Soooo, that old election then

The results State-wise so far look exactly like in 2000, though I do like that 90%-for-Kerry vote in DC Anyone been following it on TV? I can't help feeling a tinge of dread at the thought of 4 more years of Bush, myself...

fear not, my epidermally impaired friend....they are still counting the votes etc....methinks you put too much emphasis on the campaign.....picking between the lesser of two evils is at best......iffy..... :smile: hang tough, we are not going to invade the UK....

Dr Brasso... :dodgy:

fear not, my epidermally impaired friend....they are still
counting the votes etc....methinks you put too much emphasis on the
campaign.....picking between the lesser of two evils is at
best......iffy..... :smile: hang tough, we are not going to invade the UK....

Dr Brasso... :dodgy:

Maybe not the UK, it's the rest of the world we worry for - and our Prime Minister happily going along with it :razz:

But yeah, looks like 4 more years of Bush :sad: A sad day for the USA and the world, indeed.

well sir Gwilliam, i do believe after all is said and done, even Dubya has had to have learned a lession from the cluster that has become Iraq....let us hope it is so.... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
hang tough, we are not going to invade the UK....

We may yet quote you on that one :wink:

We can hope, or at least hope that Mr Blair has the balls to stand up
and make his voice known on the issues that matter, for it hasn't been
much of a coalition so far between the US/UK - more a "jump! - how
high?" style relationship.

We need to see past Iraq as one of the grave consequences of the first
term, so we can analyse and approach the MASSIVE problem of global
warming and green fuels, which the US (and other countries, Russia for
example, until recently) has thrown back in the face of the world.
Also, what about the issue of stem cell research? Or the up/down
economy that Bush seems to lead, which in turn affects the rest of the
world.

All said and done, and noting the ties inside the administration, I
don't think there is a great deal that we in Britain, France, Germany
or anywhere else across the world can do now except try and gently
pressure the US Government to start rethinking its policies on
contentious issues.

Or, we can hope that our election doesn't re-elect King Blair, the man
who would not listen. Oh god please, get Blair out. At least save some
of our sanity :smile:

I hate to bring this up, I really do. But I have to ask, why did the US government go along with the DIEBOLD machines even though people have found so many problems with them?

We can hope, or at least hope that Mr Blair has the balls to stand up
and make his voice known on the issues that matter, for it hasn't been
much of a coalition so far between the US/UK - more a "jump! - how
high?" style relationship.

ditto (except Mr Howard instead of Mr Blair)

why do they always forget the small country's in europe, like The netherlands and belgium.....

I did say and around the world as well - I mention those specifically
because they hold a lot of sway on the world political stage, and with
no disrespect, Holland and Belgium don't :smile:

It doesn't mean nobody cares, for instance just yesterday I was
watching a report on a Dutch filmmaker, possibly shot by a Muslim for
his latest filmwork - or possibly linked with the murder of that right
wing politician a few years ago. Very odd stuff.

In the great scheme of world affairs though, Holland and Belgium aren't
the powers they used to be - especially concerning American affairs,
which is a very insular society. Europeans are interested in these
smaller countries, but I wouldn't expect Americans (north and south),
or Asians say, to have much reason to be interested in the affairs of
the smaller European states.

It's just the way it is, and i'd be happy if I were living there -
means you don't get dragged into nasty wars, or the corrupt G8 etc
etc...

our idiotic minister balkenende has dragged us in a war, where in iraq to....

I don't care what anyone says, it's still possible for Ralph to win :smile:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BUSH WINS (officially) :sad:

/starts building "nucular" shelter

Here's something to cheer everyone up :razz:

http://www.theonion.org/news/index.php?issue=4044

Apart from maybe the Americans :razz:

Gwil said:
Apart from maybe the Americans :razz:

enough already.. as bad as it may be for you guys, you should have to live in a country that elects losers like bush or kerry to power positions..

its embarrassing enough, constantly needling us about it doesn't instill kindredness..

i think i can speak for all the americans here, lets trade tit for tat, the next time we talk about your countries leaders, you can talk about ours.. deal?

