The 2004 US Election General Commentary Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzakeru

A few people I know were going to vote for Kerry until they found out he about him being Pro-Choice ( I'll go ahead and call it that because that what is sounds like to me ) and at the last moment changed their vote to Bush.

As for the "Don't Call Each Other Stupid," rule that had to be reannounced in here - It's pretty sad in my opinion that we must resort to that sort of thing. I voted for who I felt more comfortable with as President and regardless of if you voted for Bush or Kerry you shouldn't be put down for it. To be honest, I'm extremely tired of being called a moron because I voted for Bush.

---

Well, Republicans(those that I spoke with) generally say Democrats are such whiners. I guarantee you that if the reverse were true on the election, you'd have red shirts whining just as much as blue shirts are now. So for you Bush voters, you're going to have to deal with our miscontent until time eases our pain...because 4 years is a long-long time and frustration often leads to complaint.

When you put so much faith into one man(or into opposition of his opponent), you get angry and depressed that he lost. You wouldn't understand how some of us Democrats feel, because we're on the losing end. It's funny how people call it "pathetic" or "sad" that some people call voters of another party morons for voting for the opposition...yet it's just calling the kettle black. It's easy for Bush supporters to gloat and look down on us, because you've won.

I'm not defending anyone(including myself) now, but the fact that so many of the youth let us fellow youth down was pathetic. If there is a possible draft, and those who were Kerry supporters didn't vote and they were drafted...well, eh...I don't want to wish any bad luck on anyone right now, but I hate how these young voters want change and yet sit back and hope that everyone else does their job. It's pathetic really. I'm more angry at the non-voters than the voters of the opposition. What happened to the so called youth gap? Are we so fat and lazy that we can't leave a bag of chips behind and just walk to a booth and vote? They had the day off for Christ's sake...most people had the day off on election day...and most stores were closed...absolutely no excuse.

Dingo, I can understand where you are coming from and I suppose ( after relooking at what I've said ) that it wasn't right for me to say, "Stop calling me a moron!" when I just got finished practically saying that those opposed to Bush are whiners. For that I do apologize. And thank you for pointing that out to me in the manner you did. :)

If the handle was turned and Kerry had won I would have been equally upset and I have no problem with people saying that they didn't want Bush in office or saying they thought Kerry was a better choice but the comments like, "Oh noes! Bush is going to send America to hell." or things like that ( you know the ones I'm talking about ) I'm quite tired of seeing. However, I'll just have to be more tolerant and remind myself that I would have been just as upset if the reverse had happened.

I'm just as tired of the "Oh noes, Bush won! We're doomed!" crap. Sure he's done some questionable stuff, but he won fair and square this time around. No doubt about that.

It's also just as annoying to hear the same people wanting to move to Canada. It's ridiculous. I was hoping Kerry would have won, but he didn't. Most of my family went with Bush so it's funny to hear them call me "Loser!" when Kerry lost. I'm not terribly upset, but I can tolerate Bush. And I hope I can tolerate his new administration as well. I'm glad that Ashcroft is resigning before Inaugaration.

I think some non-Democrats misunderstand us sometimes.

None of us thinks Bush being elected is the end of the world, it just feels that way to some(though not to me). I have a hard time tolerating Bush because of his policies, and the fact that he's shunned allies like Germany and France, when there was no reason to. I don't think Bush is a bad person, I just think there was someone better for the job. I wouldn't mind John McCain(Republican), most Democrats like John McCain...he's much better for the job. so it's not anti-Republicans coming from some of us Democrats, it's more so anti-Bush.

I love the Bush jokes and all, and comedy is better with Bush in than Kerry (because Kerry is pretty boring), but most of the Democrats(thus most of the youth) hoped to see another and possibly better alternative.

I think Chris Rock said it best regarding gay marriage, and racism:

"Hating people because of their color, or race or sexual orientation is damn stupid because we all know, the minute you start hating someone, they join your family. You hate gays? Guess what... you're son's gonna be gay! You hate Italians? Guess what, your daughter is gonna marry one."

I always thought amendments to the Constitution were to enlarge our rights, not exclude. The only amendment that excluded rights dealt with Prohibition of alcohol and guess what, it got taken out several years later.

