Best summary of the US Presidential Election

[rjensen11]

Taken from the editorials section from the BBC:

To the Americans who voted; Good for you. To the Americans who voted for Kerry; hold your head high, you did all that you could. To those Americans who voted for Bush and 4 more years of incompetent leadership; You will get exactly what you deserve. To my fellow Canadians who live in such close proximity to what is apparently a large population of war- mongering idiots, we must continue to remain unmoved by propaganda and threats and again respond with a polite "No thank you" to the next request to join the "coalition of the willing to bomb other countries because we feel like it". With Bush in office again it's only a matter of time.
Chelsea, Toronto, Canada

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3974095.stm

 

[TwinTurboJay]

Yup ! Bush's have to finish what they started in the middle east, Kerry conceded early because the Bush camp guaranteed the 2008 election. In the meantime, look out, here comes the draft!

 

[ExigeEvan]

That guy gets my vote! 👍

 

[Ghost C]

To the Americans who voted; Good for you. To the Americans who voted for Kerry; hold your head high, you did all that you could. To those Americans who voted for Bush and 4 more years of incompetent leadership; You will get exactly what you deserve. To my fellow Canadians who live in such close proximity to what is apparently a large population of war- mongering idiots, we must continue to remain unmoved by propaganda and threats and again respond with a polite "No thank you" to the next request to join the "coalition of the willing to bomb other countries because we feel like it". With Bush in office again it's only a matter of time.

Woo! Now there's some unbiased news! I won't even bother mocking that article, it does a fine job of mocking itself.

In the meantime, look out, here comes the draft!

Yes, because we all know that it doesn't matter that the two draft-related documents that came up (from democrats) for vote and were immediately quashed don't matter. Nevermind that Bush promised no draft, too. Let's just make up random stuff as we go along!

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Taken from the editorials section from the BBC:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3974095.stm

Thats a comment sent in by a reader.

The BBC is very good news organisation and those comments in no way reflect their view.

I could just as easily quote this one from the same page

Whether the world accepts it or not, the re-election of George W Bush will be the best thing that happened to the security of peaceful nations. I'm not trying to boast here, but just stating a fact. Many nations are dependent on the US military to maintain global order. When are people going to realise that terrorists are not honourable martyrs, but thugs and assassins?
Danny, Dallas, Texas, USA

 

[ExigeEvan]

Woo! Now there's some unbiased news! I won't even bother mocking that article, it does a fine job of mocking itself.

Since when have personal opinions had to be neutral and unbiased? This isn't a news report, it's a 'letter to the Ed'

 

[TwinTurboJay]

[ Let's just make up random stuff as we go along![/QUOTE]


Damn right, till the cows come home !

 

[Duke]

Woo! Now there's some unbiased news! I won't even bother mocking that article, it does a fine job of mocking itself.



Yes, because we all know that it doesn't matter that the two draft-related documents that came up (from democrats) for vote and were immediately quashed don't matter. Nevermind that Bush promised no draft, too. Let's just make up random stuff as we go along!

👍 👍 👍
If there is a draft in the next 4 years I will personally walk down to the recruiting office and volunteer.

There is absolutely zero chance that there will be a draft in the US. Never mind the fact that numerous other countries in the world already have compulsory military service...

Canadians are free to set their own course in the world. They are not free, however, to expect the US to ignore Canada's actions in our trade policies and other political areas.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Woo! Now there's some unbiased news! I won't even bother mocking that article, it does a fine job of mocking itself.

Umm, the quote was an OPINION, not news. The article was in fact news, but contained a lot of people's comments, which can be as biased as they want, that's the point; to get an idea of what the population thinks.

Maybe someone should mock you for not understanding...

 

[Danoff]

my fellow Canadians who live in such close proximity to what is apparently a large population of war- mongering idiots, we must continue to remain unmoved by propaganda and threats and again respond with a polite "No thank you" to the next request to join the "coalition of the willing to bomb other countries because we feel like it"

War-mongering idiots. That's America!

Hey, I wonder who we'll attack next!

 

[ExigeEvan]

"Atlantic. I never liked that country, it was always bigger than me and it looks threatening. And why is it always blue on the globe. That's a silly thing"

 

[Carl.]

Canadians are free to set their own course in the world. They are not free, however, to expect the US to ignore Canada's actions in our trade policies and other political areas.

