# Post Election - Chaos?



## ScottW (Oct 25, 2004)

No matter which person you'd be voting for, one thing is for certain, someone will win and someone will lose. It is also very clear that unless there is a landslide winner that the "fun" of the election will only begin on November 3rd.

Interestingly, CPAN carried a interaction between Edward's wife and a Kerry Supporter. It goes something like this...

Supporter: "Mrs Edwards, Kerry is going to take PA."

Edwards: "I know."

Supporter: "I am concerned about the riots afterwords."

Edwards: "Ummm...ah.... well yes, there won't be any if we win."

Supporter: "Ok"

Now... That conversation is very disturbing, no matter which camp it was coming from. Somewhere, someone is planning riots in the event that Kerry loses this election.

Aside from that, it is no doubt that if there is any issue of who WON a state, like Florida in 2000, the losing party, Republican or Democrat is going to file law suits.

I fear the worst honestly... I think 2000 is going to be a walk in the park compared to this years election. If Kerry wins, I think you will see some mild grumpiness from the Republicans and life will go on. If Bush wins, I think those who are anti-Bush will bring this country on it's knees.

I think the United States worst enemy, is the people who live within it's own borders.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 25, 2004)

It will be most interesting to see.

I'll grant you that this exchange, if taken literally, is disturbing.  However, I think it's quite a leap to suppose that Mrs. Edwards has actual knowledge of any planned riots.  I'm sure you don't want to get into who has made more verbal gaffes to the media...

Even so, apart from this exchange, are you truly of the opinion that Bush supporters would take a defeat with more grace than Kerry supporters?  I'm not saying that I disagree, but I really find myself unable to judge the emotional 'temperature' of the GOP now.

I've made my own preferences on this board clear enough.  While I personally don't plan rioting or violence if Bush wins, I will definitely be upset.  

But I find myself unable to imagine being pro-Bush; hence unable to speculate about how upset I might, hypothetically, be over a Bush defeat.


----------



## Darkshadow (Oct 25, 2004)

I don't know about riots, but there'll definitely be unhappy people, either way.  I don't really see a riot starting over it - has that ever happened before?


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 25, 2004)

Personally, I don't recall any post-election riots in the US.  There may have been some long ago.

There was the famous riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which protestors were brutally repelled by police.  

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

By many accounts, the police (at the behest of the mayor) attacked the protestors with little or no provocation.   Something like THAT wouldn't surprise me too much, post 11/2...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 26, 2004)

Election day is next week, I have to go to my previous hometown to vote since  I could not get my act together and register in my new one lol -- It will be interesting to see what happens. Honestly, I think that the whole "winner takes all" strategy of the electoral college does not work well. We also need official third parties in all states. Getting sigs in all 50 states to be on the ballots leaves them with a disadvantage.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 26, 2004)

Do you not remember what happened when Bush was first elected (so they claim) president? They had riots on pennsylvannia ave. Bush was the first elected president to not be able to get out of his limousine and walk to the white house.
http://www.pstripes.com/jan01/ed012101b.html
If Bush is elected president again there will be many pissed off people. Will riots occur? I'm thinking that's a possibility, however, let's hope not.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 26, 2004)

Also, remember the worlds largest anti-war protest with 6 to 10 MILLION people protesting WORLD WIDE?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm 
Ask yourself these questions before voting:
1. Why are we at war with Iraq when (a) Saddam Hussein had NO weapons of Mass Destruction, (b) the 9/11 commission report stated that there is NO link between Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden, (c) no exit plan, and (d) no International support (minus Great Britain and Spain).
2. How are we going to reduce the largest budget surplus in the history of the United States caused in most part by George W. Bush's war on Iraq as well as with tax cuts that had little if no efffect in providing economic stimulus as well were tilted towards the more wealthy america?
3. What do we tell the people that have lost 2.2 million jobs since Bush has taken office?
4. Since George W. Bush has taken the obvious approach of overturning the rulling of Roe v. Wade, do we really want our women to lose their rights? George Bush has appointed Dr. David Hager to head the FDA. Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Hager also is known to refuse to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.
5. How do we re-elect a president that has ignored advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction, a president that has disregarded the Geneva Conventions that led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan? How do we vote for someone that when asked to admit three things he has done wrong while in office responds with stating that he has done nothing wrong but may have appointed a few wrong people?

i could go on. It irritates me when people close their eyes to what's happening with this country. Watch the presidential debates. Understand what's going on. Vote.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 26, 2004)

ichadsey said:
			
		

> Do you not remember what happened when Bush was first elected (so they claim) president? They had riots on pennsylvannia ave. Bush was the first elected president to not be able to get out of his limousine and walk to the white house.
> http://www.pstripes.com/jan01/ed012101b.html
> If Bush is elected president again there will be many pissed off people. Will riots occur? I'm thinking that's a possibility, however, let's hope not.




I remember that, too bad i didn't care as much as i do now.  I'm one of the Millions who is affected by the current state of the economy.  So if he manages to steal this election (again) i'll be down in D.C. throwing eggs with all the other protesters.

Kerry even said "I'm going to be down in Florida so we don't have a 2000 Election again."

Florida 2000 - Brother Runs the State, Friends in Fox News, 1st Cousin Runing the Recount, and every recount both Gore and Nader got less and less votes.  Kinda Fishy don't ya think?

Florida 2004 - lets wait and see.


----------



## ScottW (Oct 26, 2004)

FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F.  Kennedy.... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked US!

President Bush has ... liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.  That was a 51 day operation. 

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 26, 2004)

Even if I believed the war in Iraq was a good idea - which I surely don't - Bush has swept the charts for holding the wrong positions on every domestic issue (at least, if he wanted my vote.)

Record deficits (he may be a conservative, but not fiscally!)  He's the first president in 72 years to lose jobs.   He has an obvious and ardent desire to transform the country into a Christian Theocracy, banning abortion, and stripping gays of any rights, even those which demonstrably have no impact on anyone else.

The only people for whom Bush has any sympathy are rich CEOs.  He has systematically demolished government regulations of all industries, including vital environmental protections, cut taxes for the CEOs, eliminated overtime pay, given them juicy government contracts and appointed them to government positions allowing them to REGULATE THE INDUSTRIES THAT PAY FOR THEIR OWN YACHTS!!

He (and I suspect, you) will protest that these things will help the economy and create jobs.  Not happening.  They continue to be shipped overseas.  Bush should take his own advice & go to a community college, and learn to do SOMETHING competently.

If there were ever grounds for a workers revolt, it is here.


----------



## ScottW (Oct 26, 2004)

If only you knew the truth about Christ.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 26, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> If only you knew the truth about Christ.


You have to be kidding me. Please tell me you are not voting to destroy this country just because you believe gays and women should not have rights.


----------



## Satcomer (Oct 26, 2004)

I am afraid of riots after the election. Democrats have already went over the edge with this and this.  Also this and this are just a few examples of what will become in American politics if the election is close and Bush is winner. The old saying of "welcome all young lawyers" will have a new birth of life. It is really sad.


----------



## Cat (Oct 26, 2004)

I hope that you realise that having a post-election chaos is much better than having a pre-election chaos such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq isn't taken: nevermind that Bush said "The war is over. We have won." More soldiers died after the "end" of the war than during the war. Discussing whether or not the war has "ended" is purely academic. Iraq is not "taken". The progress against the ramshackle army of Saddam was swift, but now the US and the few allies that remain are in it up to their necks, with no idea of how to get out. Iraq isn't "taken" until elections have been held, until they have regained their own sovereignty and mothers are no longer afraid to send their kids to school. You can take a country with war, which can be fast, but you need patience and attention to detail to bring peace. The US have not brought peace, so what do you mean with "taken"?



