the outcome of the election

[Chaerophon]

Aren't we getting just a little vitriolic here?

Perhaps. Everyone's entitled now and again. If you look at the post in context, it is a little less offensive. It was intended more as a response to those who insist that "outsiders don't know what they're talking about, they just don't like Bush." I do know what I'm talking about, and it's not just about 'not liking Bush' on a personal level. Some are equipped to disagree. That particular poster was/is not. At least not from what I can take from his arguments...

Canada's future looks sunny. Our economy is humming along even with an 18 cent increase in the dollar holding down exports. We're still reporting surpluses, paying down debt, increasing programme spending. What's not to like?

Looking a little bit more in the long term...

When this bubble bursts:

Your country is already dependent on China and Japan just to stay afloat. The EU has a much healthier economic base that is rapidly overtaking your own.

Things probably won't be looking so sunny with 80% of our export base in a deeeep recession.

[concre+e]

Allies who  stayed with us so long as our economy and security blanket took care of them.

Which countries would that be?

Now . . . interesting, to see who the fair weather friends are, now that the heavy lifting is over.  Very revealing.

Freedom and democracy (along with independent desicions made by elected representatives) cut both ways.

[eppie]

Interesting.&nbsp; Which do you really mean: they hate our country or our leadership?&nbsp; And by leadership, is it that they resent the fact that we are, by default, the leader of the Western World, since no one else will do it?&nbsp; <==&nbsp; &nbsp; Leadership is more than talk, it requires action.&nbsp;


---they don't hate america and the fact that it is the world leader...they hate the way it has been acting the last three years. (but you knew that) The problem is that a lot of people get confused and think they hate america. Me as a critical person can hate the way america has acted the last three years but I for sure don't hate americans, america or it's position as world leader.

Ironic thought:&nbsp; "Frequently wrong, but never in doubt."&nbsp; How some folks described a pretty decent leader named Ronald Reagan.

My interaction has been different than yours, in re foreigners, and to be frank with you, if a bunch of Euro Liberals, the same sorts who supported the Red Brigade and the French Communist party during the Cold War, do not care for America, I care not.&nbsp;

---what do you want to say? The two thirds of europeans that wanted Bush to leave were no supporters of left wing terrorists. If it was just them that hated americ you would be right. The problem has been (and is) that all the normal people have problems with Bush. And that must ring a bell, we europeans are always very pro-US and you can see that in the way the US influences us.


Curious: what information, what soda straw view of the world do your colleagues use to form their positions?

Personally, were today the day we got 4 more years of Senator (President actualy) John, as in John McCain, I'd be grinning.&nbsp; As it is, I will do as always when I cast my eye on news from Washington, which is insert a nice big grain of salt between my teeth.

Occhi
[right][snapback]59096[/snapback][/right]

[eppie]

All I can say in reply is
Another thought.

If the numbers were about 57 million Bush and about 53 million Kerry, and America has about 300 million people, and maybe a third are under 18 and can't vote . . .

Then there were 81 million who could have bothered to register and vote for a third candidate and won a significant, landslide victory!&nbsp; :o&nbsp; (For that matter, around four or Five million more on Senator Kerry's side and he would have won.)

That they don't bother is troubling to me.&nbsp;

Bring back the Bull Moose Party!!!!!!!

Occhi
[right][snapback]59162[/snapback][/right]

Exactly, probably it also means that those people think that in the US there is not a lot of difference between Bush and Kerry, I think most of their impact will be outside of the US. Confirms the fact that many americans (the not voters) don't care about what happens outside their country. :D

[eppie]

I actually think George Bush is an excellent politician, otherwise he wouldn't be in office.
[right][snapback]59139[/snapback][/right]

This, not dependent on who we are talkning about, is the most wrong thing you can say in a discussion like this one. It is the same as a lot of people who think everything a movie start says must be true because "he made it, and is rich".

I mean why are we discussing here about GWBush, he is in office isn't he so he must be an excellent politician. We are going to the " he stands behind his deccission" talk. If Bush says that grass is red, and he keeps repeating that and not changing his opinion, do you start believing him?? Do you think "what a great guy" he is not flip-flopping"??

[Fragbait]

Phew. Glaring thread, this is.
Well worth the read.

Although I actually just asked the Bush voters, I've gotten a whole array of responses, and I thank you for them. The reason for me to demand your statement to be restricted to 5 to 10 lines was clearly to not let this turn into a trolling thread full of flame wars. I'm fully aware that there are very controversial opinions on the topic of 'which one is the right for the job'. That's why I didn't want to read about it in the first place.