Which actions?

 

[Ghost C]

Maybe someone should mock you for not understanding...

Either that or I just didn't bother to read the article. If I wanted to read news about the US election (Note that Europe and Canada do not fall under US territory, however that is subject to change since we all know Bush is out to attack every country in the world), I'd go turn to Fox and CNN.

 

[Duke]

Which actions?

Any actions. Canadians are free to have Canada as a country do what they feel is right. But they cannot expect the US to ignore those decisions or their effect on us.

In other words, Canada is perfectly within their rights to decline support for US foreign policy, but they cannot then expect the US to pretend that Canada did support us.

In still other words, you make your beds, you lie in them.

 

[LoudMusic]

Yup ! Bush's have to finish what they started in the middle east, Kerry conceded early because the Bush camp guaranteed the 2008 election. In the meantime, look out, here comes the draft!

Kerry in 2008? Not hardly. Try Hilary Clinton. I'm 100% serious.

 

[ledhed]

I'm mongering some war ! feed me beer or I'll attack ! Gimme moosehead !!

 

[ExigeEvan]

Meh, I don't see America voting for a women if they are still involved in heavy conflict.
And don't say that the UK did it with Maggie, that was a long time ago.

 

[rjensen11]

Meh, I don't see America voting for a women if they are still involved in heavy conflict.
And don't say that the UK did it with Maggie, that was a long time ago.

What it will do is show that there's going to be a difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The democratic party will get my vote in 4 years time, but until then, I'm going to be spending next year in Germany, followed by the next 4 years in Nova Scotia, either at St. Mary's University or St. Francis Xavier University.

 

[Carl.]

Any actions. Canadians are free to have Canada as a country do what they feel is right. But they cannot expect the US to ignore those decisions or their effect on us.

In other words, Canada is perfectly within their rights to decline support for US foreign policy, but they cannot then expect the US to pretend that Canada did support us.

In still other words, you make your beds, you lie in them.

Well, would you think it's right to treat all of the "blue states" in the same way?

Would you agree to any sort of economical or political sanctions because the balance is leaning a bit more than 48-49% on one side up north in the public opinon on certain issues? (I'd be quite astonished if a libertarian would give a positive answer on this...)

And, does our support in Afghanistan (that we currently carry on) and the lives we lost there mean anything at all? Or our cooperation in the star wars program, or any other US military program? Or does the "you're either with us (all the way, no question asked) or against us" rhetoric applies to current security issues?

I think that given our values, and our capabilities (we have about 10 times less population than the US, in the second largest country of the world), we're giving all that we have to the so-called war on terror. And I found it rather insulting to hear that we deserve a spanking by the US for the choices we made.

 

[sUn]

Amen.

 

[rjensen11]

Well, would you think it's right to treat all of the "blue states" in the same way?

Would you agree to any sort of economical or political sanctions because the balance is leaning a bit more than 48-49% on one side up north in the public opinon on certain issues? (I'd be quite astonished if a libertarian would give a positive answer on this...)

And, does our support in Afghanistan (that we currently carry on) and the lives we lost there mean anything at all? Or our cooperation in the star wars program, or any other US military program? Or does the "you're either with us (all the way, no question asked) or against us" rhetoric applies to these issues?

I think that given our values, and our capabilities (we have about 10 times less population than the US, in the second largest country of the world), we're giving all that we have to the so-called war on terror. And I found it rather insulting to hear that we deserve a spanking by the US for the choices we made.

Saturday Night Live for 6th November, 2004:
Weekend Update:

"On Tuesday, 2 November, President Bush has managed to somehow win the latest Presidential election. In other news, Canada's population has doubled over the past 48 hours."

 

[Duke]

Well, would you think it's right to treat all of the "blue states" in the same way?

Would you agree to any sort of economical or political sanctions because the balance is leaning a bit more than 48-49% on one side up north in the public opinon on certain issues? (I'd be quite astonished if a libertarian would give a positive answer on this...)

The 'blue' states will fall in line behind the President. They will state their pieces, and congress will debate and decide and coompromise as it always does - that's the process. Just because they went for Kerry doesn't mean they've seceded from the Union. If they did, the rebellion would be treated as such. But it's not even remotely likely.

And, does our support in Afghanistan (that we currently carry on) and the lives we lost there mean anything at all? Or our cooperation in the star wars program, or any other US military program?

