Perhaps, but it sure beats being bitter. We lost. The writing was on the wall, all you have to do is look at who has been to elected to Congress and winning state Governerships to read it. A redo will just end up being a replay of the defeat. It would be far wiser to concentrate on winning back middle America than pissing them off even more.
Are you fucking serious? No do-overs? What is this, freaking dodge-ball? We're talking about the election of the President of the most powerful country in the world. If the election doesn't work, there had sure as hell better be a "do over," or else you don't have a democracy.
If inaccurate counts are found, they will be corrected. If fraud is involved, the perpatrators will be prosecuted.
Which, incidentally, if you're keeping score: we don't, right now. It's over. Democracy in this country is over, and this is precisely why. Because a bunch of idiots have somehow gotten the childish notion that there are no "do overs."
This election proved that democracy does work, hell the popular vote even matched that of the states that make up the republic. The conservative whackos simply convinced more people to vote for their man than did the liberal whackos.
In Germany, what do you think they'd do if there was evidence that vote-counts had been inaccurate? They'd do another election. Same thing with Venezuela. Same thing with any country that takes its democracy in any way seriously.
Of course I take it seriously, but I'm trying to get you to realize there aren't going to be any "do overs". Certainly if there is out and out fraud the guilty should be prosecuted but they simply are not going to hold the election again. This isn't some game, we aren't going to respawn.
And as for the difference between flaws and fraud: when a huge number of flaws occur apparently independant of one another, but which all seem to favor the same outcome, then I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that that the flaws may have been intentional (that is, fraudulent).
Did you consider that the flaws point one direction because only one side is looking? And your idea to repeat the election ad infinum until you get the result you desire could very well backfire giving Bush a real mandate.
Hell, as much as I despise him even I would consider switching my vote if that is what it would take to get through your head that Kerry lost because he didn't appeal to "middle" America, that huge expanse of land quaintly referred to as "fly over" country.
Well if the far right had any interest in cooling things down they would have 'worked' with democrats instead of pissing on them for years now. An angry dove is far far more dangerious then an angry chikenhawk.
Just as those angry Democrats reached out to Republicans angry about gay marraige and partial birth abortion?
You just did, by... Letting gays marry doesn't FORCE them to take it in the back door. No one's FORCING them to have SAFE sex or have abortions.
No, the Xians are being asked to get their thrice-damned noses OUT of everyone else's business. No more than that....belittling their concerns.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks about the Gay Rights Ordinance here in Kentucky was renting rooms. Instead of saying they were "stoopid", we listened and discussed the tolerant aspects of their religion. The ordinance was passed without any changes, right here in the middle of the bible belt.
1. Moral Issues. This just makes me sick to think about honestly. The fact that a majority of people in America think that "moral issues" are more important that the security of the US and the world in general and the US economic situation strikes me as utterly idiotic.
Though I agree with your sentiments, failure to recognize these facts will not win future elections. Think of the message being sent by insisting that Christians understand the Muslim world while at the same time telling them that they must compromise their fundamental Christian beliefs.
Though it would be interesting if any of these pan out, the provided sources will be suspect because they are obviously partisan and the names choosen for the links indicates so is the poster. Still, looking for fraud as a major factor in the outcome is a worthwhile effort if confirmed by an independent source.
What pains me is I'm afraid that much of these are just attempts to shift the blame for the loss and delay the needed introspective analysis of its underlaying causes which for now I attribute to our failure to be as tolerant of the views of the "moral majority" as we ask the "moral majority" to be tolerant of the views of others.
The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.
No, the federal government was a creation of the thirteen original colonies.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.
For that to happen the very states it protects would have to agree. Besides, do you really understand how it works? Each state gets an equal say for being a member of the union, larger states get a bonus based on their population.
Regardless, I'm not sure what the problem with my attitude is. I believe that all people are created equal, at least in the sense that the government has no right whatsoever to treat them differently just because of who they were born.
I believe the same.
That person claimed that he had the right to shove his religious beliefs down people's throats at the point of a gun (as all laws are). That is extremely ignorant, extremely hateful, and totally unAmerican.