BruceGod's early post is a good example of what I wanted. Nevertheless I'm far from calling quits to this thread, seeing that many of you are involved with their whole heart and soul (forgetting the fact that I couldn't, even if I wanted to). Realizing that this topic is in fact really a hot-button issue though, may I suggest to you to take a look at the excerpt from the rules in my signature, and stop the flames? That would be nice. :)
Just my 2 cents.

Have fun, Fragbait

[Minionman]

This, not dependent on who we are talkning about, is the most wrong thing you can say in a discussion like this one. It is the same as a lot of people who think everything a movie start says must be true because "he made it, and is rich".

I mean why are we discussing here about GWBush, he is in office isn't he so he must be an excellent politician. We are going to the " he stands behind his deccission" talk. If Bush says that grass is red, and he keeps repeating that and not changing his opinion, do you start believing him?? Do you think "what a great guy" he is not flip-flopping"??
[right][snapback]59187[/snapback][/right]

What "excellent politician" means is that he knows how to appeal to people and win elections. It has nothing to do with the actual policies.

[kandrathe]

I would be for elevating the level of our political discourse.

My prespective is that in the US about 45% of the people could not imagine 4 more years of GW, 45% could not imagine 4 years with a President Kerry, and 10% (which includes me) are other. I would suggest that we do not follow the lead of the media and disolve our interactions to the left and the right, or the black and the white. Quoting Barack Obama, we can disagree, but we don't need to be disagreeable.

Of the 45% that voted for Bush, the misconception I'm seeing is that they voted based on ignorance. Most are well informed, and many share the same concerns for the environment, or the war in Iraq that Europeans might. It was that they did not choose those issues as their highest priorities.

Rudy Guliani made an interesting observation as he has just returned from an extended visit to many European leaders. The topic of discussion was on US and European unity. He said that most European leaders wanted to know when the US would be more open to understand the European point of view. His observation was that Europeans share values with a slim portion of Americans represented by parts of California and New York, but are out of touch with the core of American values represented by the heartland.

Evidence of that was in exit polling where Iraq was the primary issue that guided the votes of people in New York and California, but in the rest of America the primary issue that concerned voters was moral values. There has been much discussion and reflection by Democrats on how they avoid embracing moral values as a campaign issue. That is certainly in keeping with the traditions of New England, where it is not polite to discuss certain delicate issues in conversations. I found that to be true of many parts of Europe that I visited as well.

The other observation about this election that I found interesting was that the highest correlation for voting was directly tied to whether that person attended synagogue or church. I know at least a dozen people who particularly voted for Bush because he was a devote Christian, and just as many of my liberal friends who were dismayed by that fact.

[Minionman]

I have simply stated that middle America is ignorant. Go down there and talk to them, you'll see that for the most part, I'm correct. There are bright, intelligent, thoughtful, and informed people down there, but sadly they're few and far between. Not everyone can be winners. With that said, the majority isn't always right, either.

And saying that a whole area is ignorat is a stupid thing to do. Maybe I should say that coastal people are ignorant, since they don't bother understanding how peopel in the rest of the country's minds work, and that they never think how well their ideas might work or come up with better ones. I could also say that they are all just a bunch of big whiners.

Also, 3-5 depending on how you are counting of the swing states this year are in "Middle America". Pissing off a bunch of people there is a bad way to get support. These people do exist, so you might as well learn the different types of people and what's important to them.

[kandrathe]

Personally, I think going to war in Iraq did everything but help to defend us.
Smithy
[right][snapback]59065[/snapback][/right]

Libertarians are against the projection of force beyond defending the US borders. I'm a little more open minded. I think we need to honor our commitments in defending our allies, but we should encourage them to become self sufficient.

We can discuss the doctrine protected by the UN charter of a threatened nation launching a first strike in order to defend itself. In the case of Iraq, I agree the evidence of the threat evaporated once we got there, and that is the danger of acting based on bad information. If North Korea was threatening a missile launch, I would expect the US to act to prevent it if possible.

[kandrathe]

...I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant.
...
[right][snapback]59075[/snapback][/right]

I stopped reading. Could you be any more condescending and insulting?

[Occhidiangela]

Brantford, Ontario.&nbsp; Not Alberta.&nbsp; For shame, Occhi&nbsp; :P
[right][snapback]59176[/snapback][/right]

But Skan, he played for the Edmonton Oilers, which is in Alberta.

However, I stand corrected in re his province of origin. Thanks. :D

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
I have simply stated that middle America is ignorant. Go down there and talk to them, you'll see that for the most part, I'm correct. There are bright, intelligent, thoughtful, and informed people down there, but sadly they're few and far between. Not everyone can be winners. With that said, the majority isn't always right, either.
...
[right][snapback]59139[/snapback][/right]

No. You are just being a bigot.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Rest assured, I've got my diploma in something practical, . . .

