117 replies to this topic

[DJS]

dailykos.com is alleging fraud, most likely due to the diebold machines.  The exit poll numbers in EVERY state EXCEPT Ohio and Florida were accurate to within a couple points, and both of those states were WAY off.  Either a vast number of people in those states lied, or the exit polls were right and there was election tampering.

Well, the exit polls were what I based my prediction on, and they were off by a considerable amount from the final election totals. However, unless such allegations could be backed up by documentation I am afraid that they are nothing more than conspiracy theory.

[DJS]

Kerry conceded defeat, not a good day for the U.S.

In my opinion, California's Proposition 71 was more important than the Presidency. Kerry had only promised a third of the funding of Prop 71, and that would have been subject to voter review in 2008. Prop 71 locks in funding for 10 years. The lives saved by the cures will far outweigh the lives lost in Iraq, and short of massive wars in Iran and/or North Korea (which are more likely under Bush, in my opinion, and more to the point, they're likely), possibly involving nukes, I think we come out ahead in terms of human lives. Now the precendents and the effects on the coming century may be more profound than I can understand, so this could still be a huge loss when we look back from 2050 or 2104.

Well thank you Jay, for putting a silver lining around this very dark cloud that continues to hang over our country. [mellow]

[eternaltraveler]

Thank God for california and stem cell research

[knite]

Sadly Mr. Govenator can never be president, as he is not born in the U.S. (which i feel is a ludicrous rule, as this IS the land of immigrants.)

[jaydfox]

Sadly Mr. Govenator can never be president, as he is not born in the U.S. (which i feel is a ludicrous rule, as this IS the land of immigrants.)

Didn't you watch Demolition Man? Arnold will become President after the 61st amendment allows naturalized citizens to become President.

[jaydfox]

Very surprised and annoyed at Kerry conceding before a reasonable assessment of the Ohio provisional vote numbers could take place. I would have thought that he would have fought more tenaciously to retain a chance at winning.

I think he was just trying to learn from the Gore debacle of 2000. If he fights this, and fights it hard, and then still ends up losing, he will be ridiculed for years or decades to come.

Notice that both Edwards and Kerry repeated their promise that "every vote will count, and every vote will be counted" at the beginning and end of their speeches. In effect, they are implying that they will continue to fight, but not make a public show of it that will only hurt Edwards's (and Kerry's?) future political career(s).

By the way, good to see you Prometheus. I haven't heard from you in over a month!

[Mind]

I think you guys are over-reacting. "A dark cloud over the world"? Not everything is going to go our way every time. The thing to keep in mind is that objectively speaking, scientific progress (stem cell research included) has continued unabated through the first four years of Bush's administration. Thinking back over the last four years I find it hard to fathom how much progress has occurred. Everything from computer science and neuroscience to nantechnology and quantum mechanics has accelerated. If you think one administration in one country of the world can stop progress...you need to get your head examined. Also remember that leftists/greens also oppose cloning and stem cell research. Strange.....no one seems to b**ch about them here in the forums.

Don't get depressed. We shouldn't waste all of our energy b**ching. There is work to be done. We have to push forawrd no matter who is in office in whatever country.

[jaydfox]

The thing to keep in mind is that objectively speaking, scientific progress (stem cell research included) has continued unabated through the first four years of Bush's administration.

Unabated? I agree that scientific progress hasn't stopped. I even agree that it has accelerated. But it did not accelerate as much as it could have. It was definitely hindered, at least with respect to embryonic stem cell research.

Think of our scientific knowledge as our position on a long road. Think of scientific progress as our speed as we travel down this road. Scientists may be flooring the gas pedal (and hence accelerating scientific progress), but Bush was pushing the brakes. Not enough to stop the car, and not even enough to prevent the car from accelerating. But the car was slowed in some sense: not slowed when looking at absolute speed, but certainly relative to the speed had the brakes not been applied.

Also remember that leftists/greens also oppose cloning and stem cell research. Strange.....no one seems to b**ch about them here in the forums.

The leftists/greens don't control the Democratic party, and therefore they would not have determined POLICY had Kerry won. That's why we're not bitching about them. They are seen as nut-cases by not only the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

On the other hand, the right/fundamentalist Christians do determine policy via Bush. That makes 'em fair game.

[Mind]

You make some fair arguments cosmos.

I know some republicans and they all tell me that the dems are beholden to, and controlled by the extreme leftists and greens.

The solution is to not put so much power in the hands of the government.

Hey, I had to make a libertarian point.

[DJS]

Ah, one more images to finish off the thread. [thumb]

[123456]

That is such an eerie similarity.