Of course it carries value. I never said that Canada should be crucified for one failing. The cooperation or lack thereof is weighed and judged.

The US is expected to live by the results of its actions. That's eminently fair. But so should every other group of people on the planet.

I think that given our values, and our capabilities (we have about 10 times less population than the US, in the second largest country of the world), we're giving all that we have to the so-called war on terror. And I found it rather insulting to hear that we deserve a spanking by the US for the choices we made.

When did I say Canada deserved a spanking? All I said is that Canada should expect her choices to have an impact on her relationship with the US. Sometimes that imapct will be good, sometimes bad. Just like anybody else's. But you can't have your cake - calling America a nation of warmongering idiots - and eat it too - expecting us to turn a deaf ear and continue having the same relationship we have in the past.

 

[rjensen11]

The 'blue' states will fall in line behind the President. They will state their pieces, and congress will debate and decide and coompromise as it always does - that's the process. Just because they went for Kerry doesn't mean they've seceded from the Union. If they did, the rebellion would be treated as such. But it's not even remotely likely.

Of course it carries value. I never said that Canada should be crucified for one failing. The cooperation or lack thereof is weighed and judged.

The US is expected to live by the results of its actions. That's eminently fair. But so should every other group of people on the planet.

When did I say Canada deserved a spanking? All I said is that Canada should expect her choices to have an impact on her relationship with the US. Sometimes that imapct will be good, sometimes bad. Just like anybody else's. But you can't have your cake - calling America a nation of warmongering idiots - and eat it too - expecting us to turn a deaf ear and continue having the same relationship we have in the past.

And from what I'm reading, you're also saying the same thing about the States, so it's all gravey. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Bush's administration does anything right internationally (and by right, I mean constructive) in the next 4.25 years. Especially about Kashmir, that thing is a ticking time bomb....

 

[Carl.]

I had a quite complete answer to Neon's post, but accidently hit the "back" button on my keyboard, losing all I've typed. UGH!!! That happens a lot since we've updated the site, and that wasn't the case before. OK, let's start this all over again...

The 'blue' states will fall in line behind the President. They will state their pieces, and congress will debate and decide and coompromise as it always does - that's the process. Just because they went for Kerry doesn't mean they've seceded from the Union. If they did, the rebellion would be treated as such. But it's not even remotely likely.

I was speaking specifically of security issues, and my guess is that many, if not all of the blue states are not supporting the war in Iraq. I recall nation-wide polls from this year that stated that a majority of Americans thought that the war in Iraq was a mistake. So I think in this regard, Blue states may fall in line behind Bush because there's no other options, other than rebellion.

That's the main thing I think that we (and a lot of other countries) have in commun with the blue states. We don't care much about the social or economic policies you chose for yourselves.

Of course it carries value. I never said that Canada should be crucified for one failing.

I'm glad to hear this (though I don't agree that not sending troop in Iraq should be seen as a failure), I thought that's what you were implying from what you said in your previous post.

The cooperation or lack thereof is weighed and judged.

The US is expected to live by the results of its actions. That's eminently fair. But so should every other group of people on the planet.

I totally agree with you on this. I just don't see any of our choices so far that would deserve any drawbacks from the US.

When did I say Canada deserved a spanking? All I said is that Canada should expect her choices to have an impact on her relationship with the US. Sometimes that imapct will be good, sometimes bad. Just like anybody else's.

Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and I agree with you that our choices surely have an impact on our relationship.

But you can't have your cake - calling America a nation of warmongering idiots - and eat it too - expecting us to turn a deaf ear and continue having the same relationship we have in the past.

Well, Idiocy is easy to find everywhere and we're far from immune to it. Still I don't recall any post I've made here where I called americans Idiots, and if you point me one that did state something like it, I'll apologize. Sure there are Wellyrns or, erm, Viper Zeros* everywhere, but you can't hold an entire nation responsible for what they're saying.

My critics so far have been strictly pointed at Bush's administration, and their foreign policies, nothing about the american people. At worst, I may find it hard to figure why a majority of Americans still voted for him, but I never thought they were idiots. In fact I'm currently having quite more harsh thoughts about Kerry for losing this campaign to Bush than those who voted for him. And I'll be glad to discuss what's wrong with my own government, and not to take personnaly critism for those I voted for.