> President Bush has ... liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.


Don't take this as sarcasm: that is wonderful. It is good. He did well. The results, when considered in this way are enourmous. BUT! Why didn't he also try to come to terms with Iraq without firing a shot? Why didn't he allow for the inspectors to do their job? Don't you think that even the threat of war would have brought Saddam to his senses after a while? He increasingly cooperated in the last months before the begin of the war... Had Bush gone on "without firing a shot" I wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to him. We differ on whether or not we can consider Afghanistan and Iraq as "liberated", but I agree that the world is probably better of without them. Most of all I disagree on the way he has obtained his results: recklessly, arrogantly and foolhardily. These are not qualities that I approve of in the Commander in Chief of the worlds greatest and best trained army. I know that you couldn't care less what I personally approve and disapprove of (more so because I'm not American), but I suspect that many more people inside the US and out disapprove and make it be heard and hopefully vote for "regime change" in the American Empire.


----------



## ScottW (Oct 26, 2004)

America is better than the EU or the Revived Roman Empire. Hmmm... interestinly the article or whatever that establishes the EU President is article 666. The new EU Constituion is being signed in Rome at the end of this month.

Hmmm... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ? Could a 7 year treaty be signed with Israel for peace? Hmmmm.....


----------



## RacerX (Oct 26, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Vietnam never attacked us.


That is an interesting revision of history... we were not taking an active part in Vietnam (after watching the French) until the attack on the USS Maddox (a ship my Dad served on). That action brought an immediate escalation in our involvement in that conflict.

North Vietnamese knew at the time we were not interested in being part of the conflict and the Maddox was patrolling in international waters. Johnson (rightly or wrongly) used the incident to get the same powers from Congress that Bush was given in the Iraq issue (without Iraq attacking us of course).

As I recall, the Maddox only received superficial damage at best. But like Bush's phantom WMD, Texas oil men seem to know how to tell some whoppers when they want war powers. At least in Johnson's case an incident did happen... it is too bad about Bush's WMD not even having a shred of validity.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 26, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> America is better than the EU or the Revived Roman Empire. Hmmm... interestinly the article or whatever that establishes the EU President is article 666. The new EU Constituion is being signed in Rome at the end of this month.
> 
> Hmmm... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ? Could a 7 year treaty be signed with Israel for peace? Hmmmm.....



do you read what you write? do you actually believe what you're saying? Listen to yourself! Maybe it's best that you keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubts.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 26, 2004)

> If only you knew the truth about Christ.... Biblical prophecy playing out? Could a future EU President be the Anti-Christ?



These are the exact sorts of "arguments" that make me want, worse than ever, to see Bush removed.   I believe Bush probably also entertains such grandiose  thoughts, and has a similarly patronizing and condescending attitude toward non-Christians.

You can't fight ideologues (i.e. Muslim fundamentalist terrorists) with a another, more heavily armed ideologue.  We need a President who is in touch with reality.


----------



## RacerX (Oct 26, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> I fear the worst honestly... I think 2000 is going to be a walk in the park compared to this years election. If Kerry wins, I think you will see some mild grumpiness from the Republicans and life will go on.


As for riots, they most likely wouldn't be any worse than the staged demonstrations Republicans put together in Florida trying to stop the vote. Hopefully this time they'll not fly in staff members of Republican members of congress to do this.

But yeah, this looks like a lot more than mild grumpiness from these Republicans last time...


----------



## markceltic (Oct 26, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
> 
> Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
> 
> ...


 Okay so you're a Republican that wasn't hard to figure out.So shall we start at the top; Since Germany & Japan & Italy were the Axis powers at the time why not finish Europe first before ultimately finishing off the Japonese makes perfect sense to me.Germany did declare war on the US btw.                                                                                                   `    Truman never started any war on the Korean peninsula, thank N. Korea for that.Look at how many countries who were part of the U.N.sent troops to DEFEND the South Korean people from such a fate that has befallen the N.Korean people.                                                                                    `   JFK only had advisors to the S.Vietnamese army.Well as far as LBJ is concerned in the context of the times it was probaly inevitable that it wouldn't succeed.                                                                                   `     Bosnia was a NATO action if I recall.Concerning Sudan how can anyone believe anything coming out of a country like that,just another Yemen.


----------



## ScottW (Oct 26, 2004)

ha! your all fun to play around with.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 27, 2004)

This may be a stupid question since ScottW seems to be a little out numbered, but do you think we could have a poll to see who the macosx community would vote for? i would find it to be pretty interesting.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 27, 2004)

All I have to say is this: Interesting thread....
I will keep my opinions to myself and vote my conscience in less than a week.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 27, 2004)

Someone else did that a few weeks ago, though things may well have changed in the interim.

I've never used it myself, but if you do a 'create thread' there is a check-box near the bottom to create a poll.

I'd say you'd want to include these choices:

Kerry
Bush
Nader
Other
Undecided
and maybe: Not Going To Vote

While we're talking about election-related chaos, what does everyone think are the odds of a terrorist attack between now and 11/3 ?


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 27, 2004)

I don't see any options when starting a thread to create a poll. i believe one of the admins have to do that.
As for a terrorist attack occuring between now and the day after election day, i don't believe it would happen. Maybe i'm just an optimisit, but i also believe the Bush campaign uses fear tactics to get their votes. as cheney always says, "there will be something big, something devasting, but i don't know where, and i don't know when."


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 27, 2004)

i for one have already voted. since we floridians seemed to mess up the last election, we're enabled to vote early. we want to make sure our votes count this time. As for who I voted for, I think it's kind of obvious.
i think everyone should vote no matter who you want. in 2000, Gore lost to florida by only 200 votes (after the deletion of the absentee ballots). If you think your vote doesn't count, you're wrong. oh, and voting for nader doesn't really help. VOTE!


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 27, 2004)

I created a poll here:

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47244

Vote away!


----------



## Satcomer (Oct 27, 2004)

ichadsey said:
			
		

> i for one have already voted. since we floridians seemed to mess up the last election, we're enabled to vote early. we want to make sure our votes count this time.



You know what they say, vote early and often.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 27, 2004)

and often? let's hope we don't have any dirty work like that.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 27, 2004)

> let's hope we don't have any dirty work like that.



Yes, let's hope not.

The phrase "Vote early, vote often" is associated with former Chicago mayor Richard Daley:



> ...It was often alleged that his administration used questionable tactics to acquire votes, with the ironic phrase "vote early and vote often" frequently used to describe to his method of delivering votes. Any Democratic vote fraud in Cook County was easily matched statewide by Republican practices downstate, which included voting by telephone, and bulk voting by political leaders.



http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/r/ri/richard_j__daley.html


----------



## quiksan (Oct 27, 2004)

What's sad to me is that people can't just let elections be anymore.  Everything is contested after the fact.  No one seems to be a graceful loser anymore.  (I'm not eluding to either of the current candidates, just stating my take on things)

I'm so not looking forward to this election day (and the days/weeks/months following), because I know we're just going to be inundated with crap from the media, based on whichever side loses, and the lawsuits and other crap that will insue.  