Once again, to me, this all goes back to religion, which with every day is being perverted to divide people instead of bring them together. If someone can interpret a line written in the Bible almost 2000 years ago and say that it has relavance today, then using that logic, shouldn't condoms be banned? Shouldn't girls be married when they can begin giving birth? Shouldn't we all live into our thousands? All of that is in the Bible, yet has been shoved aside because it's obsolete. Let people be who they are. Being homosexual is not a sin, nor is it a crime.

Marriage to me, should be about love between two people. I think anyway, that if people are so worried about marriage being ruined, then perhaps they should pass more laws against gambling or against Las Vegas weddings, or perhaps even against alcohol which leads to more domestic disturbances than anything else in this world. If two men, or two women are in love, who are we to tell them no?

Take care all.

Just a thought. This time around, Ashcroft won't be in power. Ashcroft was the mastermind behind the much maligned Patriot Acts. While Bush was largely responsible for the campaign against Islamic terrorism, it was Ashcroft who was responsible for any attempts to turn the US into a police state w/o civil rights. I don't think the people who fear for their rights have anything to worry about. Bush apparently thought Ashcroft too extreme, as did we all. That said, those who fear for Islamic 3rd world countries everywhere might still have grounds for concern. I wouldn't be suprised to see a war against Iran fairly soon. Only Saudi Arabia, and Egypt will be left unscathed when the campaigns are finished.

Ashcroft isn't going to be around and from what I have heard, for about a year now, Powell is going to retire also.

Ashcroft being gone is good but Rice and Rumsfeld need to get out also.

I wonder who will replace Greenspan in about 2 years? His 14 years are going to be up soon so who will run the Fed then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Ashcroft isn't going to be around and from what I have heard, for about a year now, Powell is going to retire also.

Ashcroft being gone is good but Rice and Rumsfeld need to get out also.

I wonder who will replace Greenspan in about 2 years? His 14 years are going to be up soon so who will run the Fed then?

---

What's dumb was that Bush hired most of his people based on race. Except Powell(who was a decent hire), everyone of his minority held staff positions could have been better. Bush tried to appeal to minorities, but it didn't work well with the voters in this election...the most staggering stat? 91% of African Americans went democratic. It's the lowest percentage of African American voters for Republicans since 1964, when LBJ had a 94% advantage from African American voters.

[/QUOTE]For the record, a number of states were asked about a ban on gay marriages, and 11 states voted for a ban. It means the people of 11 states are against gay marriage, regardless of what the federal state favors. Why should a judge (or a panel of judges) decide what people want? Isn't that something the people of each state should decide?[QUOTE]

If the United States were a democracy, than yes, the people should decide. However, it isn't. This country is a Republic. Now im not an expert on this, but as far as I know, in a Republic, 99% of the population cannot take away the rights of the 1% that is left, no matter how much they want it. So, in other words, if 99% of America was made up of the christian right, and one percent was gays, the christians could not hinder the rights of the gays. Period.

Quote:

---

Once again, to me, this all goes back to religion, which with every day is being perverted to divide people instead of bring them together. If someone can interpret a line written in the Bible almost 2000 years ago and say that it has relavance today, then using that logic, shouldn't condoms be banned? Shouldn't girls be married when they can begin giving birth? Shouldn't we all live into our thousands? All of that is in the Bible, yet has been shoved aside because it's obsolete. Let people be who they are. Being homosexual is not a sin, nor is it a crime.

---

I believe it was Marx who said "Religion is the opiot of the masses" This is an undeniable truth in my eyes, regardless of whether god exists or not.

Quote:

---

Only Saudi Arabia, and Egypt will be left unscathed when the campaigns are finished.

---

Don't forget about Pakistan. I don't believe that we would ever attack Pakistan, seeing as they have nukes and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

If the United States were a democracy, than yes, the people should decide. However, it isn't. This country is a Republic. Now im not an expert on this, but as far as I know, in a Republic, 99% of the population cannot take away the rights of the 1% that is left, no matter how much they want it. So, in other words, if 99% of America was made up of the christian right, and one percent was gays, the christians could not hinder the rights of the gays. Period.


