raublekick]

heh, i said it would be incredibly radical if someone killed themselves on the steps on the whitehouse after GW got elected again, but the WTC site works too.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Cid

Ya know, I just realized something. Political discussion sucks balls. It's great to have your own view, but just coming in here and being all "I'm completely right, and you're completely wrong" is just stupid. You guys are bickering like 2 little bitches...like you're going to convince someone of your views. It's great to think that you have it all figured out, and that no one can agure with you because you're the smartest most politcally educated person on earth...but you don't, and you're not...so let's all just talk about dreams or board themes or just go back to not posting like we do every other month of the year.

Well, I was going to play the hypocrite today, but you beat me to it. You know as well as anybody else does that you bicker more like a bitch than anybody else around here.

I guess I forgot that my job is to make posts that you find aesthetically pleasing. Remember, nobody's forcing you to read either of our posts. It's pretty fucking obvious that a long, drawn out reply in a thread that has to do with politics is going to be of that nature... So it'd be pretty easy to miss.

Usually I don't give a shit about when you whine about the activities of other members around here, but don't tell me that I don't have the answer, and then pretend that you do. You're not full of political-message-board-virtue, don't pretend to be Socrates.

[thecreeper]

well one thing we can all agree on, i have an erection.