BUSH WINNSSSSS!!!!

[Hotel_Detect]

269 electoral votes according to msnbc, fox, and soon cnn..

this means Kerry could get at most 269 which results in a tie decided by house of representatives = bush wins..

more than likely Bush will win Nevada or NM and win outright

[a500lbgorilla]

Yes, yes he did. What a glorious day in politics!

I wonder why my college dorm hall got so quiet when Bush won and why no one cheered when I screamed it down the hall at 1 am.

-'rilla

[Fnord]

4 MORE YEARS!!!!


Seriously, it's kinda sad. With a vulnerable president the best the Democrats could come up with is Kerry?!?!? They need to do some serious soul searching these next 2-4 years and figure out how to put up more moderate canidates. Like the Republicans did in 98-00...

[Hotel_Detect]

CNN still refuses to call it, but when James Carville concedes defeat you know the dems are beat!

[a500lbgorilla]

CNN just wants to keep the dream alive. It's good television when Kerry still might win with a miricle 4th quarter Hail Mary.

Just bat that shit down!

-'rilla

[Humphrind]

Seriously, it's kinda sad. With a vulnerable president the best the Democrats could come up with is Kerry?!?!?

You hit the nail on the head.

How can people vote for Bush? Because the best the Dems can offer is Kerry. Someone like Dean would have given this election the campaign it needed and likely won.

[Fnord]

How can people vote for Bush? Because the best the Dems can offer is Kerry. Someone like Dean would have given this election the campaign it needed and likely won.

Edwards was their best hope. New England liberals don't have nation wide appeal. I thought they learned that lesson with Dukakis...

[lonnie]

With a vulnerable president the best the Democrats could come up with is Kerry?

They gave it a good shot.

Bush:

Kerry:

Flop:

Democrats go all-in on Kerry's draw. He's got a chance, cmon.

[scgolfer]

YIPEE!! YIPEE!! YIPEE!!

[!Luck]

Time to sell Stem Cell research stock. Then again maybe the market already accounted for it.

[Hotel_Detect]

With a vulnerable president the best the Democrats could come up with is Kerry?

They gave it a good shot.

Bush:

Kerry:

Flop:

Democrats go all-in on Kerry's draw. He's got a chance, cmon.

Honey, .. he has no chance at this point when you listen to anyone other than democratic spinsters.. the vote deficeit is too much... for god sake's bush has a 3% national lead in popular vote!

[Fnord]

Democrats go all-in on Kerry's draw. He's got a chance, cmon.

It was Bush's doing that Kerry even had a chance. With a better canidate this night could have been very different. Will be interesting to see how the Clinton wing of the party responds. This very well could set-up a power-grab...

[Aceofone]

I feel fairly disapointed that bush won, but on the bright side....

In 4 years a f++king imbred monkey will beat Cheney, more than likely Obama or Clinton though.

*Sighs* time for a scotch.

[BoondockSaint]

Amen - I'm glad he won!!!!!!!

[stevedonel]

I'm an Independent and I wouldnt call myself a Bush supporter; I voted for him because he was the best option available. But what are you Dems worried about? This sets up the Hillary '08 campaign. After 8 years with "W" in office, I think some of the fence-sitters will swing over to the liberal side of things, just for a change of pace (fickled morons). The Republican party really needs to find a high quality candidate, and get him in the spotlight for the next 4 years, so he can develop a track record in the public eye. The Dole '96 campaign was the only mistake bigger than a Cheney '08 campaign would be.

[zenbitz]

Hey, Hillary was the last person I voted for that actually WON! (When I lived in NY). I think that streak is broken however, since I just toed the party line in congress this time around, and I'm sure those demo party hacks got re-upped.

Best think I can say about Bush is that it's fitting that he clean up his own mess. I think what saved him was the uptick in the economy last few months. He was going to get all the terrophobes no matter what.

[zenbitz]

I'm not sure I agree that the dems would have had a better chance with another candidate. Kerry was a war hero for christ's sake.

Sure, he was "liberal" - but which is worse for the Democrats, a close loss, or a beatdown becasuse Nader got 10% of the vote again.

The part that's tough (for democrats) to swallow is that they were WAY MORE organized than ever before... and they still lost. In the 80's it was always said that if the Dems ever got ORGANIZED like the repubs, then they would be in power for 100 years (based on the fact that there are many, many more REGISTERED dems than repubs).

