An actual election...

[Nick]

In case you didn't know... only American-born people can run. Arnold Shwarza... uh... Arnold S. wants to change that.

Damn... if only the real elections went as well as these? Of course, that's because pretty much everyone who isn't American would vote for Kerry.

I can't believe over the past four years. After ALL the shit that has happened, he not only got elected, but by a bigger margin than last time! More people sided after him after the past four years. Lots has happened in the past four years, and I dont think Bush handed ANY situation well.

[Jack Dudeman]

The thing is, in my opinion, that the current adimistration here has the majority of the American public in fear of another attack, or worse. With their inept, color-coded terror alert system, and constant talk of another attack, they have everyone believing that there is no way to reason with radical Islamists. I think Bush believes that he is on a mission from God himself to kill every last Muslim in the world that hates America.

What people fail to realize is that there are always going to be people who hate America. What about the children who saw their innocent families murdered by presicion, laser-guided bombs dropped by aircraft bearing the American flag? Iraq began to turn into a 'terrorist' haven when all the US Humvees and tanks rolled by on their way to Baghdad. I can only hope that things will improve there in the near future, but I believe by electing Bush as president, the situation will only get worse before it gets better.

Ironically, if you look at the 'red and blue' states after the votes were counted, you will notice a bizarre resemblance to the division of the United States during the civil war. The country is split right down the Mason-Dixon line. It's interesting to think about.

[rklenseth]

Now if New York City wasn't part of the New York State (every upstaters' dream) then Bush would have won New York State and the same could be said for California.

If that's there dream, why doesn't it happen? I think I can safely say NYC would love to cut them loose as well. It would hurt the Dem. on national elections...but have you ever read about how badly NYC gets ripped off on the state level? without NYC the whole rest of teh state would be bankrupt and sinking.

I think it would be the opposite. Most of our taxes are sky high because things being done in NYC such as the new stadium they want to build there and their public school system. But even if both parties agreed I don't think the Federal government would allow it.

2. The Democrats are or are painted as being to much to the left of the political spectrum. Most Americans aren't extreme Conservatives or Liberals but are moderate and tend to vote for what they think is the most moderate candidate. I guess Bush appeared more moderate to people than Kerry did.

again...
I thought Kerry was very nearly running as a Republican. He was more liberal than Bush...But Bush isn't anything like a moderate. I'd lean more towards calling him a radical.

You see Kerry was painted as a Liberal because of the people he surrounded himself with like Michael Moore and other Hollywood elitist and politicians like Ted Kennedy. Plus he has one of the most Liberal records in the Senate to date. Yes, Kerry was claiming a pretty Moderate Liberal agenda but he didn't simply have the charisma that Bill Clinton has to prove that to the people.

3. The Republicans since Reagan have become more and more moderate every year. Look at Guilliani, Swartznegger(sp?), and McCain who are pretty much social liberals but yet right now they are being promoted as top people in the Republican Party and the future leadership. In fact don't be surprised if you see Guilliani run for President in 2008 with McCain as his running mate.

And yet, the hyper-conservative Bush, who verges on fundamentalist and guts non-religeous social programs... They might run moderate next election, but they sure haven't been moderate lately.

If you think that Bush is hyper-Conservative then you are dead wrong. Yes, Bush is Conservative but not as moderate as the likes of Guilliani and McCain but he certainly ain't a neocon.

You see a neocon wouldn't have gone into Iraq. A neocon wouldn't be part of the UN or any alliance for that matter. A neocon would have done away with all the social government programs including social security, welfare, and unemployment.

Now granted Bush is religious but so was Bill Clinton. There is a social struggle in America over gay marriage and partial birth abortion. Bush is for civil unions in the government rather than gay marriage but I really think they should do away with marriage in the government and rename it civil unions. Marriage should only be determined by religion. Bush is against partial birth abortion and so are many Democrats but the problem is that the far left is for it.

The Democrats have surrounded themselves with the Hollywood elite which has hurt them a lot to the point that not even moderate Democrats want to vote for their own candidates anymore and want to change parties. Bush is pretty moderate but when compared to McCain or Guilliani he looks like a neocon. So this just goes to show that the Republicans are moving farther towards the middle. The Democrats seem to be moving more to the left as they surround themselves with Michael Moore and there leaders are on record as representatives as being the most liberal on issues like Ted Kennedy and Kerry were.[/quote]

[rklenseth]

The thing is, in my opinion, that the current adimistration here has the majority of the American public in fear of another attack, or worse. With their inept, color-coded terror alert system, and constant talk of another attack, they have everyone believing that there is no way to reason with radical Islamists. I think Bush believes that he is on a mission from God himself to kill every last Muslim in the world that hates America.