I believe it was Marx who said "Religion is the opiot of the masses" This is an undeniable truth in my eyes, regardless of whether god exists or not.

---

Note, the following has nothing to do with my position on gay marriages (I'm against the bans), but with following the rules of your country. This is also in answer to Shadow Nexus.

The USA is not a republic in the classical sense of the term, but rather, a representative democracy, which, under today's acceptance, falls into the "republic" category. From the Wikipedia entry: Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily as directed but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. It could be argued that this term is synonymous with "republic". Now, it means that the representatives get the vote on the matters of law, not all the people, not a particular subset of it. Which means that by this definition, gays can't decide on their own what the law should be for gay marriages.
Next, on the role of judges. I learned today that a country ruled by judges (which is what some people unknowingly ask for) is called a Krytocracy. Personally, I think it's worse than a dictature of the majority, because not only are they unelected and not representative of the population, they are overstepping their functions.
Last, about letting the gays decide: it doesn't work. Regardless of being in a republic or democracy, either all the population participaes, or none. Gay marriage is a change of status on marriage in general, and concerns more than just the gays. Let's draw a parallel about banning smoking in some buildings/areas: is it right that only smokers are asked or decide whether or not there should be non-smokers areas/rules, or are you going to try and work a compromise between the two groups?

Quote:

---

Gay marriage is a change of status on marriage in general, and concerns more than just the gays. Let's draw a parallel about banning smoking in some buildings/areas: is it right that only smokers are asked or decide whether or not there should be non-smokers areas/rules, or are you going to try and work a compromise between the two groups?

---

The difference here lies in the fact smokers create passive smoking to non smokers. It is a matter of health. In the case of gay marriage, it is simply a matter of prejudice. I cannot deny such prejudice exists, but I can't understand how a supposedly rational goverment can make laws based on irrationality (religion or prejudice, and both tend to be tied). In a religious goverment, I find it completly normal for gay marriage to be banned. On a democracy, I do not.

From a politician point of view, it is perfectly rational to push for such laws if 80% of the voters want this law, because if you don't, your opponent will and will get elected in your stead. It is particularly true in the USA were reps can be kicked out of office very easily (elections) by an angry electorate.
Second, these bans most likely are the answer from the state legistaltures to the activist judges: try to make laws from the bench and we will stomp it. Now, I disagree that a (full) ban was necessary for that, but I agree that it is not the judge's role to legislate (especially on social matters).
Last, you're not going to change the Bible belt by forcing them to accept you, because they will kneejerk, and you'll take it in the chin. Gays in France did it much more smoothly, by not pushing for gay marriages, but for civil unions, which, in terms of privilege, is exactly the same as a marriage after two years (to avoid the "let's pretend we're a couple to get tax deductions"), but with a different name (and therefore religious people can't scream that their sacrosant marriage is hurt or something). In my opinion, a more pragmatic approach in the US would be more successful, because religious zealots would be much more likely to see gay couples as "I don't like them, but whatever, they leave me and my values alone, I leave them alone" instead of "they're attacking my religious values, let's fight".

You are right, maybe the term "marriage" may make it less acceptable to some religious people, but as far as I know, such term is not defined as sacred unless done by the church. Whats the difference between civil marriage and civil union?

Nothing, as far as I've been able to see.

And you know, this is how I've felt from the get go. I mean, even if gay "marriage" is allowed, then the religious aren't going to see it as a sacred state anyway. And if you really love someone, why does it matter that everyone else in the world things you're wrong? I love my family, but my family are prejudiced and in some cases racist. I believe this is wrong, but who's to say I should stop loving them?

If you love someone, I don't think it should matter what you call your union, as long as you get the rights of other people in a similar union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

You are right, maybe the term "marriage" may make it less acceptable to some religious people, but as far as I know, such term is not defined as sacred unless done by the church. Whats the difference between civil marriage and civil union?

---

In France, the civil union (the "PACS") can be signed by any couple (2 men, 2 women or 1 man and 1 woman), but it takes two years to get the fiscal advantages, and I think there are restrictions on adoption possibilities (but don't quote me on that). The civil marriage gives them immediately. The religious ceremony can only take place after the civil ceremony (the priests will ask you for a certificate from the mayor).