It's too bad we couldn't have let the south seceed AND free the slaves... maybe if we ask nicely they'll leave?

[lonnie]

It's too bad we couldn't have let the south seceed AND free the slaves... maybe if we ask nicely they'll leave?

We just elected our first black mayor in Baton Rouge yesterday. What we need to do is move CA to the east coast then put up a big wall separating the east coast from the rest of the country. East and West United States, similar to post-war Germany.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's too bad we couldn't have let the south seceed AND free the slaves... maybe if we ask nicely they'll leave?

We just elected our first black mayor in Baton Rouge yesterday. What we need to do is move CA to the east coast then put up a big wall separating the east coast from the rest of the country. East and West United States, similar to post-war Germany.

Deal! But we get Alaska! ... Pittsburgh stays on the west side.

Weest siiiideee! *W finger pose*
8-)

-'rilla

[Fnord]

I'm not sure I agree that the dems would have had a better chance with another candidate. Kerry was a war hero for christ's sake.

Ummmm.... most "War hero"s don't testify to congress with embellished stories of misdeeds by fellow soldiers. He ain't no John McCain.

Sure, he was "liberal"

I prefer the term socialist.

- but which is worse for the Democrats, a close loss, or a beatdown becasuse Nader got 10% of the vote again.

The part that's tough (for democrats) to swallow is that they were WAY MORE organized than ever before... and they still lost. In the 80's it was always said that if the Dems ever got ORGANIZED like the repubs, then they would be in power for 100 years (based on the fact that there are many, many more REGISTERED dems than repubs).

I guess it doesn't matter how good the ship is if you don't have a strong skipper...

It's too bad we couldn't have let the south seceed AND free the slaves... maybe if we ask nicely they'll leave?

LOL!

Ah yes, I thoroughly enjoyed this election.

I stayed up all night in Britain to watch the live coverage of it. Our election program began at midnight and was supposed to end at 5am, but it ended at 7am due to the Ohio delays.

I've always been into American politics and I think this was the best presidential race I've seen.

[DrNoChance]

....and north of the border, in Canada, we're in shock. Why did you guys vote that talking monkey into power for another 4 years?!? Unreal...

In all fairness though, Canadian politics are far more left-of-center than the US. It's only natural that most Canadians favor the Dems, but we really dislike Bush and there are plenty of Republican presidents that we thought were just fine.

I agree with whoever said that Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry. More charismatic by far, IMO.

That being said, I really felt that the Dems just might take it this time....(sigh)...4 more years of Bush....it will be entertaining at least

Besides, another Bush term might mean another entertaining Michael Moore movie

[zenbitz]

Ummmm.... most "War hero"s don't testify to congress with embellished stories of misdeeds by fellow soldiers. He ain't no John McCain.

What I love about the USA is that the two of us can see totally different sides of the same coin.

Realistically - I have NO idea what Kerry did in 'nam. Right now, all the stories are so much spin. I am reasonably sure he was there, unlike the president. I actually respect the president for dodging the draft - who the hell was nutty enough to go to vietnam if it was avoidable.... He should be proud of it, not pretend that he served "honorable" on an AFB stateside.

Anyhooo... I digressed. My main point was - JK at least had a viable REP as a war hero, which is all that matters to the public eye. That rep took some hits (of questionable legitimacy, IMHO - but it's just that opinion), and it's even possible that the swift boat vets for truth saved this election for W.

Kerry's no socialist - I should know. He's a billionare!

[Hotel_Detect]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this so far.. but anyone else notice that the Democrats are COMPLETELY ****ed?...

They lost a massive number of seats in the Senate, could not unseat a president with a lot of vulnerabilities, and increased their deficeit in the house...

I don't think we have to worry about becoming a socialist nation any time soon!

And that is why Bush got my vote.. I am not a socialist, the democrats want to take over 50% of my income, .. that = socialism (to me at least) and in America it is unacceptable.

On a side note, I feel that this was a VERY good Presidential election. I noticed one of the UK posters agreed. It it clear that everyone got the chance to vote, as it should be, and they voted Bush in by a wide national margin. I applaud Mr. Kerry for not dragging this out and realizing when he is beat. This is a good day for American democracy no matter what side of the fence you fall, everyone got to vote, and there are very very few claims of problems. Thank god we got it right this time, if we had another Florida, the world and many of our own citizens would be very skeptical with the results.

[Fnord]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this so far.. but anyone else notice that the Democrats are COMPLETELY ****ed?...