[Mind]

Interesting maps Don. However, you forget your history. Just 20 years ago the entire south was a Democrat enclave. Elected southern Democrats outnumbered Republicans 5 to 1.

By creating threads like this you are guaranteed to drive even more people away from "your" side. All the better for the Libertarians, maybe we can pick off a few of "your" dis-affected.

[jaydfox]

Southern Democrats resembled today's Republicans in many ways. The comparison isn't Republicans in general versus slave-endorsment, it's the current adminstration and all it's ideological underpinnings that are being compared to the slave-ownership endorsement mentality.

[DJS]

Thank you J for beating me to the punch... [glasses]

Todays southern Republicans ARE the southern Democrats of 45 years ago.

[jaydfox]

You know, this just keeps getting more and more ironic.

Mind you, these are all circumstantial points, and they could be mere coincidence. Correlation and causation are not always the same. But, causation is not easily proven without an existing correlation, so I'll leave it at that..

Moral Values:
1) Massachusetts, which went Democrat, is the only state within the U.S.A. where gay marriage is legal (to my knowledge), but it also has the lowest divorce rate of all 50 states. The states of the Bible Belt have on average a 50% higher divorce rate than the national average.

2) Let's assume that there was no vote counting fraud in Ohio and Florida. While all the other 48 states fell within a 2-3% range of the exit polls, the vote results in Florida and Ohio were way off. If there was no miscount of the votes, this implies that Republicans lied in their exit polls by a significantly greater margin than the Democrats. Also, in those states, the overwhelming #1 reason given for deciding their vote was moral values.

3) With almost no exceptions (exlcuding territories that split), the states that allowed slavery before the Civil War voted Republican in this election. States that prohibted slavery voted Democrat.

4) Republicans would rather let millions of people suffer and die than to harm a few thousand embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway. Not one embryo is saved by this policy, regardless of whether said embryos have a soul. On the other hand, Republicans supported invading another country without overt provocation, and as a result, nearly 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, the majority of those being civilians. The justification? We might have saved a few thousand American lives, and a couple hundred thousand Iraqis who would have been tortured or killed under Saddam's regime.

We could go on. But what's the point. The current Republican machine is about as immoral as immoral comes. Ironic that 51% of Americans thought that they were the moral choice for America, isn't it?

[Mind]

Todays southern Republicans ARE the southern Democrats of 45 years ago.

When the South was Democrat, who was the speaker of the house? Tip O'neil from Massachussetts. The point is the southern Democrats voted with the northeastern socialist tyrants most of the time. Committee chairmanships went to coastal socialist tyrants, not to those redneck southerners. The southern Democrats voted reliably for all the socialist policies Democrats wanted to advance.

But the elitist coastal Dems called their southern bretheren "Dumbass, Ignorant, Racist, Jesus Freak, F*cks" one too many times....and you guys continue to dig a deeper hole to this day. You reap what you sow.

[DJS]

Okay, let's clarify things a little, shall we? [glasses]

From wiki:

Factions of the Republican Party

Religious right [the religious right more or less fits into my conceptualizaton of "Southern Republicans" who are also essentially "social conservatives" that jumped over to the Republican camp as a result of the Dems supporting the civil rights movement] - Often used synonymously with Christian right because most of its members are fundamentalist Protestants and, to a lesser extent, traditional Catholics; however, Orthodox Jews also belong to this category. The religious right is an important GOP faction consisting of conservatives united on social issues, embracing traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. They are against abortion and gay marriage and favor school prayer, and interpret the establishment clause of the First Amendment as prohibiting only the official establishment of a state church, as opposed to the more secularist view that the clause requires a strict separation of church and state. (Since the 1960s, the latter interpretation has generally been favored by the Supreme Court.) Some of this faction argue that the American colonies and the United States were founded to be Christian societies, although also tolerant of other Abrahamic religions. Some estimate religious conservatives represent the largest faction of the GOP in numbers. Prominent social conservatives include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Senator Rick Santorum.

Paleoconservatives - This group has a blue-collar, populist tinge with a strong distrust of a centralized federal government, and has heavy appeal among rural Republicans. They are conservative on social issues (e.g. support for gun deregulation) and oppose multiculturalism, but favor a protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy. Many are also active against illegal immigration, or, in more extreme cases, all immigration. Prominent paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, have spoken against NAFTA and what they see as a neoconservative take-over of the party. Some with similar views are in the Democratic Party.

Neoconservatives - The term may be disputable since many alleged neoconservatives have denied the existence of such a category. Nevertheless, neoconservatives are generally regarded as the most militaristic branch of the party, in favor of an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy. Many were once active members of the American Left, now "disillusioned" with the perceived extreme relativism and "anti-Americanism" of the 1960s protest generation. They favor unilateralism over reliance on international organizations and treaties, believing such commitments are often against America's interests. Before the September 11 attacks, many were strongly anti-Communist. Today, many are strongly pro-Israel. They began rising to significant influence during the Reagan administration. Those considered among the neoconservative circles include Jeane Kirkpatrick and Paul Wolfowitz.