Me, 2 things will save my sanity on election day:
Chipotle giving away free burritos.  Woohoo!!!
Halo 2 only 1 week away.... double Woohoo!!!


----------



## g/re/p (Oct 27, 2004)

Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html


The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 40 Years Later
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/




			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> That is an interesting revision of history... we were not taking an active part in Vietnam (after watching the French) until the attack on the USS Maddox (a ship my Dad served on). That action brought an immediate escalation in our involvement in that conflict.
> 
> North Vietnamese knew at the time we were not interested in being part of the conflict and the Maddox was patrolling in international waters. Johnson (rightly or wrongly) used the incident to get the same powers from Congress that Bush was given in the Iraq issue (without Iraq attacking us of course).
> 
> As I recall, the Maddox only received superficial damage at best. But like Bush's phantom WMD, Texas oil men seem to know how to tell some whoppers when they want war powers. At least in Johnson's case an incident did happen... it is too bad about Bush's WMD not even having a shred of validity.


----------



## fryke (Oct 28, 2004)

After 2000's election problems in the US, I was hoping that the UN would step in and help in administrating a democratic voting system in the USA. I mean: We're all for development help, aren't we... I guess what'll happen is that it's going to be a close race and that both sides would sue the other party, anyway, if they lose. That's not what I hope for, though. I hope for a clear win for Kerry.

Btw.: Anyone seen that South Park episode lately? Douche or Turd Sandwich, anyone?  Now _that_ was hilarious.


----------



## ichadsey (Oct 29, 2004)

A Kerry win would be the best for all. But i'm not so sure it will come so easily. It looks like the race may come to another florida of 2000. Both Ohio and Florida are huge swing states, and it looks like they are going to be extremely close. There is even the possibility of a tie, 269 to 269 electoral votes for each. If it comes down to that, the decision will end up in the house. Since the house is a republican majority, the decision will undoubtably be Bush. If you think Florida recount of 2000 was bad, what do you think will happen when there is a tie and Bush narrowly wins again?


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 29, 2004)

> Since the house is a republican majority, the decision will undoubtably be Bush.



I've thought about that myself.  Were it to happen, I would certainly hope (though not expect) the representatives would vote _with their constituents_, even if it meant voting against their own party.  It'd never happen that way.

I don't know if this is happening in Florida - or anywhere else, for that matter - but in Ohio both parties are planning to station 'challengers' at the polls.   

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1099042704252193.xml

According to what I have heard, the GOP challengers will challenge voters whose registrations seem shaky, and the Democratic challengers have orders only to defend the voters challenged by the GOP challengers.


----------



## Cat (Oct 30, 2004)

What's this story of "registration"? Isn't every adult US citizen entitled to vote? You get a piece of paper telling you where to vote, you go there with your passport, hand over the paper, show the passport, vote and then go home and check the exit polls. What kind of registration has to be done or checked?


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 30, 2004)

All adults are entitled to vote (except, in most if not all cases, convicted felons) but you do first have to register in a 'precinct'.   

Registration doesn't cost anything, and requires only valid ID and an address.

The purpose of registration is primarily to prevent people from voting more than once, and to ensure that only legal US citizens vote. 

By registering voters within their local precincts, the task of preventing invalid votes is distributed across the country, instead of trying to manage it from one massive central agency.

EDIT: I will add, only a small percentage of US citizens have a 'passport' per-se.  We usually use our driver's licenses as identification.  

The registration process provides each precinct with a list on which to look up each voter's name and check him or her off, recording the fact that he or she has already voted.


----------



## Cat (Oct 31, 2004)

That sounds ... complicated. Here in the Netherlands (and AFAIK most of the rest of the EU) you are automatically registered because the municipality you live in has a record of its inhabitants. If you move to a different city you have to register with the municipality for all kinds of reasons. So at all moments everybody is already registered and the municipality can send out the voting ticket without any problems. You have to hand over your ticket and hance there is no way you could vote twice. You can only vote in the municipality where you live, unless you take action and ask that you can vote elsewhere. So in the default case all is already set up and no registration is required. Hence nothing stops you from voting. The more "barriers" the lower the turnout.

In Belgium voting is obligatory ...


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 31, 2004)

> The more "barriers" the lower the turnout.
> In Belgium voting is obligatory ...



Australia too.  Sometimes I wish we'd do the same.

I'm glad the US is a democracy (technically a Republic, with a representative democracy).  Our system of electing presidents is pretty strange though.

As you have probably heard, we have something called the 'electoral college' -- which, I must add, is only used for the PRESIDENTIAL election, not other elections.   Each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" - and in the end, it is THOSE VOTES ALONE which determine the winner.  The number of electors for a given state is the same as the number of congressmen that state has (2 Senators, plus a number of Representatives based on population).   

Each state is permitted to devise their own method of choosing the electors, but the federal government decides how many each state gets and when the electors must vote (Nov 2, right now.)

All states but 2 (Maine and  Nebraska) do it the same way:  whoever wins the popular vote for the state wins ALL the electoral votes.  Hence, in a 2-candidate race, up to 49.999999% of the populace of a given state may have NO representation in the electoral vote.

The WAY that this is accomplished is even more twisted:  each CANDIDATE has his own panel of loyal potential electors, and the popular vote decides which PANEL of electors gets to actually vote.  So, in a situation where technically NO actual flesh-and-blood electors are needed (since they don't actually get to make any individual choices when the time comes) we have one complete set per candidate!

Maine and Nebraska do it more sensibly:  the 2 "senator" electors vote with the statewide popular majority, and the "representative" electors vote with the popular majority in their respective congressional districts.

This system leaves open the possibility of a candidate winning the election while losing the popular vote - which of course, Bush did in 2000.  He is only the 3rd US President to win that way.

Many people, myself included, would like to see this system eliminated - let the nation-wide popular vote decide the winner.  But to do that would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3 majority vote of both houses of congress, and then approval by 3/4 of all states' legislatures  -- *extremely* difficult to achieve.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> After 2000's election problems in the US, I was hoping that the UN would step in and help in administrating a democratic voting system in the USA. I mean: We're all for development help, aren't we... I guess what'll happen is that it's going to be a close race and that both sides would sue the other party, anyway, if they lose. That's not what I hope for, though. I hope for a clear win for Kerry.
> 
> Btw.: Anyone seen that South Park episode lately? Douche or Turd Sandwich, anyone?  Now _that_ was hilarious.



Sorry, but the voting system in the USA is *definately* none of the UN's damn business.

The UN is a joke (and more corrupt than american politics)

The United States is a sovereign country, and the UN has no authority  to "step in" and do anything at all, period.


----------



## mrfluffy (Nov 1, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Iraq is(was) a sovereign country, and the US has(had) no authority  to "step in" and do anything at all, period.



I believe Mr fryke was joking...


----------



## marz (Nov 1, 2004)

So how do we keep the NRA members off the streets after Bush loses?  Damn concealed carry laws ... 

Here in the Columus Ohio area (Swing State Central), a small suburban newspaper decided to break their tradition of not endorsing candidates for National office, and endorsed John Kerry for President on their frontpage, for all the reasons that Bush has failed in his Presidency.  Well the outrage in some of the little burbs is really quite entertaining ... but it does make me think that the "righties" may be the ones causing the chaos after the election, if, as I believe will happen, Bush loses.