Yup. At the national level, they can't seem to turn down the volume on the anti-corporate wing nor the socialists. Hence, they have trouble reaching out to the moderates...

[lonnie]

I am not a socialist, the democrats want to take over 50% of my income

To me, this is what lost the election for Kerry. He said he was going to "rollback" the tax cut for "rich Americans". Anytime a candidate comes out and says "tax increase" they are asking for trouble.

On the flip side, Bush's unrealistic plan of letting some individuals divert a portion of their Social Security proceeds to a private investment probably cost him quite a few votes as well. A smart poitician doesn't even talk about messing with Granny's social security check. The blue hairs will show up to vote.

These were both major errors, but threatening a tax increase is the worse of the two evils.

[johnnyawe]

Republicans always ridicule democrats for nominating liberal candidates and Democrats always ridicule Republicans for nominating conservative candidates. For example, many Dems ridiculed the Repubs in '00 when Bush beat out McCain.

These accusations that the Dems would have won if they had could have found someone better than Kerry are, in my opinion, baseless. Believe me, no matter who they put up, he would have been viewed as an out of touch looney liberal by Bush voters.

As far as Kerry being a socialist and unable to reach out to moderates, he was to the right of Dean and Kucinich and to the left of Gephardt and Edwards. That is what I would call a "moderate democrat". If anyone here wants to see a real-life liberal democrat (not just a democrat that Bush and company call liberal, but a real liberal), come out here to San Francisco and I'll introduce you to some.

So then why did nobody vote for him? Hmm..

Is the country really making a values shift to the right or was this election just the result of Bush's 9/11 popularity and/or the idea that he will somehow handle Iraq and terrorism better? I just don't know and I don't think anyone does right now.

If the country is indeed shifting to the right, then expect the Democrats to be dragged along. The two parties are constantly shifting in the wind in order to better align themselves with the values and beliefs of the voters. But right now I think the talk of Democrats needing a major overhaul could be premature. This is only the first time their presidential candidate has lost the popular vote since 1988. If the next 2 or 3 elections go the same way, then some major changes will of course need to be made.

[Fnord]

These accusations that the Dems would have won if they had could have found someone better than Kerry are, in my opinion, baseless. Believe me, no matter who they put up, he would have been viewed as an out of touch looney liberal by Bush voters.

Gephardt, Edwards and Liberman were all much easier pills to swallow than Kerry. You need only look at Kery's approval ratings. That being said I was impressed with Kerry's showing in the debates. But he can't escape the simple fact he has a long and well documented history of saying one thing and then voting the other way on non-trivial issues. You just never know where you're at with him and I think that spooked away a lot of "swing" voters. People have an image of the President being a charismatic leader and de-facto dictator in times of crisis. The guy who can make a stand and put the breaks on congress. How can you give a guy like Kerry that kind of role?

[johnnyawe]

But he can't escape the simple fact he has a long and well documented history of saying one thing and then voting the other way on non-trivial issues.

I've researched this accusation and I disagree with it. I have some stuff on my site about it. It isn't worth debating at this point with the election over, but I just could not let that stand without saying that I disagree with it.

I think a Lieberman candidacy would have resulted in a landslide victory for Bush. The only people I've ever heard say that the Dems should have nominated Lieberman are far right-wing conservatives who would never vote for a Democrat.

[zenbitz]

Kerry's flip-flopping - I'm don't even care if it's true or not. Intelligent people can change their minds.

Only in politics is pure bull-headedness considered an asset.

[Hotel_Detect]

But right now I think the talk of Democrats needing a major overhaul could be premature. This is only the first time their presidential candidate has lost the popular vote since 1988. If the next 2 or 3 elections go the same way, then some major changes will of course need to be made.

This is an interesting point and you seem like a thoughtful democrat.. But that being said, i disagree. I am a very moderate republican (i do not agree with bush on a very wide range of issues) yet the democrats are unable to appeal to me.

They have not trully controlled the congress for the last 10 years and now they have decisively lost a presidential campaign. Previous to this they had only one viable presidential candidate since 1980. The previous 40 or 50 years they dominated politics, this seems to me to be a very ill democratic party. Considering the amount of effort and money (as much or more than republicans) put into this campaign, and considering the sentate now sits at 55 rep 44 dem. 1 ind. It seems clear the dems are in major major trouble as a party.