Shoving back just leads to a pushing match. It was only in the last decade that the last of the sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional. Going from there straight to gay marraige is just to big of a shock for middle America and the reaction will be to do their utmost to instill judges that will reverse the previous decisions.
Gentle nudges will win the day. Legalise it (done). Protect it (in process). Institutionalize it (just not yet).
It isn't yours, and you have no right to deny it to anybody. Nobody said your ignorant little hate mongering church has to perform the ceremonies because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with your church.
Attitudes like this are what makes it all the harder for people who want to help you obtain that goal. You expect understanding of your lifestyle while criticizing that of others.
It's weird. I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue here. But how is it different than letting the slaves go free, then giving them the right to vote, then women the right to vote, then letting them ride the bus/go to schools with white children, and...recognizing the union between 2 gay people?
How long did those things take to come about? Did they come all at once are in little steps? Many cities, some even in the bible belt, have passed gay rights ordinances. Civil Unions are a real possibility in the not so far different future if sold properly, "Middle America", no matter how illogical it seems, is simply not ready to describe them as marraige. When you aren't willing to compromise you put others in compromising positions.
Am I the only one that knows not a single person that went to vote under 30 who didn't vote for Kerry? And did anyone else see a fairly lacking percentage of people over 30 at the polls? Has not Kerry been said to completely decimate Bush in the under-30 demographic?
I take it you don't live in Georgia, Alabama, South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Texas, or any of the other 30 states that are pro-Bush?
The country is obviously divided in this election, but here's what I have trouble understanding: George Bush's public support has actually increased. He did not have the majority (not even the plurality) of the public votes in 2000. It seems that, in the opinion of the majority of the people in the USA, he has made the right choices.
I voted against him, but I had a feeling this would be the result of all the pressure being applied both at home and abroad.
The reason you and some other people are having trouble understanding the election results is because they spend more time trying to understand Chechans and Palestineans than they do trying to understand Americans. The answer is pretty simple, actually. Americans are obstinate.
If you ask us to fight a war, we will stubbornly refuse to fight it until someone grabs us by the ears and throws us into the middle of one. If you ask us not to fight a war, on the other hand, we will just as stubbornly insist on fighting one and not quit until we either win or decide for ourselves it just isn't worth the effort.
olls for kerry, hate america, more polls for kerry, F9/11, more pools for kerry, wrold thinks we dumb.
Result: Bush wins.
PS. Fok U World.
You are probably trolling but I was afraid this might happen as the world pushed harder and harder to influence the US to dump Bush, never expected him to get over 50% of the vote though.
Yeah, because the people don't know how to read and don't understand that one can vote against something even if they agree with the spirit of a bill because of the way this particular bill addresses the problem. These people who freak out at the mention of marriage, but are for civil unions, could vote against the bill and instead work to get another bill passed that doesn't take away rights. These people should be voting for bills that grant heterosexual non-married couples and homosexual non-married couples rights, not take them away.
You're preaching to the quire here. But my guess is that they appreciate being told what they should do as much you or I.
They still voted for Bush... and the sad thing is they couldn't even give me a reason why they did. And sadly, I'm in Ohio where there seems to be a lot of ignorant people who enjoy taking away rights and freedoms. The same people who voted for Bush think the Patriot Act is perfect the way it is. Just look at how most of the state voted for the ban on gay marriage (Hell, it even affects unmarried heterosexual couples, but most were too stupid to realize that).
Or are we too stupid too realize that these are deal breaking issues to them no matter how much they would be willing to compromise on other things? Many really don't even have a problem with civil unions, its only when the word marraige is involved that scares the hell out of them.
As expected Kentucky went to Bush and passed the friggen' no civil union amendment, but incumbant Republican Senator Jim Bunning is getting trounced by Democratic challenger Daniel Mongiardo 53% to 47%.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, good for you. Way to be a biter.
Perhaps, but it sure beats being bitter. We lost. The writing was on the wall, all you have to do is look at who has been to elected to Congress and winning state Governerships to read it. A redo will just end up being a replay of the defeat. It would be far wiser to concentrate on winning back middle America than pissing them off even more.
Given that when the USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold ... set up a mechanism whereby people in other countries get some kind of vote.
I'm semi-serious here...
They could always apply for statehood B-)
Why do you think an Elector is worth it? Why not getting rid of him altogether and vote for the president directly?