If you want to read the endorsement, and the letters to the editor in response, here's the URL for the endorsement http://www.snponline.com/FRONT/Stories/MAIN.HTML

And here's the URL for the responses:
http://www.snponline.com/Bonus_Jumps/ELECTION_2004/SOUND_OFF_RES.htm

Keep in mind that this is a "free" newspaper that gets thrown on your driveway in the suburbs once a week.  Each suburb around Columbus, has their "own" paper, with different titles, but the content is mostly the same, some advertising, and local high school, or community activities set each version apart.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

President Bush will win by a landslide tomorrow. 4 more years of a great country!

For those of you thinking of voting for Kerry tomorrow... think about this. See all these people on this forum who are not even American's and what do they think of us? Well, many hate the USA cause we are a world leader. Obviously, what would make us less of a world leader, voting for Kerry. Why do they endorse Kerry? To downgrade this country.

So... when you go to the polls, just remember... we make our own decisions and it should not matter what the rest of the world wants us to do, in fact... I think one should do the opposite just to play a good offense.

Never let your guard down.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

You're delusional. There will be no landslides this year.
Your attitude, however, is pure Bush:

"Other countries are out to get us, but they'll never stop us!!
BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHH!!!"

People hate the US now for the same reason they hated Germany when Hitler was in charge.  Bush is the problem, not the solution.  

Edit: I detest Bush, but I need to be clear here: no sane person would consider Bush as evil as Hitler.  He is, however comparable in terms of being equally as sure of himself, as unreceptive to different opinions, and as ambitious. /Edit

Bush's policies appeal to our sorry pop-culture ethic of shoot-first-ask-questions-later.   On some gut level, people find it comforting to think that somewhere out there (thankfully far away from here) some of the people who hate America are being shot and blown up each day.    But the world is far too large and complex a place for this sort of grade-school thinking.   We need a King Solomon in charge, not a John Wayne.   

(One day left folks. the gloves are off, my inner diplomat has the day off).


----------



## marz (Nov 1, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> ...Well, many hate the USA cause we are a world leader.



No, many hate America because we go around putting our interests ahead of anyone else's interest, is that what you call a Leader?  I call it a pig headed bully.  That's why people around the world hate America - not because they're jealous ...

For just one day, say Wednesday, when you're recovering from the Kerry Victory, instead of trying to figure out what went all wrong, listen to Air America Radio, listen to opinions and read the news from a different perspective - not FoxNews, turn off Rush Limbaugh, and maybe take a deep look in the mirror and see that you've been living in a fairy land of make believe, because you wanted to support W. no matter that he was lying to you telling you everything in Iraq was going along fine.  When in fact, the truth is that the he's letting the men and women of our fine military, become the victims and casualties of his politics, his go it alone, machoismo, is costing them their very life ... that doesn't make him a strong leader, that makes him a very bad man.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

> Originally Posted by mrfluffy - NOT by g/re/p!!!
> Iraq is(was) a sovereign country, and the US has(had) no authority to "step in" and do anything at all, period.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

Yeah - Bush needs to go - too bad his only opponent is almost as big of a dipshit loser as he is! 

(and probably just as bad for the country - only time will tell)

Hopefully Kerry will die in 6 months so Edwards can step in.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

My opinion of Kerry is higher than yours, but I admit that removing Bush is my main objective.

I'd vote for John Kerry, Drew Carey, Jim Carrey, Mary Carey or Mariah Carey before I'd vote for Bush.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 1, 2004)

german opinion: stop Bush!
Why? Not to see america get weaker. No. Just too see america mess less with other countries.


----------



## mrfluffy (Nov 1, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by mrfluffy - NOT by g/re/p!!!
> > Iraq is(was) a sovereign country, and the US has(had) no authority to "step in" and do anything at all, period.
> >
> > I believe your country participated in the invasion as well.
> ...


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

> so the US is none of the UN's business and the UN has no authority to do anything in the US, but they do for Iraq, why is that?


Yes - *at the present time*, the US is none of the UN's business and the UN has no authority to do anything in the US.  

This was not the case in Iraq.

There could possibly be future situations where the UN would
have the authority to meddle in the business of the US, but that time has not yet come.



> And if that was enough authority why did the US and UK governments need to lie about WMDs to justify it?


They didn't lie, they made bad decisions based on faulty intel.
 ( that does sometimes happen)

But hey, if Saddam could hide in a spider hole and evade capture as long as he did, there may be evidence of WMD's
still hidden away - i seriously doubt it, but it is possible.


----------



## quiksan (Nov 1, 2004)

this thread is precisely why I don't talk politics.  it never seems to end up well.  vote.  that's all.
let the winner win, and the loser lose...whomever they may be.

everyone's entitled to their opinions and entitled to interpret news/facts/etc however they please.  respect peoples' stance on things, as it is their own.  You shouldn't think exactly like I think, or it'd be a boring forum, and a boring world.


----------



## chevy (Nov 1, 2004)

it looks like chaos was there before the vote, no ?


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

Sharply divided in opinions, sure, but so far no actual disruption of daily life.

I'm holding my breath to see how tomorrow goes.  I'm supposed to fly to Atlanta on Wednesday...


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

> this thread is precisely why I don't talk politics. it never seems to end up well. vote. that's all.
> let the winner win, and the loser lose...whomever they may be.
> 
> everyone's entitled to their opinions and entitled to interpret news/facts/etc however they please. respect peoples' stance on things, as it is their own. You shouldn't think exactly like I think, or it'd be a boring forum, and a boring world.


You make some valid points - i usually do not participate in political
 debate either, i must have got a tic or something - lol!


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> I cannot believe anyone really believes that crap, well, except complete and utter nutters like Hannity, Coulter and O'Reilly.



Hey, speaking of O'Reilly - when it actually 
came down to "put up or shut up" he chose
to shut up! Wow! Who'd a thought??!!


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

> nowhere else in the world would Bush stand a chance of winning,



Heh, talk about a landslide...

EDIT: It is interesting though that, according to that site, the middle east has the highest percentage of Bush supporters.   

I can understand a certain number being glad that Saddam is gone - but I also wonder: what groups in the middle east are most likely to have access to the Internet and read English (which the site is written in)?  

Perhaps...  US servicemen?

Presumably the site prevents US IP addresses from voting, but clearly it can't detect Americans logging in from elsewhere.


----------



## quiksan (Nov 1, 2004)

a pretty cool real-time electoral vote predictor:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 1, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> It is interesting though that, according to that site, the middle east has the highest percentage of Bush supporters.



My theory on this was that there were probably a few people who thought "ha ha, I know, I'll register a vote for Bush and then say I'm from Iran!" (I seem to remember you just selected your country rather than having it detected based on IP address).  

Another theory, that my friend pointed out, is that the Middle East will no doubt include Israel, and so a large proportion of the Middle East vote is probably from there.

Interesting statistcs on internet usage can be found here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_use&id=MID
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_liv_use&id=MID

As you can see, Israel has the most users for a middle east country (I'm assuming Turkey was counted in the Europe statistic in the global vote), and also by far the most Livejournal users - and I feel these are people most likely to access this sort of site.  It's also worth remembering that internet access is very restricted in a lot of middle eastern countries.


----------



## fryke (Nov 1, 2004)

Actually I wasn't really joking. I think after what happened in 2000, the USA really NEED the help of more developed countries in the task of electing a president. You can't really tell me that the American people has already _forgotten_ about 2000?! I mean: You _do_ remember that US elections were the base of jokes around the world, don't you? Even those who back then supported Al Gore don't remember? I can't seem to get that...