[elanto]

im pretty angry about this election, i dislike bush so much, i wanted kerry to win, then again kerry wasnt that good of a candidate but i would have chosen anyone over bush, i would have even voted for the squirrel in boondocksaints avatar than bush, at least the squirrel has bigger balls.

Bush is a coward he didnt even go to vietnam for crying out loud!


-anto

[a500lbgorilla]

Bush is a coward he didnt even go to vietnam for crying out loud!

Don't use Vietnam as a proving ground for manhood.

-'rilla

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Which war did you fight in elanto?

[johnnyawe]

But right now I think the talk of Democrats needing a major overhaul could be premature. This is only the first time their presidential candidate has lost the popular vote since 1988. If the next 2 or 3 elections go the same way, then some major changes will of course need to be made.

This is an interesting point and you seem like a thoughtful democrat.. But that being said, i disagree. I am a very moderate republican (i do not agree with bush on a very wide range of issues) yet the democrats are unable to appeal to me.

So you're a moderate republican.. What would the Dems have to do to appeal to you?

(I'm technically registered as non-partisan).

[gutshot]

I'm in the same boat.

They have to realize that they can't get up at a podium and promise the world and have no specific plan to deliver. Kerry's platform sounded like the goods, but there was very little substance behind it. I searched all over his website for hard facts and never found much but broad generalizations. Didn't merit a change.

[Hotel_Detect]

So you're a moderate republican.. What would the Dems have to do to appeal to you?

(I'm technically registered as non-partisan).

Very good question... I am not sure that the current party could appeal to me in anywhere near their current structure. I am conservative financially. I am very against big government and heavy taxation (like the president says, no one should have to pay over 35% in taxes). But, socially (not social programs, but rather values) i consider myself quite liberal. I have no problem with gay marriage, abortion (not late term), and I am for stem cell research, etc, etc. In this respect I seem to be in the same mold as Mayor Guiliani or Arnold Schwartzenegger, both of whom are moderate republicans.

In order to pull in my type, the dems would need a sweeping change. They have two choices imo .. go left or go center. I personally think they had more success with the middle ground (ala Clinton). But I am not sure we will have a situation like the 90s ever again.

[Hotel_Detect]

I feel fairly disapointed that bush won, but on the bright side....

In 4 years a f++king imbred monkey will beat Cheney, more than likely Obama or Clinton though.

*Sighs* time for a scotch.

I don't think you follow American politics very closely, since Cheney has said 85 billion times that he has no further political ambition. The republican candidates will be quite powerful once again, ... Guiliani, McCain, Arnold (?.. not legal yet).. but it will be another fierce battle.. probably favoring the republicans

[a500lbgorilla]

So you're a moderate republican.. What would the Dems have to do to appeal to you?

(I'm technically registered as non-partisan).

Very good question... I am not sure that the current party could appeal to me in anywhere near their current structure. I am conservative financially. I am very against big government and heavy taxation (like the president says, no one should have to pay over 35% in taxes). But, socially (not social programs, but rather values) i consider myself quite liberal. I have no problem with gay marriage, abortion (not late term), and I am for stem cell research, etc, etc. In this respect I seem to be in the same mold as Mayor Guiliani or Arnold Schwartzenegger, both of whom are moderate republicans.

In order to pull in my type, the dems would need a sweeping change. They have two choices imo .. go left or go center. I personally think they had more success with the middle ground (ala Clinton). But I am not sure we will have a situation like the 90s ever again.

You're a libertarian. Conservative economically and liberal socially. Welcome to the clan.

[Hotel_Detect]

You're a libertarian. Conservative economically and liberal socially. Welcome to the clan.

Yes I realize this ...

[elanto]

Which war did you fight in elanto?

Im not running for president am i. and i dont care if bush went to vietnam, the problem is that he skipped his draft on purpose, which would make him a coward and on top of that he then says that Kerry is someway a traitor, like.. come on man, that was pure B&%&%&. Now who do you think is better prepared to lead you to war, a man that served 2 or 3 terms in vietnam or a guy who has been running away from war all of his cowardly life


-anto

[Corey]

I dont mean to cut anyone down but I will state this:

Bush won fair and square didnt cheat to win; had more votes than Kerry; Kerry admits defeat. France is a bunch of pussies; and in my opinion if your not from America I could care less of what you think about American Politics.