I don't believe that. When was the last time that the color code actually changed or Governor Ridge or Attorney General Ashcroft had a press conference to warn us of impending doom? I remember that before the election everyone was convinced that we would suddenly have Osama bin Laden before the election and that it would be a whole conspiracy to get Bush elected. Funny, it seems that never happened but now that the election is over and Bush won they are claiming the opposite or what you are claiming above that Bush used fears of an impending attack to get himself elected. I don't remember that much about an impending attack being talked about in the media before the election. The only thing they kept talking about was if there was an attack like that occurred in Spain during their election period and that talk ended weeks before the election and one didn't hear anything about since except for the occassional Democrat complaint that Bush is trying scare people away from the polls or in your opinion scare people to the polls.

What people fail to realize is that there are always going to be people who hate America. What about the children who saw their innocent families murdered by presicion, laser-guided bombs dropped by aircraft bearing the American flag? Iraq began to turn into a 'terrorist' haven when all the US Humvees and tanks rolled by on their way to Baghdad. I can only hope that things will improve there in the near future, but I believe by electing Bush as president, the situation will only get worse before it gets better.

True. There are always going to be people that hate people. What about children who's mothers or fathers etc... didn't come home from the World Trade Center or the Pentagon? What about children who's mothers and fathers etc... who came home in a casket from Afghanistan or Iraq or Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia etc...? What about the children who witnessed their fellow classmates, teachers, parents, etc... get slaughtered in a school in Russia? What about children who mothers and fathers etc... decided to go to a coffee shop or ride the bus in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and got blown up instead?

My point is that the situation wouldn't have changed at all but one has to do what he or she believes is right. That will lead to conflict which will lead inevitably to violence. This will never change until every last human is dead.

Ironically, if you look at the 'red and blue' states after the votes were counted, you will notice a bizarre resemblance to the division of the United States during the civil war. The country is split right down the Mason-Dixon line. It's interesting to think about.

Actually if you look at the 'red and blue' states county by county results it isn't that much divided except between Rural/Suburban areas to Urban areas. Rural and Suburban areas voted Republican and Urban areas voted Democratic for the most part.

But if you go by state then yes you can see that divide but the it is reverse. During the American Civil War the Democrats controlled the South while the Republicans controlled the North.

[The Industriallist]

Now if New York City wasn't part of the New York State (every upstaters' dream) then Bush would have won New York State and the same could be said for California.

If that's there dream, why doesn't it happen? I think I can safely say NYC would love to cut them loose as well. It would hurt the Dem. on national elections...but have you ever read about how badly NYC gets ripped off on the state level? without NYC the whole rest of teh state would be bankrupt and sinking.

I think it would be the opposite. Most of our taxes are sky high because things being done in NYC such as the new stadium they want to build there and their public school system. But even if both parties agreed I don't think the Federal government would allow it.

http://urban.nyu.edu/research/littlefield/section4.html
Partisan, but unless it's outright llying, it isn't NYC that's sucking up the education money...

http://urban.nyu.edu/research/littlefield/section1.html
As for who has sky-high taxes...

As for the Stadium...um...I don't know who's paying for it. But it isn't my fault. I was against it.

3. The Republicans since Reagan have become more and more moderate every year. Look at Guilliani, Swartznegger(sp?), and McCain who are pretty much social liberals but yet right now they are being promoted as top people in the Republican Party and the future leadership. In fact don't be surprised if you see Guilliani run for President in 2008 with McCain as his running mate.

And yet, the hyper-conservative Bush, who verges on fundamentalist and guts non-religeous social programs... They might run moderate next election, but they sure haven't been moderate lately.

If you think that Bush is hyper-Conservative then you are dead wrong. Yes, Bush is Conservative but not as moderate as the likes of Guilliani and McCain but he certainly ain't a neocon.

You see a neocon wouldn't have gone into Iraq. A neocon wouldn't be part of the UN or any alliance for that matter. A neocon would have done away with all the social government programs including social security, welfare, and unemployment.

Hyper-conservative isn't the same as neo-conservative. Neo-con is isolationist...no administration since WWI has been that. Advocating an increased relationship between religeon and government...that I would call hyper-conservative. And of course trying to cut back the graduated income tax.

See, whether they want to or not, no politician can actually try to cut down on welfare, unemployment, and Social Security. Not openly, anyway. Even having cut in the same sentence with those is risking political suicide. So there isn't much point in talking about it.