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Actually I wasn't really joking. I think after what happened in 2000, the USA really NEED the help of more developed countries in the task of electing a president. You can't really tell me that the American people has already _forgotten_ about 2000?! I mean: You _do_ remember that US elections were the base of jokes around the world, don't you? Even those who back then supported Al Gore don't remember? I can't seem to get that...


You were not joking? Well neither was i - the 2000 election was not the first time a candidate won the popular vote but did not win the actual election - we just never had a pathetic crybaby like al gore file a lawsuit over it!

As much as the electoral process is flawed here, it still beats out the sytems in place in most other countries.

What other system would you suggest we use as a guide - maybe socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or even a theocracy would be more to your liking??

*We surely do NOT need the help of an "organization" as politically corrupt as the United Nations!


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

Maybe I live in a rose-colored world, but frankly, I just know that Bush is going to win tomorrow. If Im wrong, Im wrong. But... there is some interesting things floating around (not stupid newsweek polls mind you) that really show Bush really ahead in this election.

One classic example... I was in line voting on Friday... taking advantage of early voting. There was a LONG line, in fact, I waited about 20-30 minutes to vote. Bot a big deal, heck only two locations open for early voting in this county, unlike it would be  tomorrow with god knows how many. So... anyhow a lady in front of me was from Canada. She was going on about wondering if she was going to have to prove she was a citizen, didn't bring any of her paperwork. blah-blah-blah. But the funny thing, she started going on... she said... everyone wants to have cheap healthcare like Canada and want to pay 50% of their taxes toward a socialist healthcare system... yet what does everyone in Canada want? To come to the USA for surgery.

She was basically going to vote for Bush, although she never came out and said it. And everyone else in line was agreeing with her 100%. Of course I live in a RED state and probably only 30-35% of those in my state will vote for Kerry.

Truth be known... if Kerry is the best the Democrats can come up with, it is a sad day in that party. 

I was talking with a young friend of mine, 18... he is from a blue state... he said, I am seriously considering joining the military but Im going to wait on the election result. If Kerry wins, no way in hell I am going to sing up. If Bush does.. then there is a serious good chance I will.

The fact is... this country elected Bush in 2000 and a very good chance Bush is coming back for another 4 years.


----------



## Salvo (Nov 1, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> If only you knew the truth about Christ.



Actually the Archeolical Truth about Christ is that the Character which Jesus was Modelled on, was a small, ugly, hunched-back Prophet who lived in Jerusalem and ranted on and on about helping other people, and not hurting other people. Stories of his Altruism were exagerated over and over again, until they were considered Miracles.
He was popular among the lower and working classes, because he preached that everyone should have the same oportunities - The Cornerstone of Socialism.

His teachings have been adopted, and adapted by Judaeism, every denomination of Christianity, Islam and dozens of smaller cults. The reason Hinduism, Buddhism and other Eastern Religions haven't considered his Teachings was because, since they were so similar to the teachings of Buddha, it was old news.

The Historical Truth about Christ is that Wars, Genocidal Purges and Cultural Oppression have all been carried out in his name; things the original Prophet Abhored.

The Historical Truth about Islam is that similar Attrocities have been carried out in Mohommeds name, which he, like the Jesus Character, would have considered Abhorent too.

An example of how Corrupted the original Prophets Messages have become, The Koran forbits Mutilation of Genitals. The Sultan of Constantinople contracted Koptic Christian Priests to Casterate his Eunichs because he couldn't ask a fellow Islamic to perform the operation.
Meanwhile, Islamic Communities in Afghanistan and Central Africa were performing Female Circumsicion to discourage Adultery.

A Similar Example is how Anglican Christians have the right to Divorce and Remarry, simply because Henry the Eighth didn't like his first wife terribly much.

(Sorry for Spelling Mistakes, My iBook has a blown Logic Board, so I have to use the Family PC  )


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

> ScottW:
> Truth be known... if Kerry is the best the Democrats can come up with, it is a sad day in that party.



you got that right!


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

Salvo said:
			
		

> (Sorry for Spelling Mistakes, My iBook has a blown Logic Board, so I have to use the Family PC  )




Misspelled words were not the only mistakes included in your
post.


----------



## fryke (Nov 1, 2004)

Go democrats. The world is counting on you. Go vote and make sure that the USA is no longer considered the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world outside. We actually want the USA back on track, so we can _admire_ the states again. Once the USA and its flag stood for freedom and a great nation that was a poster child for many others. Nowadays, they're spreading terror.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

ScottW -- as you point out, the vote in Kansas is not in doubt.

I live in Ohio, near Cleveland, and oh BROTHER have we been getting a lot of attention from BOTH candidates lately.  Kerry is here tonight, in fact.

I just IM'd with my wife - she says the phone has been ringing all day with automated campaign messages - for Bush.   Last night we got a recording from Arnold Schwartzenegger  (sp?).  And I could easily build a pyramid 15 feet high with all the campaign-related junk mail I've received.

But the chatter I heard on the train on the way to work this morning was all pro-Kerry, anti-Bush, so it doesn't surprise me that GOP is making a panicked attempt to sway voters in my area with irritating phone calls.

I'm not going to embarrass myself with a prediction that has at best a 50% chance of being correct.   But you know what would be just pure poetry?   

If Bush WON the popular vote this time, and LOST the electoral....


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

I'm not sure what the hang up is about popular vote vs electoral votes... Why would that be poetry? Because it happened to Gore? The truth is, the popular vote decides on a state basis, and then those electoral votes are counted toward who is President. The popular vote, nationally speaking has no impact what-so-ever on the election of the President, so why is/was it ever considered an issue?

It's like saying... boy... more people bought Gore baseball jersey's than Bush, yet Bush won. Who freak'n cares.

Should the same thing happen to Bush this year in your pure poetry outcome, then that is fine... if Kerry gets more electoral votes than Bush, he wins... any other numbers, polls, or outcome is simply noise and arguement in my opinion is unfounded.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

Salvo....

And King Kong fits into that where?


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

Poetry is in the eye of the beholder I guess.  More Americans liked Gore?  Bush gets the job!  More Americans like Bush?  Kerry gets the job!

Our electoral system is a joke.  We need to get it changed.  Perhaps if it costs the Republicans a victory, something will actually be done about it.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

Actually, not ALL American's voted... if EVERY American voted he may have won the popular vote as well. 

The electoral system will never change. But what could change is the voting process. When I voted, all I gave them was a voting card, no picture, no proof... I could have just found that card in the street and voted. That I think needs to change.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 1, 2004)

I think Rush said it best... 

"We now find ourselves at a crossroads. Are we going to continue to do something about it or are we going to rent peace for awhile and allow Osama bin Laden at the end of the day tomorrow to go ahead and claim that he and he alone influenced the outcome of the United States elections? Are we going to have a victory for Osama bin Laden tomorrow and give him bragging rights across the Middle East and in the worlds of the left and in the process create a whole new generation of terrorists? Here is a man who is so incapacitated because we've made the decision to fight and defend our freedom that all he can launch as an October Surprise is a tape that appears to come right out of the text of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11."


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

[ADMIN:] ACK! Instead of hitting the quote button, I hit the edit button and re-wrote this post. My fault & apologies. --SCOTT


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 1, 2004)

So you (or at least Rush) thinks Bush should win because of Osama's announcement, rather than Kerry winning because of it?    