Democrats you can bitch moan all you want, you can write to this forum and bitch complain why Bush sucks why he is going to shove up your ass for another 4 years. Last time I check America is a democracy of where the American people pick the President. So get mad at your fellow Americans not the candidates. Whether you like it or not President Bush is President of the United States of America for 4 more years and there is nothing you can do about it. Reading and hearing about bullshit statements of how democrats were robbed of another Presidency is bullshit and its horrible. So do us all a favor stfu and admit the defeat and quit your bitching.

PS. If you are wondering who I voted for: I didnt, the statement of what Fnord said earlier about picking a better candidate to run hit the spot.

[scgolfer]

I love how liberals totally forget thier all time hero Clinton was the biggest draft dodger of them all, and they didnt have any trouble voting for him over the youngest navy pilot at the time George H Bush. Also since when was the lefrt in favor of the Veitnam, at the time they were totally against it? BUt when it suits there cause it was the OK. The only thing I respected about Kerry was that he didnt cave into the pressure to say what he did after the war was wrong, it hurt him badly, but at least he didnt flip flop on that.

[scgolfer]

And elanto your showing you dont know much about the politics anyways Kerry served 4 month not 2 or 3 "terms"

[Aceofone]

I feel fairly disapointed that bush won, but on the bright side....

In 4 years a f++king imbred monkey will beat Cheney, more than likely Obama or Clinton though.

*Sighs* time for a scotch.

I don't think you follow American politics very closely, since Cheney has said 85 billion times that he has no further political ambition. The republican candidates will be quite powerful once again, ... Guiliani, McCain, Arnold (?.. not legal yet).. but it will be another fierce battle.. probably favoring the republicans

I do tend to follow politics and current events very closely in most parts of the world; however, Cheney does not get a lot of air time or print outside of the US's borders. So I suppose I'll retract that statement and rephrase it: "I hope Cheney decides to run because I feel he would be quite easy to beat."

An Aside:

I've been thinking lately that I'm not really a conservative, and I'm not really a liberal. I believe in civil liberties, stem cell research etc. but I also believe in fiscal discipline and small government. I think thats why I liked Clinton so much, and part of me is hoping that your constitution is ammended because I would like to see Swartzenegger (<<Spelling?) run for president.

[elanto]

And elanto your showing you dont know much about the politics anyways Kerry served 4 month not 2 or 3 "terms"

my bad... i meant so,ething else, which there no point fighting about it here

[Hotel_Detect]

Im not running for president am i. and i dont care if bush went to vietnam, the problem is that he skipped his draft on purpose, which would make him a coward and on top of that he then says that Kerry is someway a traitor

Bush never ever said this. He said "Kerry served honorably".. he also called for taking down all 527 ads, with specific mention the swift boat ads that you refer to.

So once again you are unfairly spinning, trying to insinuate that bush called Kerry a traitor. Maybe you should pay more attention to detail.

I also echo that Clinton TRULLY dodged the draft, but he was worthy of two terms right? At least Bush served in the guard.

[Radashack]

My God the love in this thread is amazing

[a500lbgorilla]

My God the love in this thread is amazing

I hate you and every bone in your body! Infact, I'm going to hunt you down and stick extra bones in your body just so I can hate you even more!

-'rilla

[johnnyawe]

So you're a moderate republican.. What would the Dems have to do to appeal to you?

(I'm technically registered as non-partisan).

Very good question... I am not sure that the current party could appeal to me in anywhere near their current structure. I am conservative financially. I am very against big government and heavy taxation (like the president says, no one should have to pay over 35% in taxes). But, socially (not social programs, but rather values) i consider myself quite liberal. I have no problem with gay marriage, abortion (not late term), and I am for stem cell research, etc, etc. In this respect I seem to be in the same mold as Mayor Guiliani or Arnold Schwartzenegger, both of whom are moderate republicans.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Me too. That is why I vote Democrat. Everybody is fiscally conservative. I have never met a single person, liberal or conservative, that doesn't want to lower taxes and bring down the deficit. The only difference in the candidates tax proposals this year was that Kerry would have raised taxes on folks making over $200,000 in order to reduce the deficit, which I consider to be fiscally conservative. And this how it was in 2000 as well.. and with Clinton. I just don't get how people say that Democrats want to raise taxes and spend the country into oblivion. If you look at the proposals of Democratic presidential candiates over the past 12 years, it doesn't hold true, except for taxes raised on the +$200,000 folks.