[Pirog]

rklenseth>

I'm sorry to say, Pirog, but if this is where you are getting your information then someone should tell you that this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

No, I don't get my information from there. It was actually the first time ever I visited their website. His point is valid though, and backed by a hell of a lot of more serious political experts.
The Americans being scared and paranoid has a lot to do with them acting like they do. Since the chances are high that you are one of the people who has bought the great danger your media is constantly telling you about it may be hard for you to see. An ironic example would be the warning your government issued to American citizens living in Sweden because Sweden was mentioned in Bin Ladens speach...although the context was "if we hate freedom that much, why haven't we attacked Sweden?".

First of all, polling of people shows that people based their vote on 'values and morals'...

Hehe, yes...I know how much faith you Americans put in polls and statistics. I must say it was exciting to follow the media coverage of the election on CNN...an orgie of polls and statistics all night long. (It was night in Sweden...)
The thing is that a lot of polls and most statistics are totally useless. For example the options "I have been duped into voting for Bush out of fear" and "I am a selfish rich bastard who votes for the Republicans out of my own interest" would not be very attractive choises.
If you would have polled reasons for racism I'm sure a lot of the options like "They have a hard time adapting to our society" or "we should take care of our own people before helping others" might have gotten picked, while few people would chose "I just plainly find them disgusting" or "I lack enough education to understand why they aren't different".
What people say in interviews and what actually motivates them can differ quite a lot.

I do understand that the Republicans gets a lot of votes on their religious and historically out-of-date moral values though.

[Pirog]

A reflection...with so many religious people it is interesting to see that so few Americans stand up to the "turn your other cheek" ideal

[Missy]

Okay. The first messege I have is for those of you who feel you support our troops because you vote for Bush. Please don't do me and my family any favors, because you have it bass-ackwards.

Bush has cut VA funding. Thus the very people he's sending to fight the war are coming home to improper care. This is A FACT! We've already got homeless people, people losing houses because VA benefits aren't half as much as their job was before they went off and lost a leg or two, people who haven't received a dime of their benefits. (Yeah, these things happen always, but it shouldn't take no year for a person to even get in contact with someone that will help them get the benefits they deserve.)

In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:

Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.

According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions.

Please. Take your support and shove it. Is what I have to say to you. No pay raise for active duty could ever make me feel like Bush gives two shits about our soldiers. His trip to have thanksgiving dinner with them, the trip to the air craft carrier? Don't mean nothing to me. Not when there are people out there suffering because of him and his administration and their choices. Not when my uncle can't afford his meds because of the increase in co-payments etc. And if my husband comes home and has to pay because he lost his legs, will those of you who support Bush pay for the cost of the enrollment fee for his dr visits? I mean, thats IF we can find a VA hospital in our area!

No I don't blame Clinton for the lack of equipment and other such necessities the military should have at the moment. I blame Bush for sending them when he was perfectly aware that Clinton cut Military spending.

My husband's job may be to go and fight a war regardless if he finds the war appropriate or not, but he's also guarunteed certain things when he signs a contract. Explain why SOME soldiers in Afghanistan can barely find TP to wipe their asses? No joke! Bush and his admin. had NO business sending our troops off to war.


About the fact Bush claims he doesn't support a draft? Do you honestly think he'll say that for the whole world to hear? Well he dont' have to anyways and here's why:
A.) When a soldier/airman/seaman signs a contract, even if for four years, there's a clause in the contract where-in if such a need arises that soldier may be called back, for up to eight years after the initial enlistment. Another words--IE if my husband serves his four years, then ETS's as the date says on his contract, but there's a need for him they can call him up and he HAS to serve or be charged with abandonment.
B.) Theres a such thing as the stop loss movement. Where soldiers due to ETS (ETS-get out) are prevented from doing so. My husbands entire unit has been stop lossed. As has many others from all over the country on a lot of military bases.
THESE two things are what prevent drafts but are nearly the same thing! Besides, I bet if you checked to see how many people/units in the US Military were stop lossed as of current-you'd find t he numbers are high so they'll be needing that 8 year rule should another conflict where US military is needed, arise.

Also let me add that, we already have civilian contractors doing military jobs. We have fricken RENT-A-COPS pulling gate guard on our military base because we lack the man-power in soldiers who "SHOULD" be doing it!

-----

I'm willing to bet that a lot of the reason people voted Bush DOES have a lot to do with moral beliefs, but I bet it isn't unprovoked. A person who uses "We must unite" & "You're either with us or you're against us" puts a little fear into you. Makes you feel rather unpatriotic like you don't support your country. Luckily i remembered I don't have to support the war or bush to be patriotic, but I know many many people who HAVE been blinded by his words. So many people will tell you that if you don't support the war or bush that "You're not patriotic." "Get out of our country if you don't support the president" THose words beleive it or not, are incredibly dammaging to ones beliefs! People are stillllllll running around with patriotism on their minds. It isn't any wonder why when the consistency of Bush's speeches rarely change but nearly always include the words "United, Liberty, Justice, etc"
People are literally brain washed!
-------------------

A neocon wouldn't be part of the UN or any alliance for that matter.