Show of hands here: has anyone's choice for President been influenced by bin Laden's latest tape?


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 1, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Go democrats. The world is counting on you. Go vote and make sure that the USA is no longer considered the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world outside. We actually want the USA back on track, so we can _admire_ the states again. Once the USA and its flag stood for freedom and a great nation that was a poster child for many others. Nowadays, they're spreading terror.



Actually, the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world today is Osama bin laden and his holy war - this includes his soldiers and supporters, and they reside in the midddle east, not the USA.  

Also, the USA is not spreading terror - that comment is pure diatribe and an insult to all americans - the USA is *fighting* terror and will continue to do so.

You should really be more carefull about what you blurt out in ignorance,it does not reflect well on your character.

You are taking this way past a simple difference of opinion and making it personal - i do not appreciate it at all.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 1, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Actually, the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world today is Osama bin laden and his holy war - this includes his soldiers and supporters, and they reside in the midddle east, not the USA.
> 
> Also, the USA is not spreading terror - that comment is pure diatribe and an insult to all americans - the USA is *fighting* terror and will continue to do so.
> 
> ...


Do you think there would have been any terror against the US if they didn't invade other countries to control their treasures of the soil? It would be wonderful if the US was simply into helping other countries, but this is very obviously not the case. I am not insulting the US citizens, but the current US government and their foreign policy. And I believe the citizens do not know what their government is actually doing there. And I am also not supporting the UN. If they were more consequent, they never would have let the US proceed with their attacks against iraq for "their understanding of democracy". Every attack will have another attack for revenge. Which one in this circle is called terror? Hard to say, huh?


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Here is a man who is so incapacitated because we've made the decision to fight and defend our freedom that all he can launch as an October Surprise is a tape that appears to come right out of the text of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11."



Be that it may come from Fahrenheit 9/11, but if you also pick up "The 9/11 Commission Report" at your local book store and flip to page 38 you'll find: 





> The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis.... The president remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.


Why should I believe bush when he says the country is safer under him when it is clearly not. Why would we focus our attention on a nation that had no threat to the United States? Why would a president that is so concerned about protecting our country from terrorists tell us to our face that he's not concerened about the most wanted man in the world? When asked about Usama Bin Laden on March 13, 2002 he said during a news conference, 





> Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't neccessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.


The most upsetting part about this is that our deadliest enemy, Usama Bin Laden, is even convinced that it was easier to attack the US under the Bush administration, 





> We never thought that the high commander of the U.S. armies would leave 50,000 of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting.


It's time we stop making excuses for our poor leadership and we vote for a change. Face the facts. VOTE!


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> "We now find ourselves at a crossroads. Are we going to continue to do something about it or are we going to rent peace for awhile and allow Osama bin Laden at the end of the day tomorrow to go ahead and claim that he and he alone influenced the outcome of the United States elections? Are we going to have a victory for Osama bin Laden tomorrow and give him bragging rights across the Middle East and in the worlds of the left and in the process create a whole new generation of terrorists? Here is a man who is so incapacitated because we've made the decision to fight and defend our freedom that all he can launch as an October Surprise is a tape that appears to come right out of the text of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11."



Oh come on - and you believe that do you.  Wow, I am amazed!!!

That is some of the most blatant and biased spin you can ever imagine.  In 'Dead Ringers: US Election Special' last night (a satirical impressions show), they had a sketch of Bin Laden's video which then cut back to Rumsfeld writing out a cheque to Bin Laden as it is so obvious how the Republicans could use his tape to their advantage "If you vote Kerry you're just showing that Bin Laden is right".  I can't believe you suckers are actually falling for that spin.  (oh - and I should add the show wasn't just 30 minutes of Bush bashing, they also did an excellent clip spoofing Michael Moore - a man who I don't have a great deal of time for, but am very glad people like him exist to try and help balance the scales of lies, deceit and political spin).


And all this stuff about Popular Vote vs Electoral College.  Surely you can see the logic in people feeling that the most popular candidate should win?  and suggesting "socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or even a theocracy", etc as alternatives - don't be so stupid, there are plenty of other, better electoral systems, it isn't a matter of just having the Electoral College, or some kind of system where you basically get no vote, and the fact you include socialism in that list is just hillarious, socialism would actually be better, but you could still have a socialist government under your current system.

I mean, the system in this country isn't perfect, and some kind of proportional representation would be better, but hell, it's still more of a proportionally representative system that in the US.

America going round and espousing the wonders of democracy to the rest of the world, when their own system is so flawed and corrupt, is just hilarious.


Oh, and from what I understand, if there had been a FULL (I understand Bush still would have won under any of Gore's suggested compromises, but a full recount would have given him the edge) recount of the Florida vote, then Bush wouldn't have even won the Electoral College thing, and would have stood no chance at all if the unfairly disenfranchised voters had had their chance to vote.



Anyway America, good luck in the polls today.  It is your big chance to regain some respect in the world, increase global security, give your own people more freedom and choice, repair your economy, and improve your standing as a leading force in a global partnership.  So please, do the right thing, and get to those polls and vote for Kerry.

If Bush wins this election, international respect for America and Americans will plummet even lower than before, at the moment it's just your leadership that has lost our respect, but most of you didn't vote for him so still have our respect, don't go loosing this respect by voting him in again.

Of course, you may not care about being respected internationally, you may think this interfering, British left-wing liberal should just mind his own bloody business, and that's fair enough.  But before going into that polling station, just pause for a minute and ask yourself why there is so much hatred for America in the world, and if it is such a good thing, and if America will be better off being led someone who the rest of the world sees as a man who will do nothing but fuel that haterd and so increase terrorism, or should you perhaps vote in a man who the world sees as having a chance to change all that?

Also, you may feel Bush is than man who can protect you best from terrorists, but remember, he's the man who said "they can run, but they can't hide" - well, if they can't hide, where the bloody hell are they Mr Bush???


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 2, 2004)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> blah blah blah blah blah blah....



more tired rhetoric....

yawn


----------



## fryke (Nov 2, 2004)

grep said: "Actually, the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world today is Osama bin laden and his holy war - this includes his soldiers and supporters, and they reside in the midddle east, not the USA."

Actually, that's where we differ, dear grep. Simply, and definitely, differ.

grep also said: "Also, the USA is not spreading terror - that comment is pure diatribe and an insult to all americans - the USA is fighting terror and will continue to do so."

Sadly, they're not just fighting terror. They're bringing war to countries and fear of war to other countries. Different points of view, but still...

Then grep said: "You should really be more carefull about what you blurt out in ignorance,it does not reflect well on your character."

I can only say that the same goes for you, grep. Please see that I _am_ careful (that's how it's spelled, by the way) about what I blurt out. And it's not ignorance, it's the consequence of seeing that many Americans (about 49 percent according to the latest polls) _see_ their president lie on TV but don't seem to _look_. They just forget. And ignore. I listen to many, many American people about what the US do in the world, and strange enough: Only those who actually travel the world and _see_ how the image of the USA has been hurt by their president understand why it's very, very important that Bush steps down or simply isn't re-elected.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

Brisk voting in Ohio today, larger than usual crowds at the polls, despite the rain.  At the last minute, 'challengers' _were_ allowed at the polls - 1 each for each party, each precinct.

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/...se/politics-7/1099380661181710.xml&storylist=

I didn't notice any when I voted this morning, but I live in a relatively affluent white-bread neighborhood...