[johnnyawe]

I love how liberals totally forget thier all time hero Clinton was the biggest draft dodger of them all, and they didnt have any trouble voting for him over the youngest navy pilot at the time George H Bush. Also since when was the lefrt in favor of the Veitnam, at the time they were totally against it? BUt when it suits there cause it was the OK. The only thing I respected about Kerry was that he didnt cave into the pressure to say what he did after the war was wrong, it hurt him badly, but at least he didnt flip flop on that.

Who cares about this, but you must agree that there is a difference between draft dodging a war you don't believe in (as Clinton did), and draft dodging a war you were hawkish on, as Bush was for Vietnam.

[johnnyawe]

So you're a moderate republican.. What would the Dems have to do to appeal to you?

(I'm technically registered as non-partisan).

Very good question... I am not sure that the current party could appeal to me in anywhere near their current structure. I am conservative financially. I am very against big government and heavy taxation (like the president says, no one should have to pay over 35% in taxes). But, socially (not social programs, but rather values) i consider myself quite liberal. I have no problem with gay marriage, abortion (not late term), and I am for stem cell research, etc, etc. In this respect I seem to be in the same mold as Mayor Guiliani or Arnold Schwartzenegger, both of whom are moderate republicans.

In order to pull in my type, the dems would need a sweeping change. They have two choices imo .. go left or go center. I personally think they had more success with the middle ground (ala Clinton). But I am not sure we will have a situation like the 90s ever again.

You're a libertarian. Conservative economically and liberal socially. Welcome to the clan.

Yes, hoteldetect expressed libertarian views. I myself could probably be called a libertarian (I'd have to think about it more), but I believe those ideals are now closer to the Democratic party than to the Republican party. I think I must be the only person in the world who feels that way, but that is what I have observed in the approximately 8 years I have been following politics. How somebody could say Repubicans are the party of less government is totally beyond me.

I would think anybody who considers himself a libertarian would be greatly disturbed by the religious right's huge turnout in this election and their likely dominance of the Republican party for many years to come.

[Aces]

Disappointing to hear all the pro-Bush rhetoric on this thread. It boggles the mind how intelligent people cannot see through Bush's bullshit. There are so many negatives right now with what Bush has done(IMO), I would've voted for the Giant Douch of a recent South Park episode if that was the only other option. Not saying I wouldn't vote Republican(I'm obviously a Democrat), but Bush has and will continue to do so much damage in areas of the economy(and rising national debt), environment, I could go on but I'm sure it's falling on deaf ears.

Not whining that Kerry lost. Maybe he wasn't the most charismatic candidate. I just honestly don't see how one can look at Bush's persona and record and think he deserves four more years. This man scares me to death, especially after seeing what he's done. Just listening to him speak is like finger nails on a blackboard.

I think part of this is just a gradual shift of opinions to the right,. At some point the pendulum will swing back the other way.

Disappointing to hear all the pro-Bush rhetoric on this thread. It boggles the mind how intelligent people cannot see through Bush's bullshit. There are so many negatives right now with what Bush has done(IMO), I would've voted for the Giant Douch of a recent South Park episode if that was the only other option. Not saying I wouldn't vote Republican(I'm obviously a Democrat), but Bush has and will continue to do so much damage in areas of the economy(and rising national debt), environment, I could go on but I'm sure it's falling on deaf ears.

Not whining that Kerry lost. Maybe he wasn't the most charismatic candidate. I just honestly don't see how one can look at Bush's persona and record and think he deserves four more years. This man scares me to death, especially after seeing what he's done. Just listening to him speak is like finger nails on a blackboard.

I think part of this is just a gradual shift of opinions to the right,. At some point the pendulum will swing back the other way.

I completely agree with you Aces. If I was American, I would be a democrat. I follow American politics pretty closely and personally I think Kerry was the much better candidate, I definitely agreed with more policies of his than I did Bush's.

[Hotel_Detect]

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Me too. That is why I vote Democrat. Everybody is fiscally conservative. I have never met a single person, liberal or conservative, that doesn't want to lower taxes and bring down the deficit. The only difference in the candidates tax proposals this year was that Kerry would have raised taxes on folks making over $200,000 in order to reduce the deficit, which I consider to be fiscally conservative. And this how it was in 2000 as well.. and with Clinton. I just don't get how people say that Democrats want to raise taxes and spend the country into oblivion. If you look at the proposals of Democratic presidential candiates over the past 12 years, it doesn't hold true, except for taxes raised on the +$200,000 folks.