The President presides over the United States, that is why he is elected by them.
Are you fucking serious? No do-overs? What is this, freaking dodge-ball? We're talking about the election of the President of the most powerful country in the world. If the election doesn't work, there had sure as hell better be a "do over," or else you don't have a democracy.
If inaccurate counts are found, they will be corrected. If fraud is involved, the perpatrators will be prosecuted.
Which, incidentally, if you're keeping score: we don't, right now. It's over. Democracy in this country is over, and this is precisely why. Because a bunch of idiots have somehow gotten the childish notion that there are no "do overs."
This election proved that democracy does work, hell the popular vote even matched that of the states that make up the republic. The conservative whackos simply convinced more people to vote for their man than did the liberal whackos.
In Germany, what do you think they'd do if there was evidence that vote-counts had been inaccurate? They'd do another election. Same thing with Venezuela. Same thing with any country that takes its democracy in any way seriously.
Of course I take it seriously, but I'm trying to get you to realize there aren't going to be any "do overs". Certainly if there is out and out fraud the guilty should be prosecuted but they simply are not going to hold the election again. This isn't some game, we aren't going to respawn.
And as for the difference between flaws and fraud: when a huge number of flaws occur apparently independant of one another, but which all seem to favor the same outcome, then I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that that the flaws may have been intentional (that is, fraudulent).
Did you consider that the flaws point one direction because only one side is looking? And your idea to repeat the election ad infinum until you get the result you desire could very well backfire giving Bush a real mandate.
Hell, as much as I despise him even I would consider switching my vote if that is what it would take to get through your head that Kerry lost because he didn't appeal to "middle" America, that huge expanse of land quaintly referred to as "fly over" country.
Well if the far right had any interest in cooling things down they would have 'worked' with democrats instead of pissing on them for years now. An angry dove is far far more dangerious then an angry chikenhawk.
Just as those angry Democrats reached out to Republicans angry about gay marraige and partial birth abortion?
Who ASKED them to compromise their beliefs?
...belittling their concerns.
You just did, by...
Letting gays marry doesn't FORCE them to take it in the back door. No one's FORCING them to have SAFE sex or have abortions.
No, the Xians are being asked to get their thrice-damned noses OUT of everyone else's business. No more than that.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks about the Gay Rights Ordinance here in Kentucky was renting rooms. Instead of saying they were "stoopid", we listened and discussed the tolerant aspects of their religion. The ordinance was passed without any changes, right here in the middle of the bible belt.
Religious morons in the hick states...
Hmmm...the Republicans called those religious "morons" their friends. Yep, that's why we lost all right.
I'm not American.
Greate...now they Republicans will attribute it as another attempt at foreigners trying to influence the elections.
1. Moral Issues. This just makes me sick to think about honestly. The fact that a majority of people in America think that "moral issues" are more important that the security of the US and the world in general and the US economic situation strikes me as utterly idiotic.
Though I agree with your sentiments, failure to recognize these facts will not win future elections. Think of the message being sent by insisting that Christians understand the Muslim world while at the same time telling them that they must compromise their fundamental Christian beliefs.
Though it would be interesting if any of these pan out, the provided sources will be suspect because they are obviously partisan and the names choosen for the links indicates so is the poster. Still, looking for fraud as a major factor in the outcome is a worthwhile effort if confirmed by an independent source.
What pains me is I'm afraid that much of these are just attempts to shift the blame for the loss and delay the needed introspective analysis of its underlaying causes which for now I attribute to our failure to be as tolerant of the views of the "moral majority" as we ask the "moral majority" to be tolerant of the views of others.
The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.
No, the federal government was a creation of the thirteen original colonies.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.
For that to happen the very states it protects would have to agree. Besides, do you really understand how it works? Each state gets an equal say for being a member of the union, larger states get a bonus based on their population.
Regardless, I'm not sure what the problem with my attitude is.
I believe that all people are created equal, at least in the sense that the government has no right whatsoever to treat them differently just because of who they were born.
I believe the same.
That person claimed that he had the right to shove his religious beliefs down people's throats at the point of a gun (as all laws are).
That is extremely ignorant, extremely hateful, and totally unAmerican.