Moderates - Moderates within the GOP are a minority within the party, most popular in the Northeast and Pacific regions of the U.S. They tend to be fiscally conservative (e.g. balanced budgets) and more progressive on social issues (e.g. supporting domestic partnerships, affirmative action, abortion rights, some gun control measures, etc.). On foreign policy, they are less militaristic than conservatives and neo-conservatives, opting for bilateral negoations and peace talks as a solution to global discord before direct military intervention. Moderate Republicans today include U.S. Senators Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani. Members of some of the other factions sometimes characterize moderates as "Republican In Name Only".
Fiscal Conservatives - This faction overlaps with most other factions of the GOP. They are extremely pro-business receiving fervent support among corporations and the nation's economic elite. They favor large tax cuts, reduced domestic spending, privatization of Social Security, and decreased regulation of business and the environment. Originally, the pro-business branch of the GOP was practically defined by its support of protectionism-but in recent years the pro-corporate elements of the GOP have been more supportive of free trade deals. Traditionally, fiscal conservatives were enormously concerned about maintaining a sound currency and balanced budgets-but that emphasis has changed somewhat in recent years and some have supported both enormous trade deficits and governmental borrowing. The fiscal conservative branch of the GOP includes both pro-business elements and others who are much more sympathetic to libertarian positions. Prominent fiscal conservatives include Barry Goldwater and Newt Gingrich.

Libertarians - This faction's philosophy is libertarianism. This faction is pro-private property and pro-personal liberty. They favor capitalism, reducing taxation and government as much as possible, privatization of as many government services and monopolies as possible, reducing government regulation of business and people's private lives, keeping religion out of government, supporting abortion (though this is a point where there is disagreement within this faction), establishing free trade treaties with all nations in the world, and restricting government to only what is outlined in the US Constitution. They oppose the "War on Drugs", protectionism, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, governmental borrowing, and the USA being the world's police officer. The faction is represented in the party by the Republican Liberty Caucus and one of its major leaders has been US House Representative Ron Paul. During the 2004 Republican presidential convention, this faction butted heads with the Religious Right faction over the party platform. It also actively courts members of the United States Libertarian Party to get its members to join the Republican Party and this faction to increase the voice of libertarianism within the party.

I'll put up the details of the democratic party when time permits...

[bacopa]

We could go on. But what's the point. The current Republican machine is about as immoral as immoral comes. Ironic that 51% of Americans thought that they were the moral choice for America, isn't it?

Agreed...the amount of red states scares me [ang] and Bush pretends to be on a moral high ground what a jerk. He would easily preach his Christian values about being 'kind to your brother,' and other such hogwash, while simultaneously screwing you and your loved ones out of a job . Bottom line is Bush is a hypocrite and justifiably a puppet that does exactly what he's told...I was fortunate enough to have volunteered for the Kerry campaign in Boston headquarters, and it was great to see so many people upset and angry with the administration and willingly to voice their opinions, and it was unfortunately even more upsetting to witness the outcome in Copley Square that fateful night after listening to Cheryl Crowe, James Taylor, Black Eyed Peas, Bon Jovi, and Al Sharpton! The whole city was depressed...unbelievable...I walked through a mob of angry democrats angered considerably at their defeat... [angry]

[jaydfox]

I noticed that Wikipedia didn't have a similar breakdown for Democratic factions. However, I thought I'd make at least one parallel:

Neoconservatives - ... Many were once active members of the American Left, now "disillusioned" with the perceived extreme relativism and "anti-Americanism" of the 1960s protest generation.

I've read a lot of anecdotal stories of how people switched to the neocon philosophy, and I see a parallel happening with myself. I have been a registered Republican for over 8 years, and I have listened to my share of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I despised the "liberals" and their control of the media, and in the wake of 9/11 I was angry at how the Democrats were trying to fight and discredit Bush.

Ahh, the irony. Looking back, I see that I was just another of the sheep in America, so wrapped in the American flag that I didn't want to acknowledge the truth. Bush took his 80% approval rating and abused it as far as he could get away with without losing the election, and even that's still questionable at this point. He's currently talking about how he has political capital to spend: He had an 80% approval rating, and look how he spent that!

I'm truly scared for this country. I mean, it's not quite a doomsday scenario yet, because the Republicans are still 5 Senate seats short of being able to ram anything through Congress they want (except SCOTUS appointments), but it's getting frighteningly close.

