Election 2004 Updates

[QUOTE=wfd]I have to hand it to Kerry. He (or at least an aide of his) was quoted as saying that they would concede to prevent anything "that would further divide this country." Makes me wish he's won even more.

God bless us all.....[/QUOTE]

True on that. But, I some how doubt that was Kerry's idea.
Notheless it is the right thing to do. Since he lost in Electoral votes and popular vote. Even if Kerry had won the election, I seriously doubt he would have be able to do anything productive due to the House and Senate being Republican.
Contrary to popular belief the opinions of this board in no way, shape or form mirror the thoughts of the country. I'm not saying your all wrong all fuckin stupid or anything. Because there are a few of you that I honestly respect your opinions and "listen" to what you have to "say". And the fact that this board is more "Liberal" (not in a bad way) has most likely made me learn more than just talking to other "Conservatives". But I do believe I just got off topic.
And.... I'm done.

Oh no way, no way man! This is bad, this is really bad. Why the fuck would America elect a president that took away education funds putting thousands of student's in jeopardy, and stopping a lot of them even getting a university education. One that started a war. One that lied to many.

BUSH HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN IN A WAR, HE USED HIS FATHER'S CONNECTIONS TO STAY IN A REGIMENT AT HOME, BUSH IS A FUCKING COWARD AND A GUN TOTING MORON WHO CAN'T EVEN PROTECT HISMELF FROM A GOD DAMN PRETZEL

KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM, WHILE BUSH WAS SITTING ON HIS FAT ASS PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH SALTY SNACKS HE WAS SAVING HIS COMRADES LIVES AND HE EXPERIENCED FULL WELL THE TERRORS OF WAR

Bush only saw the movie...

YOU FUCKING IDIOT AMERICANS, SO WHAT IF KERRY DISREGARDED HIS COMRADES AFTER THE WAR, WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK, NO WO NDER HE'S AGAINST WAR, BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE, HE KNOWS HOW PEOPLE GET HURT BY THESE THINGS

Bush only saw the glory, not the pain...

HAVE FUN OVER THE NEXT 4 YEARS, FOR ANY AMERICANS THAT VOTED FOR BUSH, I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON A PRETZEL AND ALMOST DIE LIKE YOUR GREAT LEADER DID

[QUOTE=Grae]Oh no way, no way man! This is bad, this is really bad. Why the fuck would America elect a president that took away education funds putting thousands of student's in jeopardy, and stopping a lot of them even getting a university education. One that started a war. One that lied to many.

BUSH HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN IN A WAR, HE USED HIS FATHER'S CONNECTIONS TO STAY IN A REGIMENT AT HOME, BUSH IS A FUCKING COWARD AND A GUN TOTING MORON WHO CAN'T EVEN PROTECT HISMELF FROM A GOD DAMN PRETZEL

KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM, WHILE BUSH WAS SITTING ON HIS FAT ASS PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH SALTY SNACKS HE WAS SAVING HIS COMRADES LIVES AND HE EXPERIENCED FULL WELL THE TERRORS OF WAR

Bush only saw the movie...

YOU FUCKING IDIOT AMERICANS, SO WHAT IF KERRY DISREGARDED HIS COMRADES AFTER THE WAR, WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK, NO WO NDER HE'S AGAINST WAR, BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE, HE KNOWS HOW PEOPLE GET HURT BY THESE THINGS

Bush only saw the glory, not the pain...

HAVE FUN OVER THE NEXT 4 YEARS, FOR ANY AMERICANS THAT VOTED FOR BUSH, I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON A PRETZEL AND ALMOST DIE LIKE YOUR GREAT LEADER DID[/QUOTE]

I really find it amusing that the people who voted for Kerry, and are now alarmed that there's a possiblity of a draft being started because he lost, are the exact same people that slam Bush for staying out of Vietnam.

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but that certainly smells of hypocrisy to me.

I'm not trying to slam anyone, just trying to figure this out. Any help?

[QUOTE=vandamage]I really find it amusing that the people who voted for Kerry, and are now alarmed that there's a possiblity of a draft being started because he lost, are the exact same people that slam Bush for staying out of Vietnam.

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but that certainly smells of hypocrisy to me.

I'm not trying to slam anyone, just trying to figure this out. Any help?[/QUOTE]
What the hell would Grae know anyway? He's Scottish.

[QUOTE=Vendetta]What the hell would Grae know anyway? He's Scottish.[/QUOTE]

He probably knows more than I do. I admit that I don't know much about the issues/viewpoints, but this really perplexes me.

Slam one guy for getting out of a war.
Slam his ass again for even thinking about starting a draft.