That's not a very convincing statement when Bush doesn't appear to have cared to have support from the UN, but cared to go so it would appear he cared to have support. IE TO many people, we don't think Bush cared to have UN support. We seen him as, he was going to look good and it was always "if" and "when" he would go to Iraq when expressing "doubt" Iraq would comply. To us, he didn't appear at all like he cared to even waste his time there. He did waste his time, but some of us don't feel he wasted it long enough- thus didn't care to really be there or look for a better resolution. The fact of the matter is, he didn't look for compromise.

[Missy]

As a side note, let me note that I'm aware Kerry voted against a bill that would approve an increase in active duty pay/money for equipment/healthcare costs. However, I also realize Kerry was for bringing troops home, not sending more over. More that we already can't afford.

[The Industriallist]

There is a certian value to the statement that not supporting the troops, or even not supporting the president, is unpatriotic.

It isn't the one that's usually given to it, though, and it isn't something that makes all the election-day 'patriots' look good.

A patriot should give material aid to the armed forces in time of war (including effective moral support) and perhaps should give material aid to the government and it's policies/programs as well.

However, the officials currently in office are not the government. There is nothing whatsoever patriotic about being loyal to politicians or unellected officials (or both in the case of Bush, until recently). The 'must vote for incumbants during war' crowd is probably not (as a whole) in a hurry to spend any money shipping care packages and such to deployed troops...all they're willing to do is undermine the system of government they're so eager to be loyal to.

[AoM]

This election was the first one in which I was able to vote. (just missed 2000 by a couple of months) I voted for Kerry, and was very dissapointed by what 53% of my fellow Americans decided.

I have no problem with a person who votes for Bush, who knows the issues, and has weighed the pros and the cons of each administration and truly believes that Bush's ideals are the way to go to keep America safe and to create a better life for American citizens...

But I feel that the truth of the matter is that this was not the kind of thinking that went through the majority of Bush-voters minds... I truly feel that many voted for the wrong reasons... Bush and the Republicans used fear tactics to get re-elected.

Cheney went around the country, talking about how the terrorists are powerful, we're all gonna die, only Bush can save us.

I'm a college student in Maine. Maine has no urban area (but it went Dem!). I was going to the grocery store when a person from town randomly struck up a conversation with me... he surmised that I was a college kid and I'd probably be voting for Kerry. I told him yes, and I assumed by his snide manner that he was voting for Bush. He proudly stated that he was because, "He may be wrong, but at least you know he won't change his mind."

I feel like, if this is Maine, which is rural/suburban, and it went Dem... then I could only cringe at the stupid reasoning that must go through the minds of the people in red states.

I hate to say it... but the masses ARE STUPID. History has shown them to be swayed by the most absurd of things.

In a way it isn't their fault... the politicians are smart people, they know how to mold their squishy little minds... it's deliciously simple.... take the primary elections in South Carolina for the Republican party in 2000. A poll was sent out that asked questions such as "Would you still vote for John McCain if you knew that during the Vietnam War he had an affair with a Vietcong and had an illigitimate child?" You can imagine how the gossip can fly...

The morals of America? Please. We are so f'd up. Call me unpatriotic, but it's the damn truth.

You've got a guy running for senate in Oklahoma who stated that their public high schools were being "over-run with rampant lesbianism." And this guy won...

Morals... the "God-people" think they have the moral highground... I don't think that Jesus would have approved a pre-emptive strike at Iraq... which wasn't even responsible for 9-11... seriously... is anyone drawing the similarities between the war on terror and the f'ing Crusades??? Both faith based, both trying to instill the invaders' values upon the heathens... both really about the money and distracting the masses from how piss-poor their lives are.

I hate it. I hate how so many people are manipulated so easily. I truly think they were... If you were informed, and you voted for Bush, that's fine, I disagree with you and would like to have a serious discussion with you, but at least you may have thought out arguements... but too many people... too many, I think voted for the wrong reasons.

By the way, not that there aren't bleeding heart liberals out there who wouldn't vote republican to save their lives... but I think that the numbers of uninformed voters are skewed towards the red.

~AoM

[Psycho Pixie]

RKL. you frighten me. really, you do. so young to be so set in yer ways.


Pixie