Except I earn over the 200k mark and it is unfair that I should have to pay more than my current 35% rate. And for other people, making over 200k does not all of a sudden make you fabulously rich. What if you have a few kids in college, are not eligible for financial aide and have to give 100k to the federal government under a democratic administration. I also believe taxing the rich hurts the economy in a more general sense. I know that at a higher tax percentage I would have less available capital to invest in businesses.

[Hotel_Detect]

I completely agree with you Aces. If I was American, I would be a democrat. I follow American politics pretty closely and personally I think Kerry was the much better candidate, I definitely agreed with more policies of his than I did Bush's.

If every daily newspaper in my country machine-gun sprayed me with anti-bush propaganda like yours does to you, maybe id agree.

*braces for inevitable "your press is right-wing-biased" retort*

[zenbitz]

Except I earn over the 200k mark and it is unfair that I should pay more than my current 35% rate. And for other people, making over 200k does not all of a sudden make you fabulously rich. What if you have a few kids in college, are not eligible for financially aide and have to give 100k to the federal government under a democratic administration.

This is an acceptable (or at least logical) reason to vote republican: "I got mine, so bite me".

[johnnyawe]

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Me too. That is why I vote Democrat. Everybody is fiscally conservative. I have never met a single person, liberal or conservative, that doesn't want to lower taxes and bring down the deficit. The only difference in the candidates tax proposals this year was that Kerry would have raised taxes on folks making over $200,000 in order to reduce the deficit, which I consider to be fiscally conservative. And this how it was in 2000 as well.. and with Clinton. I just don't get how people say that Democrats want to raise taxes and spend the country into oblivion. If you look at the proposals of Democratic presidential candiates over the past 12 years, it doesn't hold true, except for taxes raised on the +$200,000 folks.

Except I earn over the 200k mark and it is unfair that I should have to pay more than my current 35% rate. And for other people, making over 200k does not all of a sudden make you fabulously rich. What if you have a few kids in college, are not eligible for financial aide and have to give 100k to the federal government under a democratic administration. I also believe taxing the rich hurts the economy in a more general sense. I know that at a higher tax percentage I would have less available capital to invest in businesses.

I've got no problems with that then. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were voting for, and you do. You're willing to give up some individual freedoms in order to increase your take home pay. Well, actually, you're willing to give up the individual freedoms of other people in order to increase your take home pay (somehow I doubt that you're gay or that you'll ever want an abortion). Sorry, I couldn't help but take a litte shot at you there, but seriously, you do hold a logical and defendable position. For me, social issues are more important which is why I voted for Kerry.

[johnnyawe]

I completely agree with you Aces. If I was American, I would be a democrat. I follow American politics pretty closely and personally I think Kerry was the much better candidate, I definitely agreed with more policies of his than I did Bush's.

If every daily newspaper in my country machine-gun sprayed me with anti-bush propaganda like yours does to you, maybe id agree.

Hotel, don't insult the man's intelligence. He said he follows american politics closely and is aligned more closely with Kerry's policies. Nowhere in his post did he say "I don't know much about this stuff but my newsapaper told me Bush was dumb so I hate him." Your response was totally uncalled for. You just assume he is an idiot for no reason.

[Hotel_Detect]

sorry Natural, but I am skeptical. Have you seen the coverage over there?.. It seems 10X more left-wing biased than our news, and many would argue that our news has a left wing bias. It wasn't an attack on him but it may have come out that way. It was more of a response to the 10 new paper covers ive just seen calling americans dumb, the president dumb, etc etc. It is elitist and hoary. Sorry to the original poster tho.

[michael1123]

This election was really depressing ...

For the record, I'm another poster that could be classified as a libertarian. I'm much more liberal when it comes to social matters than financial matters, and I put more weight in social matters as well.

The religious right has the polar opposite of my opinions basically. Hearing that most of Bush voters said they voted for him mainly because they wanted better values and better spirital leadership made me feel sick to my stomach.

[zenbitz]

Despite what I said about the media and defense contractors, I don't think the media has any global bias at all. I mean, the village voice is on the left, and the national review is on the right - but there are others inbetween.

The media is just another corporation, trying to maximize profits. They will pritnt what they think will sell them the most papers/ad space.

Also - for Hotel, if you think it's hard to send 2 kids to school at 200K/year, think about doing it at half that. (Below is hard to, but then you start getting into need-based scholarships). Maybe your kids should get jobs, if they aren't willing to study hard enough to get a merit scholarship!