I am as disillusioned about the current Republican Party as the Neocons were of the Democrats of the 1960's and early 1970's. I don't know if neo-liberal is the correct term, but I'm definitely neo-something. I'm socially conservative relative to many Democrats, and that was one of the main reasons I was a Republican. However, the Democrats currently are closer to expressing my moral stand that the ultra-religiously conservative Republicans. Just as the northeastern Democrats abused the loyalty of their Southern Democrat brethren, I too feel abused by the religious right faction of the Republican Party. What constitutes less than a third of the people of this great nation has become the majority voice by subverting the party.

I also fell into the fiscal conservative camp, and the current Republican Party has blown that concept right out of the water.

No, in any election where my vote matters, I'm voting Democrat until the Republican Party becomes a party for the people, and not a party for the church. In elections where my vote doesn't matter, I'll probably vote Libertarian.

[fueki]

A persuasive article Kerry Won. . .. BTW. I've written: "Bush - damn cheater" on my shcool bag

[DJS]

Okay, here is a less bias map that I think we can all agree to end this thread with. [thumb]

Wow, is it just me or did anyone else notice that Massachusetts is the only entirely red state in the continental US? I guess it is "Liberal Massachusetts" afterall - not that there's anything wrong with that. [lol]

[123456]

They showed on "CNN" where I believe it was 3 different universities which made 3 separate map of the united states which showed that the USA was approximately 50/50 when it comes to Democrats and Republicans; similar to your map which you have shown. For a fact the reason why the US looked so red is that most of the republicans states have more land but most of the population is in the blue states such as california etc. Therefore it is approximately 50% for each party when it comes down to it; definitely a divided country. Perhaps one of the problem is that you guys in the US just have 2 main Political parties, in Canada I think we have up to 6 or so. Having more than 2 major parties gives people more options in terms of the various ideologies and maybe does a better job of keeping each political party in check.

Edited by 123456, 01 December 2004 - 08:53 PM.

[jaydfox]

Don, any particular reason that last map you posted reversed the traditional roles of red and blue?

As for parties, from what little I've read of voting systems and political theories, the current system in the U.S. virtually guarantees a two-party system. The social pressures to introduce a third party are not insurmountable, but it takes far more effort to establish a new third party than to get either one of the current two parties to win, so the people have to have a very strong reason to vote third party.

And given the current apathy in this country, it will probably never happen at the national level. Ross Perot would have set a very nice precedent had he actually stuck with it and won in 1992, but alas, his defeat has only further engrained the current two-party paradigm, especially as more time passes without a nationally electable third party candidate.

What we need is not just voter reform, but a reform of the voting system itself. One proposal I've heard is to have a celebrity win the governorship of a U.S. state, then institute a new voting system. Once people see the benefits of that system in action in the U.S. (since we've already seen these systems in action around the world, but you can't get the average American to care about elections in the U.S., let alone outside the U.S.), it should be easier to see such changes made in a few other states. As more and more states switch, and if the media could possibly portray the benefits (such as voting for who you would really want to win, rather than just voting for the guy who could beat the guy that you really want to lose) rather than drone on about the problems (the first election held under the system will probably be a little chaotic), it should spread across the country.

But it's getting that first state that will be hard. We just need one to get started...

[DJS]

Don, any particular reason that last map you posted reversed the traditional roles of red and blue?

Nah Jay, that's just the way I found it.

As for parties, from what little I've read of voting systems and political theories, the current system in the U.S. virtually guarantees a two-party system.  The social pressures to introduce a third party are not insurmountable, but it takes far more effort to establish a new third party than to get either one of the current two parties to win, so the people have to have a very strong reason to vote third party.

And given the current apathy in this country, it will probably never happen at the national level.  Ross Perot would have set a very nice precedent had he actually stuck with it and won in 1992, but alas, his defeat has only further engrained the current two-party paradigm, especially as more time passes without a nationally electable third party candidate.

What we need is not just voter reform, but a reform of the voting system itself.  One proposal I've heard is to have a celebrity win the governorship of a U.S. state, then institute a new voting system.  Once people see the benefits of that system in action in the U.S. (since we've already seen these systems in action around the world, but you can't get the average American to care about elections in the U.S., let alone outside the U.S.), it should be easier to see such changes made in a few other states.  As more and more states switch, and if the media could possibly portray the benefits (such as voting for who you would really want to win, rather than just voting for the guy who could beat the guy that you really want to lose) rather than drone on about the problems (the first election held under the system will probably be a little chaotic), it should spread across the country.

But it's getting that first state that will be hard.  We just need one to get started...

Excellent idea. I'm getting the impression from your post that Calyfourkneea would be a good place to start.