It was a joke... ?

You really are waaaaaay over sensitive sometimes, Orph :smile:

edit: also, please mock our country and its leaders all you like.
they're just as bad, if not worse than Dubya. and almost certain to
gain re-election next February-ish time. a little black humour is just
a way of coping with a world gone mad..

gwil: i wouldn't suggest poking fun at us today, its a touchy
moment. i myself am very upset that bush won, and i find it hard
to believe so many people could vote for such a man..

i think we should have a snarkmeet, and all go egg bush's limo as it drives by on inauguration day.

I agree to some degree Orph, but they really do have more legitimate interest in our leaders then we do in theirs. After all, it has practically no affect on us whatsoever who the leaders in Europe are, but who the American president is affects them quite strongly. It's quite understandable that they are a little bitter about it.

Exactly, the US President affects the rest of the world - and I know
you guys get the sore end of the deal at your homes with the economic
problems, but everything he does, affects us, as Tracer says.

I stayed up all night urging Kerry to win, not to much avail though :sad:

And im not frickin poking fun, I was making some light of a bad
situation with a humurous website article, from theonion - which is
American, isn't it? :rolleyes:

yeah, well the ratio's don't support the level of digging that goes on around here.. understand, i could care less honestly if the drag our presidents name through the streets till doomsday, but sometimes the comments strike home a little closer.. its not the content of the discussions, its the delivery methods that bother me.. its like talking about ugly sisters, the topic is benign, but then someone says "yeah have you seen so-and-so's sister, now theres a dog" .. the subject takes on a different light then and there..

anywho's as i said, i am not political so, its prolly best i stay out of it..

The thing is though, if you noticed, Kerry took a rather dignified exit by Seceding. However, if any of you are familiar with the 2000 election, that's what happened (minus the seceding), but the republican end demanded all this nonsense of recounting. During Election Day I think something like 2000 ballots were not counted or lost. And Bush "won" by 400 popular votes (between several states).

I can't believe I'm actually surprised that those political party officials tried to sabotage small parts of this election too. In Ohio, several Republican voters? offices wouldn't let Native American's vote, following them from their car saying, "You can't vote here". Entire sheets of voters names were "lost" thus those people could not fill out a normal ballot, they had to file an absentee ballot (which still haven't been counted).

That's some underhanded bulls**t. Highly practiced stuff by Rep. it would seem. (Not in general, you just hear about it from the Rep. end more often.)

Also, the Electoral College is ridiculously outdated. Texas alone has 4 more votes then Washington, Oregon, and California combined. Hopefully their plans for the EC will be implimented by the next election.

Texas: 34

California: 55
Oregon: 7
Washington: 11

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers, and I think you meant ceding, not seceding.

Gwil said:
edit: also, please mock our country and its leaders all you like. they're just as bad, if not worse than Dubya. and almost certain to gain re-election next February-ish time. a little black humour is just a way of coping with a world gone mad..

Gwil, although it's looking possible right now that Blair would probably be re-elected next year, I don't think there's anyone who thinks he could last another 4 years- he's barely held on for the last few! I for one would love to see him ousted mid-term instead :smile:

bwahahahahahaha!

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, and I wouldn't have been heartbroken if Kerry won, but now I get to laugh at all the anti-Bush reactionaries that thought they could make a difference by wearing 'clever' tshirts with Bush's face crossed out or 'one term president' underneath while they bitch about things they know nothing about. The way the democrats around this campus acted made me want to vote for Bush just to spite them.

And the people around my campus quite literally wearing signs that say "Kerry got bopped" DUCT TAPED to their shirt are oh so clever and sophisticated.

Seriously, WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

People are assholes on both sides of the fence. Strong supporters of Kerry are going to be mad, and strong supporters of Bush are going to be proud.

Gwil said:
edit: also, please mock our country and its
leaders all you like. they're just as bad, if not worse than Dubya. and
almost certain to gain re-election next February-ish time. a little
black humour is just a way of coping with a world gone mad..