It's like, "hey, you're an asshole for not going, and you're an asshole for even thinking about sending me there now."

Perplexing.

It's quite simple actually.

How the fuck can Bush not serve his country but expect other people to?

I still can't believe we re-elected this animal.
it feels like a fucking sick joke

[QUOTE=Grae]It's quite simple actually.

How the fuck can Bush not serve his country but expect other people to?[/QUOTE]

Quite true, BUT...the real issue is how can all the people who voted for Kerry, hoping he wouldn't draft those who are of age to be drafted, even think they could find away to get out of serving their country. That's the hypocritcal part of it. It's a double-standard either way you look at it.

I hope there is no draft.

I would be the first one in line if there was one. But then again, I always wanted to be in the military. Unfortunately, I'm too old and at the time I was of age, they just weren't interested in taking in a convicted felon. (Damn drugs...who woulda thought.)

I guess the point I'm getting at is that I don't think it's right the people who voted for Kerry elligible for a possible draft and will do anything to get out of it can say anything derogatory against Bush for having done the same thing himself. It's a free country, but damn that's just stupid.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]True on that. But, I some how doubt that was Kerry's idea.
Notheless it is the right thing to do. Since he lost in Electoral votes and popular vote. Even if Kerry had won the election, I seriously doubt he would have be able to do anything productive due to the House and Senate being Republican.
Contrary to popular belief the opinions of this board in no way, shape or form mirror the thoughts of the country. I'm not saying your all wrong all fuckin stupid or anything. Because there are a few of you that I honestly respect your opinions and "listen" to what you have to "say". And the fact that this board is more "Liberal" (not in a bad way) has most likely made me learn more than just talking to other "Conservatives". But I do believe I just got off topic.
And.... I'm done.[/QUOTE]
you'd have to admit having a democrat president and a primarily republican congress is better than having a good ol' boys republican government. if kerry had won there'd at least be some sort of balance, but since bush won, there will be a huge imbalance in the government, and you'll see this country take a turn for the republican side. i promise the constitutional ban on gay marriage will make a reappearance, as will many other issues republicans take to heart that don't belong in legislation.

[QUOTE=vandamage]Quite true, BUT...the real issue is how can all the people who voted for Kerry, hoping he wouldn't draft those who are of age to be drafted, even think they could find away to get out of serving their country. That's the hypocritcal part of it. It's a double-standard either way you look at it.

I hope there is no draft.

I would be the first one in line if there was one. But then again, I always wanted to be in the military. Unfortunately, I'm too old and at the time I was of age, they just weren't interested in taking in a convicted felon. (Damn drugs...who woulda thought.)

I guess the point I'm getting at is that I don't think it's right the people who voted for Kerry elligible for a possible draft and will do anything to get out of it can say anything derogatory against Bush for having done the same thing himself. It's a free country, but damn that's just stupid.[/QUOTE]
simply put, bush is the commander in cheif, the head of the armed forces. would your trust a superior in the military if you knew that they had done everything they could to keep out of the military? the president HAS to be held to a higher level than the civilians and military personnel they are elected to serve.

i personally would detest a draft in light of my misgivings on america's foreign policy, but were i to be drafted, i would serve. if i want to live here, i need to abide by the rules here.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]simply put, bush is the commander in cheif, the head of the armed forces. would your trust a superior in the military if you knew that they had done everything they could to keep out of the military? the president HAS to be held to a higher level than the civilians and military personnel they are elected to serve.

i personally would detest a draft in light of my misgivings on america's foreign policy, but were i to be drafted, i would serve. if i want to live here, i need to abide by the rules here.[/QUOTE]

That would the only reason I would agree, because you're right...the president should be held to a higher level of responsibility.

Thank you for pointing out what should have been so blantantly obvious.

So much for the much anticipated historical turnout among young voters. MSNBC's Brian Williams announced that exit polls had determined that the 18 to 29 year-olds, who had the power to tip the election for Kerry, hadn't turned out in any stronger numbers than they did in 2000. MSNBC exit poll data says that this group delivered 17% of today's total vote, which is exactly what the same youth-vote percentage was in 2000.

Thanks for the help, scumbags! I'm ashamed to be part of this generation.

[QUOTE=Balthazar]So much for the much anticipated historical turnout among young voters. MSNBC's Brian Williams announced that exit polls had determined that the 18 to 29 year-olds, who had the power to tip the election for Kerry, hadn't turned out in any stronger numbers than they did in 2000. MSNBC exit poll data says that this group delivered 17% of today's total vote, which is exactly what the same youth-vote percentage was in 2000.