*Note, interestingly, the two simultaneous posts...

Funny avatar Neon, btw

 

[Solid Fro]

Does anyone know where I can get a giant rolleyes smiley? The default smiley pales in comparison to this thread.

There will always be people who hate America. There will always be people who hate President Bush, win or lose. Just accept it and move on. America has spoken clearly and they have chosen George W. Bush.

 

[1X83Z]

Kerry in 2008? Not hardly. Try Hilary Clinton. I'm 100% serious.

Not a hardcore politics fan, are you?

The Democrats lost big this election because they're too far left. Jim Carville said it best: they won three debates and lost the election. That sucks majorly. In 2008, they need (BADLY!) a moderate southerner. Keep in mind past Democrats who've run for president:

1964, 1968: Lyndon Johnson (Texas) elected
1972: George McGovern (South Dakota) lost
1976: Jimmy Carter (Georgia) elected
1980: Jimmy Carter (Georgia) lost
1984: Walter Mondale (Minnesota) lost
1988: Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts) lost
1992, 1996: Bill Clinton (Arkansas) elected
2000: Al Gore (Tennessee) lost, but won popular vote
2004: John Kerry (Massachusetts) lost

Basically, with the exception of Carter in 1980 for a multitude of reasons, southern Democrats get elected and all other Democrats get shelled. McGovern lost 520-17, Mondale couldn't even carry Hawaii in 1984. They were JOKES. It's a good thing Daschle lost, really, because now the next minority leader can be a moderate southern Democrat (any left?) and hopefully one whose term comes in 2008 so he can be the next nominee. If Hillary runs and is nominated, Bill Frist will win that election 60-40. Provided the Democrats can't come up with a really good candidate, I've already pledged a vote for Frist, incidentally.

 

[rjensen11]

Not a hardcore politics fan, are you?

The Democrats lost big this election because they're too far left. Jim Carville said it best: they won three debates and lost the election. That sucks majorly. In 2008, they need (BADLY!) a moderate southerner. Keep in mind past Democrats who've run for president:

1964, 1968: Lyndon Johnson (Texas) elected
1972: George McGovern (South Dakota) lost
1976: Jimmy Carter (Georgia) elected
1980: Jimmy Carter (Georgia) lost
1984: Walter Mondale (Minnesota) lost
1988: Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts) lost
1992, 1996: Bill Clinton (Arkansas) elected
2000: Al Gore (Tennessee) lost, but won popular vote
2004: John Kerry (Massachusetts) lost

Basically, with the exception of Carter in 1980 for a multitude of reasons, southern Democrats get elected and all other Democrats get shelled. McGovern lost 520-17, Mondale couldn't even carry Hawaii in 1984. They were JOKES. It's a good thing Daschle lost, really, because now the next minority leader can be a moderate southern Democrat (any left?) and hopefully one whose term comes in 2008 so he can be the next nominee. If Hillary runs and is nominated, Bill Frist will win that election 60-40. Provided the Democrats can't come up with a really good candidate, I've already pledged a vote for Frist, incidentally.

Um, I'm pretty sure they could've won if they were further left. The problem I saw was that Bush and Kerry were so similar on many issues. Sure, they had their differences for some ideas, but the Democratic party should have stressed the First Amendment (congress shall make no endorsement of any religion, etc), and then proposed legalizing homosexual marriages, while kicking out any religious connection to what happens through federal papers. From what I kept on hearing, other than the stupid talking points about how Kerry constantly flip-flopped (which I can make anyone look like they flipflop if I take the right phrase out of context repeatedly until people's absense of a brain is replaced with trash from the streets), was that they were too similar. That's why I think Dean could have won, had the Democratic party chosen an accurate representation of themselves, rather than "best chance against Bush"

 

[Solid Fro]

had the Democratic party chosen an accurate representation of themselves

Yeah, ultra Left-wing idiots.

 

[Danoff]

Um, I'm pretty sure they could've won if they were further left. The problem I saw was that Bush and Kerry were so similar on many issues.

The only reason Kerry got as many votes as he did is because he was so similar on so many issues. Same for Bush.

 

[ledhed]

Before you go annexing the blue states to Canada remember that 39-49 % of the residents of those states voted for BUSH. and Kerry would be considered a right wing dictator in Canada plus they'd drink all the beer.