Gwil, although it's looking possible right now that Blair would
probably be re-elected next year, I don't think there's anyone who
thinks he could last another 4 years- he's barely held on for the last
few! I for one would love to see him ousted mid-term instead :smile:

Who the hell is going to take over though? That's the worrying part -
it's either Brown, which has been put off, and back on the cards so
many times it's hard to follow if he is/isn't - and more recently, damp
squib "Tony Blair MkII" Alan Milburn is being groomed for better things.

GOD HELP US ALL.

Hugh said:
Texas: 34

California: 55
Oregon: 7
Washington: 11

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers, and I think you meant ceding, not seceding.

Then why did they count California as 12 in everything I saw? I'm not doubting they're 55, that's why I thought it was odd.

by the way, I wrote what I meant:

se?cede
To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.

California's huge, the "big tamale" if you will, so yeah, you've got some crazy sources. New York is another 31, too.

cede
To yield; grant: The debater refused to cede the point to her opponent.

I suppose we shouldn't be going crazy on word definitions, but the only times I hear "secede" used is in things like "The Confederacy has seceded from the Union."

Surely it's concede? To concede victory...

I saw that each state is worth some number of points... what are these points based on?

Oh, right. :smile: That'd be the ticket.

Leperous said:
I can't help feeling a tinge of dread at the thought of 4 more years of Bush, myself...

sadistic grin Get used to it - Bush has won :sad: .

scary_jeff said:
Surely it's concede? To concede victory...

I saw that each state is worth some number of points... what are these points based on?

Population mostly. I don't know when the numbers were established or how often they change though. There is one electoral vote for every member of Congress so, I guess, California has two Senators and 53 Representatives.

Besides, bitching about the justice of the electoral college is a moot point in this case. Bush won the popular vote.

Heaven forbid a majority of the voting American population alienates the British, Romanians, Belgians, Australians, Dutch... I sincerely hope that in 2008 we let the Europeans vote for our president.

Yak_Fighter said:
Heaven forbid a majority of the voting American population alienates the British, Romanians, Belgians, Australians, Dutch... I sincerely hope that in 2008 we let the Europeans vote for our president.

Yes, heaven forbid the 51% "majority" of voters offend the other 6 billion people in the world

Anyway, aren't they thinking about changing the Electoral College system?

There will be plenty of time to be offended when the world is conquered by a totalitarian US led by the evil and nefarious Republicans.

Leperous said:

Yak_Fighter said:
Heaven forbid a majority of the voting American population alienates the British, Romanians, Belgians, Australians, Dutch... I sincerely hope that in 2008 we let the Europeans vote for our president.

Yes, heaven forbid the 51% "majority" of voters offend the other 6 billion people in the world

Anyway, aren't they thinking about changing the Electoral College system?

Lep, you are missing the fact that, I believe, no president has won a majority of any kind since Reagan. Besides, what country in the history of the world has ever chosen it's leaders on the basis of what foreign countries might be offended? Or maybe, more precisely, what powerful country has ever chosen it's leaders on such a Basis? And I don't think the concept of "selfishness" is really applicable when you are talking about the well being of 600 million people. This is our social group, our tribe, and social evolution has dictated that we dominate. Bitching about us using that dominance in our own best-interests is perfectly logical and legitimate, but don't expect it to make any impact. No more can the bleating of sheep affect the course of Tigers.

Every last scrap of this resentment comes from the war on Iraq. I fail to see how people cannot recognize that it was something that had to be done. In a very small way, you understand, the situation was much like what faced the west in ~1935. It was clear that there was a great potential threat (Hitler/Saddam) and something had to be done. Neville Chamberlain, and others, chose the road of appeasement. Bush chose confrontation. I am not suggesting that Iraq was likely to start a hypothetical WWIII, what I am saying is that the job was only going to get harder as UN sanctions eroded and Saddam rebuilt his military. It was a vital action for the security of the world, the fact that the rest of the world had it's collective head up it's ass is hardly our fault. It is a hard historical fact that the longer you wait to go to war, the higher the price will be in the end.