Thanks for the help, scumbags! I'm ashamed to be part of this generation.[/QUOTE]
percent sir, not the number. the total voter turnout was higher this year than in 2000. in 2000 there were about 104.4 million people who turned out for voting. they've already tabulated at least 114.9 million votes already tabulated, factor in another 2.9 million for absentee and mail in ballots in California, Oregon and Washington, that number goes to 117.8 million, and add in another 2 million or so that haven't been tabulated yet, and you have about 120 million voters this year. that's an increase in the actual number of voters, 18-29 year old age group included. this was the highest turnout since 1968, that's 36 years man, 3 and a half decades! there was about a 60% turnout. chew on that, mr. naysayer man.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]you'd have to admit having a democrat president and a primarily republican congress is better than having a good ol' boys republican government. if kerry had won there'd at least be some sort of balance, but since bush won, there will be a huge imbalance in the government, and you'll see this country take a turn for the republican side. i promise the constitutional ban on gay marriage will make a reappearance, as will many other issues republicans take to heart that don't belong in legislation.[/QUOTE]

To be completely honest I think you may be right. I'd much rather a balance if for nothing else than to force these people to work together to get something positive done. But if it was all democrat the same shit would happen, they'd push all kinds of socialist programs and kiss ass to the UN. But no matter what either/all party(s) will do that. Nature of the beast and all. Not saying I'm a huge fan of Bush, but, 51% of people must not have thought he was doing to bad of a job to get people to had over the house and senate. I'm not saying I thought he was doing a great fuckin job, I'm saying 51% of people must have thought he was. I guess we will have to see how things go.

As a side note: Not sure if you all know this about Alabama. If you vote in the state of Alabama for President, your vote does NOT matter. The Electoral Reps or whatever you call them can vote anyway they want. They don't have to go with the popular vote. Don't know if they do or not, but, they dont have to. So effectively my vote didn't mean shit!

Yeah, it was record turnouts overall, but I'm talking about the hyped up young vote.

In every exit poll I've seen today they've all indicated that fewer than one in 10 voters who came out on Tuesday were 18 to 24. That's about the same proportion of the electorate as in 2000. And from ages 18 to 29 were nearly identical to 2000.

[URL=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6395182/]2004 not breakout year for youth vote[/URL]

Damn... Thought there were more of the youth coming out to vote.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]To be completely honest I think you may be right. I'd much rather a balance if for nothing else than to force these people to work together to get something positive done. But if it was all democrat the same shit would happen, they'd push all kinds of socialist programs and kiss ass to the UN. But no matter what either/all party(s) will do that. Nature of the beast and all. Not saying I'm a huge fan of Bush, but, 51% of people must not have thought he was doing to bad of a job to get people to had over the house and senate. I'm not saying I thought he was doing a great fuckin job, I'm saying 51% of people must have thought he was. I guess we will have to see how things go.

As a side note: Not sure if you all know this about Alabama. If you vote in the state of Alabama for President, your vote does NOT matter. The Electoral Reps or whatever you call them can vote anyway they want. They don't have to go with the popular vote. Don't know if they do or not, but, they dont have to. So effectively my vote didn't mean shit![/QUOTE]
agreed. i doubt i'd be terribly happy if it was all democrats either. but yes, 51% of people thought he'd be the better choice, or rather, let's go back to the voter turnout again. only 60% of eligible people voted. but got 51% of that 60%. i don't want to do the math, but that's only about, what, 30%? i know you're fuck outta luck if you don't vote, but essentially you have to think, the other 40% who didn't vote either don't care, or don't like any of the choices. so....

the electoral college doesn't HAVE TO go by the popular vote, and in fact has gone against the popular vote from time to time, no matter what state you're in. doesn't mean your vote doesn't count, it just means it's less likely it will count.

[QUOTE=Balthazar][URL=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6395182/]2004 not breakout year for youth vote[/URL][/QUOTE]
why is msnbc still relying on exit polls? nearly 98% of the vote is already in, tabulated, counted, definite. still, that age range has never been huge on voting...

Intermission...

[IMG]http://www.halloftheblackdragon.com/east/ldragon/october0.jpg[/IMG]

okay. Carry on...

wait! one more...

[IMG]http://www.tigerboard.com/userimages/1pict2.JPG[/IMG]

okay.

now THAT'S and intermissionary position.

ermm, yea, best check yo image sizes foo, afore dem mods be interveenin'.

not even Katie Price's assets can cheer me up...

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]now THAT'S and intermissionary position.

ermm, yea, best check yo image sizes foo, afore dem mods be interveenin'.[/QUOTE]
izn't you da mod of dis crib? better get ur peeps in check. naw whut i mean, playa? Fo' Reeelll.