----------



## diablojota (Nov 2, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> And it's not ignorance, it's the consequence of seeing that many Americans (about 49 percent according to the latest polls) _see_ their president lie on TV but don't seem to _look_. They just forget. And ignore. I listen to many, many American people about what the US do in the world, and strange enough: Only those who actually travel the world and _see_ how the image of the USA has been hurt by their president understand why it's very, very important that Bush steps down or simply isn't re-elected.



So are you saying Kerry doesn't lie?  That man has told more fallacies in his political career then Bill Clinton told during his entire term in president (and we know that was a lot).
It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat.  It doesn't matter what country it is.  All politicians "lie" for their political gain.  You can take anything and spin it in your favor.  This is not "lying" in the end.  It's disinformation and everyone does it when it's for some form of gain.

Yes, Bush might be disliked by the rest of the world, but he does do what he says he's going to do.  He doesn't change his mind every 3 seconds.
Okay, so there are lots of things that I don't agree with on the Republican front, but many, many more issues that I disagree with on the Democratic front.  Like how they should spend my money.  
www.scaryjohnkerry.com


----------



## Cat (Nov 2, 2004)

"He doesn't change his mind every 3 seconds."

Bush:
"We invade Iraq because they harbor terrorist" (False)
"We invade Iraq because they do not comply with UN regulations" (True)
"We invade Iraq because Saddam is a terrorist" (disputable)
"... because they have WMD" (False)
"... because they have nukes" (False)
"... they have ties with Bin Laden" (False)

All of these and a lot more reasons were given at various moments by the Bush administration. Most of them are false or discutable and it is highly debatable whether they are a sufficient reason to invade a country. Who's flip-flopping here?

After years of wars both Afghanistan and Iraq are far from a normal situation. The highest credit has been turned into the highest debit, millions of jobs have been lost, thousends of soldiers have been killed or maimed for life, about 100.000 innocent civilian victims have been made.

Under Bush the US have violated more international laws and agreements thatn under any other previous president: they pulled out from anti-proliferation treaties and the Kyoto protocol, they violated the Geneva conventions with Guantanamo Bay and the bombing of civilian areas in an occupied country, they violated international laws on unprovoked war. 

There sure are a lot of reasons not to vote for Bush, but apparently REpublicans do not care about these things. They do not seem to care about international treaties and organisations of which they are members and which they have helped create. This is a far more dangerous attitude than isolationism.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 2, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> Yes, Bush might be disliked by the rest of the world, but he does do what he says he's going to do.



He said he was going to catch Osama Bin Laden, umm...??

Is doing what you say you're going to do a good thing anyway.  If I say I'm going to kill you, and then do, is that better than if I say I'm going to kill you, and then I don't?




> He doesn't change his mind every 3 seconds.



or admit he made a mistake, or was mislead or mis-informed.


Oh yeah, you're right, he's pretty damn stubborn (but _still_ fails to get some things done).  Is this a good thing??


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

Who's nervous here? Only a few more hours until the election booths close and the mayhem begins. Any predictions of my lovely state of Florida? Or how about Ohio? Too bad we can't bet on this. The person to correctly guess the amount of electoral votes each candidate receives first, wins an ipod??? i'm guessing 269 to 269. god i hope not.


----------



## bobw (Nov 2, 2004)

269 to 269 

 Senate votes Bush in as pres
 House votes Edwards in as Vice


----------



## quiksan (Nov 2, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> 269 to 269
> 
> Senate votes Bush in as pres
> House votes Edwards in as Vice




But what about Uncle Dick?    

I'll say it again - I just hope it's fairly clear to one side, who the winner is.  then we won't (hopefully - dang lawyers/sore loosers) have to drag this out for the next couple months...


----------



## bobw (Nov 2, 2004)

Dick goes back to Halliburton to get all his bonuses.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

This is on a newsgroup my wife reads:



> I am worried to death.
> 
> I just read in the local paper that Allegheny County, PA (where I
> live) has the second-largest numbers of calls in to report possible
> ...


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

what the hell is wrong with us?  can't we just all vote and declare a new president? this is ridiculous. i cannot stand this corruption! you know what else i can't stand? Nader is on the ballot here in florida, and he already has 6,000 votes. it still infuriates me to see people voting for nader! grrr


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 2, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> grep said: "Actually, the most serious threat to freedom and peace in the world today is Osama bin laden and his holy war - this includes his soldiers and supporters, and they reside in the midddle east, not the USA."
> 
> Actually, that's where we differ, dear grep. Simply, and definitely, differ.
> 
> ...



When you make rediculous statements like "the US is the biggest threat to freedom and peace in the world outside"
 and "Nowadays, they're spreading terror",
 you_are_not_being_careful(i spelled it right this time,btw) - you are being a troll.

If you base your opinions on mere polls and whether or not candidates lie, you are misinformed and ignorant of what is actually happening.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 2, 2004)

Hmm, at least most of y'all are going to find out tonight.  I have to go into work in an hour; unless my supervisor decides to tell us, we won't be able to find out until tomorrow morning when we get off of work.

Can't even listen to a radio - the Powers That Be decided that radios were a Bad Thing and told us we couldn't have 'em.  Blah.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 2, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Do you think there would have been any terror against the US if they didn't invade other countries to control their treasures of the soil? It would be wonderful if the US was simply into helping other countries, but this is very obviously not the case. I am not insulting the US citizens, but the current US government and their foreign policy. And I believe the citizens do not know what their government is actually doing there. And I am also not supporting the UN. If they were more consequent, they never would have let the US proceed with their attacks against iraq for "their understanding of democracy". Every attack will have another attack for revenge. Which one in this circle is called terror? Hard to say, huh?



the 9/11 attack did not happen as a result of the US invading other countries to control their treasures of the soil - that is a 
ridiculous theory. If that is what you think terrorism is about,
then you are way out of touch with reality.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

Ohio and Florida at this point are leaning towards Bush. If that happens, then unfortunately, Bush will be the likely winner.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 2, 2004)

its 10:42PM EST

193 Bush

112 Kerry


can anyone say "4 More Wars!"  or let's get "Hail to the Chief" replaced by the Imperial March?


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

10:53 - CNN says Bush 193, Kerry 133 -- it's not over yet

11:02:  B193 K188 -


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

not over yet, but it's looking like bush is in the lead in both ohio and florida. that's it, i'm moving out of this country.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

as of right now in florida: 88.7% of votes have been counted. 51.8% of them are to bush. 47.3% to kerry. and 1% to nader.
i don't know about you, but it looks like bush might win florida.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

Yeah probably. 

I've had enough - going to bed.   I'll get up and be horrified tomorrow.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

ohio still has a chance to pull it off.
90.9% counted in florida
3,337,455 (52.1%) going to bush
3,019,548 (47.1%) going to kerry
54,146 (0.8%) going to nader. i hate you nader
difference b/w bush and kerry is slim. we'll see.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 2, 2004)

210 - Bush  (60 needed to win)
199 - Kerry  (71 needed to win)

FL, OH, WI, CO & NM are leaning towards Bush (71 electoral votes).
NH, MI, MN, IA, OR & NV are leaning towards Kerry (50 electoral votes).
AK & HI have no info (7 electoral votes).


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

whoever takes ohio wins and it looks like bush might take it. either that or if bush takes ohio and kerry takes the rest, then we have a tie. then bush wins. either way, i'm calling it. it's bush. WAHHH!!!!