Yak_Fighter said:
Heaven forbid a majority of the voting American population alienates the British, Romanians, Belgians, Australians, Dutch... I sincerely hope that in 2008 we let the Europeans vote for our president.

AMEN

I know the reason why I feel the way I do about Iraq isn't because we went in there. It's how and the explanation. Even if you're trying to do something like preemptively stop WWIII (supposedly), you have to have just cause for doing so. And he didn't. His administration has changed their story so many times, it makes my head spin.

That's actually my REAL beef with the entire Bush administration. They're liars. And not in the generic political leader sense. If Bush would have said, "I am taking us into Iraq, because I have received intelligence to the best of my knowledge that he is gaining the ability to attack us and distribute massive destruction weapons." Then, people would have been a little more perceptive at this stage in time. But he didn't. He said, "He attacked us. And has direct links with Al-Queda".

During the debates, his new reason for Iraq was, "He attacked us!!". Which isn't true.

Seriously, he lies a lot for a politician ... and that's f**king ridiculous.

A fair point, Crono. I honestly can't remember him saying those things, but that just goes to show how personal prejudice can affect what ends up sticking in your brain. I'm certainly no more immune to confirmation bias than anyone else.

He didn't say "he attacked us," he said "they attacked us" which would imply a link between 9/11 & Iraq. More accurate than saying Saddam attacked us anyway, since he hasn't, at least directly.

The number of electoral votes each state has is equal to the number of senators and representatives it has added together. When the country was being set up, the states were arguing at how to set up the congress. Smaller states didn't want to get passed over all the time, while larger states felt their larger populations were worth more representation. Thus the two body congress. Every state has two senators, for a total of 100. The house of representatives is based on population, with every state guaranteed at least one. The number of representatives each state gets is updated every major census, I believe.

Hugh said:
He didn't say "he attacked us," he said "they attacked us" which would imply a link between 9/11 & Iraq. More accurate than saying Saddam attacked us anyway, since he hasn't, at least directly.

When he said it he was speaking about Iraq or rather, he was answering a question about Iraq, he may have been speaking about Finland for all I know. Meaning, he is directing that the commander of that country attacked us.

There really is no way around that piece.

Assuming we rile solely against Bush because of Iraq is missing the
point - his blatant flaunting of international treaties, devaluation of
the UN (ok, it was a redundant entity from the start but you dont make
a fool of it), his disregard for the advancement of medical science,
his arrogant approach to climate change - HELL, even the fact the fact
that the man can't string a decent sentence together is good enough
reason to want him out.

Let alone him coercing our easily led Prime Minister of weak conviction and morals into illegal wars founded on lies.

There's lots of reasons to dislike the American administration, not
just Bush. I find it odd that people vehemently defend their country
when on the other hand they are clearly disagreeing with most of the
national policy..

Also Tracer, do you not see the irony of trying to make the world a
safer place by invading Iraq? It's like putting out Al Qaeda membership
forms across the telephone booths of Riyadh, for gods sake.

It was ALWAYS going to incite more Islamic terrorism. I think one of my
main beefs is the way America, with no experience of persistent
terrorism has labelled this problem " a new threat " - wake up and
smell the coffee - we've had it for the majority of the twentieth
century right across Europe and Asia, and we know you can't deal with
it by attacking with all guns blazing.

The US administration could do itself so many favours by admitting it's
infancy in this area, and not taking the overtly militaristic approach
to everything - IT SIMPLY WONT WORK!

I support Gwil's comments.

Here's a nice read:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084730/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109132/

Gwil said:
Assuming we rile solely against Bush because of Iraq is missing the
point - his blatant flaunting of international treaties, devaluation of
the UN (ok, it was a redundant entity from the start but you dont make
a fool of it), his disregard for the advancement of medical science,
his arrogant approach to climate change - HELL, even the fact the fact
that the man can't string a decent sentence together is good enough
reason to want him out.

Let alone him coercing our easily led Prime Minister of weak conviction and morals into illegal wars founded on lies.