Well, my doctorate is in experimental physics. I'm semi-retired, but I spent my career working problems like armor, weapons, radiation hardness of electronics in space, and ways to use satellite imagery to improve agriculture. So, in terms of practicality, I think I'll take a back seat to no one.

. . . but spending my time in books has never been a priority. While I do value those more educated than myself's opinion, that doesn't invalidate my perspective.

Yes, it does. If you are ignorant about a topic, you are still entitled to an opinion. But that opinion is *not* entitled to the respect of those who are not ignorant.

Anyway, all we have to rely on is our perception of reality, how you choose to colour it is up to you.

The irony here is that you've just summed up *my* argument (well, not really mine, but rather the distillation of arguments from Plato to Wheeler) and are too naive in the subject to realize that you've just supported that which you are debating against.

You've clearly chosen to spend time filling your brain with other people's ideas.

Yes, I have. And I've used those ideas as a springboard to further thought and a guide around the pitfalls made in the past. Thus I have a basis for rational thought and opinion on these subjects that I would never have developed had I relied only on my own observations and meditations. Not only were those philosophers smarter than I am, they collectively had much more than my one lifetime to work on the ideas. I might not be capable of matching their thought process, but I am capable of understanding it and using it to improve my own. And that is because, unlike you and our president, I am not afraid to read.

Excuse me for trying to come up with something new.

How will you know 'something new' if you should stumble on it, since you are ignorant of everything old?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Exactly, probably it also means that those people think that in the US there is not a lot of difference between Bush and Kerry, I think most of their impact will be outside of the US. Confirms the fact that many americans (the not voters) don't care about what happens outside their country. :D
[right][snapback]59186[/snapback][/right]

Oh, they care about international relations. But not as much as you might.

For instance, while I didn't vote for Bush, I would rather not have had Kerry roll back the tax cuts. Personally, I benefitted about $2000 from the changes in the tax laws, and I'm not in the top percentages of wealthy people. Kerry spelled tangible pain when it came to taxes. I don't like running up deficits, or spending billions of dollars reconstructing failed countries either.

For the 20% or more in some areas of the country who found that moral values where the most important factor, the selection of 3 or 4 supreme court judges would be more important than what Europe thinks about us. Anyway, there are many domestic issues that resonate more with the mainstream of voters than whether or not we sign the Kyoto treaty, or whether or not we should have gone inot Iraq.

[Ashock]

This has been an interesting thread to read.&nbsp;

It isn't the point of my post, so let me get this out of the way first: my choice went to Bush.&nbsp; I wasn't very thrilled about any of the choices we had, but Bush seemed to be the best of a poor lot.&nbsp; The situation in Iraq, which seems to be the basis of many of the opinions of those outside the US, played a part in my choice (and counted against Bush), but wasn't anywhere near the only thing that did.&nbsp; Quite frankly, I take affront to those outside the US who think that our decision should have been made strictly on that.&nbsp; Would any of you elect a leader based on just one of many issues facing your country?&nbsp;

Let me get on to the point of this post, which is simply that this result was almost inevitable.&nbsp; In order for Kerry to have won, it would have required him to appeal to people the democratic party has long since alienated.&nbsp; What's more, unless things change the same thing will happen to the democratic party again in 4 years.

I've spent the day reading quite a few forums and talking to people I know who are staunch democrats.&nbsp; The response of those people I talked to was pretty revealing to me.&nbsp; Almost across the board, they gave the reason for what can only be described as the politcal spanking they took yesterday as being ignorance.&nbsp; That's also the general message I got from listening to interviews with democratic leaders I watched during the&nbsp; day.&nbsp; One lady I talked to mentioned that it was due to people just voting the same way their parents always had rather than making the choice on their own.&nbsp; When I mentioned to her the increased percentage of women who voted for Bush, her reaction was that they "just must not understand what this means for women's rights".&nbsp; Often said was that the religous right was responsible and comments, such as the one earlier in this thread, about their being uninformed and blind were the norm.&nbsp; Also included in that one were comments about the midwest and southern rural areas being dumb.&nbsp; The point being that the overall opinion was if they don't agree with us, they must be stupid.&nbsp;

The idea that people might just not agree with them and are entitled to that opinion was never mentioned.&nbsp; At a time when you would think that democrats would be stopping to think about how they can better appeal to more people, the reaction was instead one of arrogance and elitism.&nbsp; Considering the increased percentages of groups traditionally considered to be hugely democratic who voted for Bush, that's not a good omen for the democratic party.&nbsp; You simply can't talk down to 30% of the voters and hope to win.&nbsp;

The republicans having a broader appeal seems to mostly be mentioned in a derogatory fashion.&nbsp; The question I would ask is why in the world would that be a bad thing if you want to win elections.&nbsp; The democrats can keep sticking to what they consider their high ground and tell themselves they are above that, but they shouldn't expect to win elections at the same time.&nbsp;

There are moderates in the democratic party who could have won the election yesterday, but they are rarely allowed to make it through the primary process and gain the nomination.&nbsp; What happens instead is that candidates with a liberal record get the nomination and then try to make themselves moderates during the campaign.&nbsp; It's no suprise that they come off looking indecisive.