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

bush takes florida. ohio will soon follow


----------



## mdnky (Nov 2, 2004)

Bush - 237
Kerry - 206

Bush took FL, Kerry took OR.  WI now leaning towards Kerry.  OH, CO & NM still leaning towards Bush.  If he takes those, it's all over.  CO seems to be in the bag for Bush right now.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 2, 2004)

246 - Bush
206 - Kerry

Bush took CO.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 2, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Bush took CO.


Doesn't surprise me...  Colorado has almost always gone Republican, no matter who's running.

The fact that I just wasted my vote on Kerry kind of riles me up.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 2, 2004)

Bush - 246
Kerry - 216

Kerry took MN.

NM looks to be heading to Bush.  OH, WI, and MI are still very close.  AK will probably go to Bush, HI probably to Kerry.


----- 01:03 EST -----

Bush - 249
Kerry - 216

Bush took AK.


----- 01:48 EST -----

Bush - 269
Kerry - 220

Bush takes OH.  Kerry takes NH.  IA & NV leaning towards Bush.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 2, 2004)

sorry guys. bush remains to be our president. there goes our hope to rebuild america.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 3, 2004)




----------



## ichadsey (Nov 3, 2004)




----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 3, 2004)

-2:11 AM EST-

BUSH : 249 Votes

Kerry : 211 Votes

----------------

-2:33 AM EST-

BUSH : 249 Votes

Kerry : 228 Votes

-------------------

Kerry just got Minnisota and Michigan

---------------

2:42 AM EST

Bush : 249 Votes

Kerry : 242 Votes

Kerry Just got Hawaii

---------------



Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio still un-accounted for. 

If Kerry gets Ohio, he'll probably win.

We will just wait and see if America gets rebuilt.  Hopefully it will, i know we need it.

My Folks were effected by George Bush Senior, and now I'm being effected by Jr.  circles, its just one giant circle.

Let's pray Jeb doesn't run.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 3, 2004)

Bush - 269
Kerry - 242

Kerry took MI and HI.

NV & NM leaning towards bush still and the gap is widening.  WI leaning to Kerry, IA leaning to bush, both too close.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 3, 2004)

this is my first presidental i voted in.  I'm proud of my choice.  I voted for who ever could do the best job.

bush  249
kerry 238


----------



## mdnky (Nov 3, 2004)

Bush - 274
Kerry - 242

Bush takes NV, breaking 270.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 3, 2004)

Bush - 254
Kerry - 252

...and waiting on Ohio still, though it looks like Bush is going to take it.  We won't find out until _tomorrow_ though - they won't start counting the provisional votes until then.  Guess it didn't matter that I couldn't check up on the race at work, after all.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 3, 2004)

Well how delightful.  It appears that we (Ohio) are the new Florida.

Pity we didn't get the weather to match...


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 3, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Well how delightful.  It appears that we (Ohio) are the new Florida.
> 
> Pity we didn't get the weather to match...



Yeah, but at least you don't look like a flaccid penis.


----------



## habilis (Nov 3, 2004)

Kerry needs to concede before he looks like even more of a bafoon and makes a mockery of the electoral college. Statistically, popularly, and idealogicly, he and his party are losers - again - to a man who they call stupid. So who is really looking stupid here. The people have spoken. You democrats and liberals need to quell your bitterness before you're consumed by it. You can't win an election run on hatred. The country is not run by head-in-the-sand matrix people - there's still time for you to unplug.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 3, 2004)

shut up. we won't give up. we need a change. i just don't understand why you people don't understand that.


----------



## quiksan (Nov 3, 2004)

holy crap - can we all just drop it and live with what happens (whenever it happens, and whomever ithappens to)?  We're (the Americans on the boards here) still among the luckiest people around the world, to live in a free democracy.

pre-politics, this board was a great place to be.  it's been ridiculous around here lately.  hopefully we can just get back to our normal, Apple Fanatacism (is that even a word...?) life.

"can't we all just get along?"


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 3, 2004)

At 9:44am 11/3, even CNN is saying the election is still up in the air.  At this point, even with Ohio, Bush falls short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.  

Absentee and provisional ballots may take quite a while to total:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_ohio_vote_count

Bush probably will be the winner, but it's too early to gloat, and for a party which imagines itself to be protecting America's morals, gloating is rather inappropriate even in the event of a clear victory.  At this point, even an electoral tie is not out of the question.

As for making a mockery of the electoral college?   Frankly, I've been horrified and embarrassed by it since the first time I heard of it, since long before I was old enough to give a d@mn about politics.   Mocking it is almost redundant.

And speaking of people making themselves look foolish:  it's "buffoon".


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 3, 2004)

quiksan said:
			
		

> We're (the Americans on the boards here) still among the luckiest people around the world, to live in a *free democracy*.



*LOL!!*


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 3, 2004)

Well the word is now that Kerry will concede.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp


----------



## lnoelstorr (Nov 3, 2004)

so, have the riots started yet???


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 3, 2004)

there goes america!


----------



## Viro (Nov 3, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Well the word is now that Kerry will concede.
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp



That page is down. CNN is also carrying the story and can be viewed here. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html

I don't know anything of american politics, but what on earth does this all mean? Why did Kerry concede instead of carrying on the fight?


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 3, 2004)

Reports are a little conflicted, but my understanding is:

To win, Kerry needed Ohio

The "regular" votes had given the state to Bush by a margin of about 130,000 or so

The absentee (mail-in) and provisional ballots (for people who showed up at the wrong polling place yesterday) might take many days to count.  However, we know about how many there are.  The number comes awfully close to 130,000.  

So, even if the number of uncounted votes IS, barely, greater than the difference in count so far, all or nearly all of them would have to go to Kerry - and the odds of that happening are very, very small.

It is traditional for the losing candidate to concede when a loss seems inevitable, even if the counting is still in progress.  Apparently, Kerry believed his chances of winning were sufficiently small that it was better to concede victory gracefully.  (Edit: Point of grammar -- If you are conceding that your opponent has beaten you, are you conceding victory, or conceding defeat?)

I'm very disappointed that Kerry lost, but I have to agree that, at this point, his chances of winning were pretty near zilch.


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 3, 2004)

kerry probably received enough imformation saying that it even with the provisional ballots he would not win. even so, bush won the popular vote by 3 million.
more importantly, where did the democrats go wrong? how could we not replace an idiot? this is so irritating. i think i am more irritated at the democratic party right now than i am at the republican party. good for you republicans for scaring the daylights out of the majority to get your vote. wow is our country going down the drain. open your eyes and ears people.
i just have to say it's pretty funny that our nations capital voted 93% for kerry.


----------



## quiksan (Nov 3, 2004)

just glad it's all over at this point.  nice that Kerry was stand-up about it and conceded instead of firing up the lawyer engines and drawing this thing out.  
I hope had things been turned around - that Bush would have done the same thing.

guess the whole Redskins myth is not debunked...


----------



## ichadsey (Nov 3, 2004)

yeah, and i'm a redskin fan and i was rooting so hard for them to lose last week.


----------



## ScottW (Nov 3, 2004)

Well all... I am glad that the Kerry camp took a statesman like attitude and conceeded without a lengthy court battle. This is good for the country, even if the outcome was not good in your opinion.

I'm going to close this thread now, if things change for some reason or riots start, I'll open it back up.

It was fun talking with all of you... now maybe we can set our differences politically aside and just debate over which mac we want.

Scott


----------