There's lots of reasons to dislike the American administration, not
just Bush. I find it odd that people vehemently defend their country
when on the other hand they are clearly disagreeing with most of the
national policy..

I thought I mentioned it was only one of the reasons, but a big one. Maybe, I forgot to write it in.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&c=1&s=corn

Gwil said:
Also Tracer, do you not see the irony of trying to make the world a safer place by invading Iraq? It's like putting out Al Qaeda membership forms across the telephone booths of Riyadh, for gods sake.

It was ALWAYS going to incite more Islamic terrorism. I think one of my main beefs is the way America, with no experience of persistent terrorism has labelled this problem " a new threat " - wake up and smell the coffee - we've had it for the majority of the twentieth century right across Europe and Asia, and we know you can't deal with it by attacking with all guns blazing.

The US administration could do itself so many favours by admitting it's infancy in this area, and not taking the overtly militaristic approach to everything - IT SIMPLY WONT WORK!

I honestly don't see terrorism as that big of a threat in and of itself. In order for such radicals to do serious damage, they need a country that might be willing to supply them NBC weapons. It is clear that Iraq had none of these, and that Saddam had no relationship with Al Qeada. However, given the irrationality of his regime had is known intent to produce NBC agents, I don't see that there was really a choice. So, while I see your point, I don't think it is entirely valid because reducing terrorist manpower should not, in my view, be the priority.

I agree with you that it's stupid that Americans see this as a "new" problem. However, I don't see that the rest of the world as a viable solution to offer. Give me some examples of how the European strategy has lowered the rate of terrorism.

I personally was not terribly surprised by 9/11. My reaction was "finally!" I'd been wondering for some time when something like this might happen, but I expected it to be more dramatic, you know, a nuke in DC or something. Personally, I don't think there is a solution to terrorism short of just waiting for the world to leave them behind.

Eventually the middle east will become irrelevant. I guarantee that within the next 100 years oil will decline dramatically as the major source of world energy. When that happens, terrorist funding will dry up and they will have to go back to farming goats for survival. In view of this, our main goal should be preventing the proliferation of NBC agents. I think the Bush administration is on the right road for this purpose.

You make some good counter points, but I still don't see how people
fail to make the link between US foreign policy, particularly in the
Middle East and the "carte blanche" for Israel - this has been rising
and rising for years.

I agree that terrorists will always come to the fore where there is
lunacy and religions/causes to be warped around ideals - however, I
still think the US administration needs to take a step back and
seriously reanalyse their approach to foreign affairs. Yes, I do
believe that the US could learn a lot of lessons from other nations -
the Spanish have scored successes with ETA, the Greeks with November
17, the Germans with that Red Front group, the British with the IRA
(and yes, they are entirely different situations I know :smile: ) in terms of
making arrests, thwarting recruitment and attacks.

I think there is also a lot to learn in terms of the way the US
soldiers conduct themselves in Iraq - another situation where they can
learn from NATO/UK/European nations experiences in winning "hearts and
minds". Just the other day I saw some footage of US marines holding
guns to an Iraqi family while the rest of the unit literally threw the
belongings out of the car they were travelling - shouting all the time
"WHATS THIS?" "WHATS THIS? WHAT IS IT? TELL ME". Please don't view this
as saying "american forces are useless" - these marines seemed
particularly young, and the way they were adressing the situation - one
where they are supposed to be the good people, smacked a whole lot of
the tactics/approach used in Vietnam.

If the US just held up it's hands and admitted it wasn't the best at
handling such situations, and asked politely for help from other
nations who I can almost certainly guarantee are more well versed in
the administration of such situations.

Every country makes mistakes, and our nations over here have made many
more already - the USA is a nation in it's infancy, especialliy
in affairs pertaining to "empire" - remember your boom has only (truly)
come from around 1945 onwards - the UK, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain
and Portugal have been there and learnt the hard way. It just pains us
to see the same mistakes being repeated again, especially on a much
larger, and destructive scale. We only want to help, and that is all.