Shoving back just leads to a pushing match. It was only in the last decade that the last of the sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional. Going from there straight to gay marraige is just to big of a shock for middle America and the reaction will be to do their utmost to instill judges that will reverse the previous decisions.
Gentle nudges will win the day. Legalise it (done). Protect it (in process). Institutionalize it (just not yet).
It isn't yours, and you have no right to deny it to anybody.
Nobody said your ignorant little hate mongering church has to perform the ceremonies because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with your church.
Attitudes like this are what makes it all the harder for people who want to help you obtain that goal. You expect understanding of your lifestyle while criticizing that of others.
It's weird. I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue here. But how is it different than letting the slaves go free, then giving them the right to vote, then women the right to vote, then letting them ride the bus/go to schools with white children, and ...recognizing the union between 2 gay people?
How long did those things take to come about? Did they come all at once are in little steps? Many cities, some even in the bible belt, have passed gay rights ordinances. Civil Unions are a real possibility in the not so far different future if sold properly, "Middle America", no matter how illogical it seems, is simply not ready to describe them as marraige. When you aren't willing to compromise you put others in compromising positions.
Am I the only one that knows not a single person that went to vote under 30 who didn't vote for Kerry? And did anyone else see a fairly lacking percentage of people over 30 at the polls? Has not Kerry been said to completely decimate Bush in the under-30 demographic?
I take it you don't live in Georgia, Alabama, South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Texas, or any of the other 30 states that are pro-Bush?
The country is obviously divided in this election, but here's what I have trouble understanding: George Bush's public support has actually increased. He did not have the majority (not even the plurality) of the public votes in 2000. It seems that, in the opinion of the majority of the people in the USA, he has made the right choices.
I voted against him, but I had a feeling this would be the result of all the pressure being applied both at home and abroad.
The reason you and some other people are having trouble understanding the election results is because they spend more time trying to understand Chechans and Palestineans than they do trying to understand Americans. The answer is pretty simple, actually. Americans are obstinate.
If you ask us to fight a war, we will stubbornly refuse to fight it until someone grabs us by the ears and throws us into the middle of one. If you ask us not to fight a war, on the other hand, we will just as stubbornly insist on fighting one and not quit until we either win or decide for ourselves it just isn't worth the effort.
olls for kerry, hate america, more polls for kerry, F9/11, more pools for kerry, wrold thinks we dumb.
Result: Bush wins.
PS. Fok U World.
You are probably trolling but I was afraid this might happen as the world pushed harder and harder to influence the US to dump Bush, never expected him to get over 50% of the vote though.
So the question now is how to remove him from office. Impeachment?
With both an electoral and Congressional majority that's hardly likely.
Yeah, because the people don't know how to read and don't understand that one can vote against something even if they agree with the spirit of a bill because of the way this particular bill addresses the problem. These people who freak out at the mention of marriage, but are for civil unions, could vote against the bill and instead work to get another bill passed that doesn't take away rights. These people should be voting for bills that grant heterosexual non-married couples and homosexual non-married couples rights, not take them away.
You're preaching to the quire here. But my guess is that they appreciate being told what they should do as much you or I.
They still voted for Bush... and the sad thing is they couldn't even give me a reason why they did. And sadly, I'm in Ohio where there seems to be a lot of ignorant people who enjoy taking away rights and freedoms. The same people who voted for Bush think the Patriot Act is perfect the way it is. Just look at how most of the state voted for the ban on gay marriage (Hell, it even affects unmarried heterosexual couples, but most were too stupid to realize that).
Or are we too stupid too realize that these are deal breaking issues to them no matter how much they would be willing to compromise on other things? Many really don't even have a problem with civil unions, its only when the word marraige is involved that scares the hell out of them.
Following up my own post. I should've known better, the western counties may have pulled it out for Bunning.
As expected Kentucky went to Bush and passed the friggen' no civil union amendment, but incumbant Republican Senator Jim Bunning is getting trounced by Democratic challenger Daniel Mongiardo 53% to 47%.
Due to the electoral college, people in sparse states have votes that count more than people in populous states.
Each state gets an equal say by virtue of being one of the United States, then the states with more people get a population bonus.