^^^Thanks for the intermission. Frankly, I couldn't be happier (insert sarcasm), 4 more years of hating Bush, 4 more years of destoying the environment, 4 more years of non separation of church and state, and Republican control of all three branches. Fascism and Totalitarianism, HERE WE COME.

[QUOTE=Grae]not even Katie Price's assets can cheer me up...[/QUOTE]
i can understand how you'd be interested, even invested a bit in this election, but so bad as to need cheering up? america doesn't even have a foreign policy with scotland, or at least not one to speak of...

I'd like to have someone's opinion on one or two details :
Do you think a 4 year term is not enough to change things significantly, thus making it difficult for some voters to assess the president's accomplishments. For example the situation is still very uncertain in Iraq, no one can say what's gonna happen, so some may say why not let Bush push his logic to the limit and determine the outcome later ?

Why the electoral college system ? Why the voting machines ? Why vote on Tuesday ? Here the winner is determined by the sum of his votes (after 2 turns), we put paper ballots in ballots boxes for each election, and we always vote on sundays. It doesn't mean we are smarter, but it seems closer to common sense.

In general the presidential candidates are complete unknowns to the US general public, and if they lose their political career is virtually over. Why vote for someone you know so little, and why throw away skilled people after investing so much in them ?

Thanks for answering.

in general, a four year term is usually long enough for the last presidents successes and failures to come to light. big decisions and changes in policy just don't etch their mark into the american politic overnight. many times what appears to be the current presidents strong point can actually be seen as just a wave from a good decision made years ago by a predesesor (sp?) the same goes for failures, it may take years for a mistake to come to light when it comes to budget and tax policy, and if the last pres was unwise, the next may spend his term cleaning house and appear to be a poor judge of fiscal policy.

two terms is usually a good meter of character and policy because the same effect that hurts a president following a single term pres works to the advantage )or disadvantage) of the incumbent. so I guess we'll see.

oh, and the electoral college system sucks.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]oh, and the electoral college system sucks.[/QUOTE]
No fucking shit.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]I'd like to have someone's opinion on one or two details :
Do you think a 4 year term is not enough to change things significantly, thus making it difficult for some voters to assess the president's accomplishments. For example the situation is still very uncertain in Iraq, no one can say what's gonna happen, so some may say why not let Bush push his logic to the limit and determine the outcome later ?
letting bush "push his logic to the limit" could be rather damaging to america and the world. 4 years is a fairly good term limit. it gives time for a president to at least attempt to accomplish a few things, so the public can judge if he's accomplishing the sort of things they want. a longer term limit would empower the president, rather than the people. it would give the president the capability to enact a regim under himself.

I may be wrong, but, I thought Senator Kerry ran for and got his seat back in the Senate. Not positive tho.

my opinion on this is very simple and slightly moronic

bush sent my friends overseas to fight in a war, 3 have come back 2 have not. I still havent heard one fucking solid steady answer to why they were over there in the first place.

random terrorist strike at us,
we go and attack not the terrorist that strike at us,
but the terrorist who bugged his daddy.

we have a dickfart that used fear tactics of a war he started, to keep himself in a position of power.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]random terrorist strike at us, we go and attack not the terrorist that strike at us, but the terrorist who bugged his daddy.[/QUOTE]

Anyone and everyone, Republican and Democrat have given plenty of "reasons" for the war in Iraq. Reasons are everything from "to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" to "regime change" to "Iraq's violations of UN resoultions" to "Iraq's links to Al Qaeda" (which havn't been proven). Everyone gives a different reason for the war. And of course some people give 6 or 7 different reasons. We do have troops in the Afghan mountains. Just in smaller numbers, considering terrain and the "war" they are fighting.

Also, not making light of the pain you feel for your friends, who I can only assume were killed in Iraq. But, we havn't had a draft for some time now. So they must have volunteered for the service. We, people who were in the service, know that that there is always a possibility of war. And with a possibility of war comes a the possibility of deployment. And with deployment comes combat and combat comes injury and/or death. So I'm sure that your friends knew the chance of this happening. I'm not saying that should make things any easier. Hell, I've lost a cousin and three Marines I served with. So I know what your saying there. But, personal feelings aside I think the war in Iraq was not only necessary but also inevitable. Not saying I agree with all the reasons people give for this war, but, I just think it was going to happen sooner or later.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]electoral college because we haven't been able to ammend the constitution to move toward a better option for this day and age. the system is set up so that each state "elects" one of the candidates, but the nation recieves the cadidate who is most popular on a nationwide level. it's hard to understand why we use the EC anymore, because the EC is an odd entity. i personally think we have better options available to us.
voting machines because we as a nation like technology. they weren't used in all locations, many of us still used the paper ballot as well.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I haven't read most of this thread, but I'll interject here.