Over the next four years, the democratic party is going to have to become more flexible and willing to compromise and change or the next election is also already inevitable.

jrichard
[right][snapback]59179[/snapback][/right]

Here's what the Democrats need to do. They need to disassocate themselves from all the former Green party members that have embraced the Democratic party in the last several years. All the ones like Michael Moore, Richard Dreyfus, Tim Robbins and the other Hollywood cooks, that used to think that the Democratic party was not radical enough for them, until they realised that in order for them to get anywhere at all, they need to get associated with a major party. These loons have steered the Democratic party completely away from the average american, and that is why the party is reeling. They would be better off living under Stalin... at least until they actually *were* living under Stalin. The so-called Hollywood elite, has absolutely no clue as to what the average american is like and what their values are, and that is why they need to go. Until that happens, the democratic party is in trouble, as they do not offer anything of value to the american people. With them at the helm the Democratic party is not Democratic, but a Leninist party and we all know how well that ended up.



-A

[Skandranon]

I do know what I'm talking about, and it's not just about 'not liking Bush' on a personal level.&nbsp; Some are equipped to disagree.&nbsp; That particular poster was/is not.&nbsp; At least not from what I can take from his arguments...

Well, he can hold a right to a contrary opinion, even if we think it's wrong. And being an American, his matters rather more than ours. I don't disagree with you on the cavalier nature of Bush's foreign policy, I just don't agree that we can take the absolutist position that we know more and can therefore be assuredly more right on the issue. As non-Americans, I don't think we're in a position to estimate or understand the impact of 9/11 on the American consciousness, and consequently I'm wary of passing judgment on them and their choice for president.

I'm not really all that enthusiastic about the "middle America" explanation, either. While I'm not sold on God, guns and gays as a reasonable rationale to vote for a candidate, I'm aware that there are many Americans who didn't vote Bush for that reason. Generalization's no good.

When this bubble bursts:
Things probably won't be looking so sunny with 80% of our export base in a deeeep recession.

We can certainly diversify our export base, but I do agree there is a potential problem on the horizon. Then again, the large deficit/debt isn't necessarily bad. It definitely could be, but Reagan's first term was marked by large deficits and the US made it to the Clinton years all right. Notably, Reagan's second term was also marked by a noticeable tacking towards the centre on issues. I still think there's a lot of reason to look up.

One last thing. A Kerry presidency wouldn't have magically repaired the American economy, and a lot of his solutions would have been tarifftastic, which is no good for us in a much more direct manner.

[Guest]

Nice post. As a Bush voter I hear the responses you mentioned frequently.

I think a fair number of Democrats have isolated themselves from the genneral polulace and dont realize that their opinions may be the exception rather than the status quo.

The more conservative elements in America are extremely aware of the liberals feelings and are mounting a vigerous battle against them.
But the many liberal elements in the US seem to be pretending that conservatives are a lunatic fringe. And they act appalled every time they lose because of it.

[Skandranon]

With them at the helm the Democratic party is not Democratic, but a Leninist party and we all know how well that ended up.
-A

This is interesting, because I've seen the same comment a few times before. I don't quite understand it. In what specific sense is the Democratic Party Leninist?

(Not being facetious here; a lot of people say it and believe it, I don't know why, and I'd like to know.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here's what the Democrats need to do. They need to disassocate themselves from all the former Green party members that have embraced the Democratic party in the last several years.
[right][snapback]59214[/snapback][/right]

All too true. However, the same can be said for the Republicans and their association with the fundamentalist far right. Look at the numbers. Each side represents less than 45% of the nation (and a lot of those 45% from each side pick their party because, although it is extreme, it is extreme *their* way). And yet, overall, the nation is in agreement on many, indeed most, topics (although the media never really addresses that, do they?)

What this nation needs is not a better Republican party or a better Democratic party. What this nation needs is a new party, composed of the 80 to 90% of the people who are smart enough to realize that extremes are to be avoided. Of course, that will never happen -- or at least not until media stupidity becomes a terminal disease.

--Pete