I used to follow the exact same reasoning; the elecotral college is old and tried. Now, while it was first placed as a check on mobocracy, it serves a much more important purpose now of insuring any say of smaller states rather than some. Think about it: if all you needed was popular vote, would candidates campaign the same way? While it's all speculation, I could easily see both parties tearing down on California and Florida and completely ignoring say, New Mexico and Rhode Island. Eventually, it wouldn't surprise me if these states had close to no representation and exposure to candidates; mass media would play a smaller part because of little representation. Poor efficacy and general apathy to the political system already plagues this nation. Throw out the electoral college and you can kiss it pretty much goodbye, except for large political powerholds in big states.

I say we reform the system, and make the point distribution more allocative to population. Even with yearly reforms, California gets something like 1/4 of the points in proportion to, say, Idaho. This I'm not positive on, but if you look at the distributions, it's incredible.

[QUOTE=Judas]Honestly, I haven't read most of this thread, but I'll interject here.

I used to follow the exact same reasoning; the elecotral college is old and tried. Now, while it was first placed as a check on mobocracy, it serves a much more important purpose now of insuring any say of smaller states rather than some. Think about it: if all you needed was popular vote, would candidates campaign the same way? While it's all speculation, I could easily see both parties tearing down on California and Florida and completely ignoring say, New Mexico and Rhode Island. Eventually, it wouldn't surprise me if these states had close to no representation and exposure to candidates; mass media would play a smaller part because of little representation. Poor efficacy and general apathy to the political system already plagues this nation. Throw out the electoral college and you can kiss it pretty much goodbye, except for large political powerholds in big states.

I say we reform the system, and make the point distribution more allocative to population. Even with yearly reforms, California gets something like 1/4 of the points in proportion to, say, Idaho. This I'm not positive on, but if you look at the distributions, it's incredible.[/QUOTE]
true, the candidates wouldn't campaign the same way, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. they already ignore states, they already ignore huge chunks of other states. take this election for example. where did the candidates campaign? mostly in the swing states. it would be the same with or without the EC. the "large political powerholds in big states" already exist, and are taken advantage of. if we go to an IRV (instant runoff vote) then at least we can make certain that the winner will be elected because the most people voted for them. i don't think apathy would be more common, in fact it would be less common, more people would feel that their vote is validated. there's just no reason in this day to not let the people make the direct decision. i know you're probably thinking about letting smaller states have a fairer say, but this isn't about states, it's about the election of someone into the presidency to serve the people.

But what I'm saying here is the [i]proportion[/i] of states that would be ignored, and the proportion of political powerholds. I'm talking about the possibility for complete political monopoly based on population. I agree that the president's voice should be a reflection of the people and what they want, which is why the alloted points should be more proportional, but I still think it'd end up where small states, who tend to have more problems with education and infrastructure and are already at disadvantages, are completely dissolved. The electoral college gives them more power so they're not drowned out. And for the good of the nation as a whole, we need their agendas to be on the plate, too.

Without the safeguard of this system, there is a chance people would be angry enough that there was a chance that their say wouldn't be heard and there would be a higher voter turnout because of it, but I sincerely doubt it. Most people already think they have a sufficient say in the democratic process and don't exercise the muscle. If they had less of a say, they'd be even less likely to work it.

[QUOTE=Judas]But what I'm saying here is the [i]proportion[/i] of states that would be ignored, and the proportion of political powerholds. I'm talking about the possibility for complete political monopoly based on population. I agree that the president's voice should be a reflection of the people and what they want, which is why the alloted points should be more proportional, but I still think it'd end up where small states, who tend to have more problems with education and infrastructure and are already at disadvantages, are completely dissolved. The electoral college gives them more power so they're not drowned out. And for the good of the nation as a whole, we need their agendas to be on the plate, too.

Without the safeguard of this system, there is a chance people would be angry enough that there was a chance that their say wouldn't be heard and there would be a higher voter turnout because of it, but I sincerely doubt it. Most people already think they have a sufficient say in the democratic process and don't exercise the muscle. If they had less of a say, they'd be even less likely to work it.[/QUOTE]
did you pay attention to this election at all? the majority of states were ignored. the focous was on the swing states. florida, ohio, pennsylvania, michigan etc... etc....

all getting rid of the EC will do is shift that attention to other states labeled as swing states.