Finally - you assume your tax dollars do YOU no good... while this may be true currently, it doesn't have to be that way. Public Universities should be free, anyway.

http://www.ranzorising.com/come_clean/

That video is why Bush has done an appalling job as president, and why if I was an American, I would have been for Kerry (or Nader if I was feeling frisky!).

Like I've always said, USA President is the most powerful job on Earth, why put a guy who always lies in that position?

[DrNoChance]

The religious right has the polar opposite of my opinions basically. Hearing that most of Bush voters said they voted for him mainly because they wanted better values and better spirital leadership made me feel sick to my stomach.

This is exactly how I felt. It's not even my country, but sometimes the religious right in the U.S. really pisses me off.

[Hotel_Detect]

Also - for Hotel, if you think it's hard to send 2 kids to school at 200K/year, think about doing it at half that. (Below is hard to, but then you start getting into need-based scholarships). Maybe your kids should get jobs, if they aren't willing to study hard enough to get a merit scholarship!

Finally - you assume your tax dollars do YOU no good... while this may be true currently, it doesn't have to be that way. Public Universities should be free, anyway.

People that make more than 200k a year, receive no financial aide or loan programs from the government, and merit scholarships are no where near lucrative enough to cover the cost of tuition. So if you are 200k + w/ 2 kids in college, you give nearly 100k to the government through local and federal taxes (especially if the democrats had their way) then you get to pay 2 30k+ a year tuitions. Hmmm that just seems slightly unfair to me.

And as for my tax dollars? You know what I get?... National defense and roadways. Beyond that I get NOTHING. My class pays over 50% of the taxes, despite being only 2% of the population, and the likes of Bill Clinton have the audacity to tell me I do not pay "my fair share." No wonder I feel alienated by the Democratic Party. Personally Id prefer a flat tax, ill pay 70k a year if you pay the same percentage of your income.

[zenbitz]

Well, fair is not the question, I don't think. Should somone who make 20K/year pay the same rate as you? And of course you'd prefer a flat tax - saves you money!

I'm more in favor of the following tax structure:
0% if you make less than say 30K/year full time per person in household
X% flat % for 30K-300K per person in household
90% above 300K/person

NO DEDUCTIONS.

Compare your situation to someone who makes 100K/year, with 2 kids in college. So, they don't pay 50%, maybe 30%. So, post tax - they have 70K and you have 100. Plus, I'm betting you own property, and can easily borrow money to pay for your kids (make 'em work it off!)

Plus, if everyone making what you make pays more - then the ones withOUT kids will subsidize your kids' college.

Also, do you realize how pathetic it sounds to complain abou thow much it costs to send your kids to private school???

[Hotel_Detect]

I was speaking hypothetically as I do not even have children. But anyway, if you believe people that make over 300k a year should be taxed 90% I cannot continue this argument because your point of view is completely and irreversibly opposed to mine, as i imagine my POV is to you. I do not believe that people should be punished for their success, I also think your views lie well outside the mainstream, on both sides of the political spectrum. You are entitled to this POV but I believe that if intiated it would destroy the economy of the United States.

I guess I just do not believe that government should determine so many facets of our lives, including redistributing our income to others, that should be a personal decision.

That being said, I am going to leave this topic now, I do not think a capitalist and a socialist can accomplish much on a message board other than to argue circularly.

[lolzzz_321]

Ha, Clinton, he blew as a president (pun masta trip fizzle in da house (white)).

He was truly slick Willy.

Maybe it was the Republican Congress that was in control at the time that attributed to this nation's success...


You might be gay if you're a man and don't like Bush... then again you liberals do not have a problem with gays...

Oya, we are setting up a fund to purchase a plane ticket for Zenbitz, it's a one way to Havana, hope you like RED eye flights.

Cheers!

[stuck]

if you believe people that make over 300k a year should be taxed 90%

I don't think he meant someone who makes 300K/year should net only 90K, but rather all income over 300K is taxed 90% (so, if you made 400K, only 100K would be taxed 90% and the remaining 300K would be taxed X%).

Probably a moot point, and I could have mis-interpreted it myself, but I think that's what he meant.

[zenbitz]

Agreed, and we are not going to convince each other.
Stuck is right, I was unclear on my statement of 90%. Flat rate UNTIL 300K, then 90% of the excess.

As for Havana... I wouldn't be the first in my family to make a pilgramage!

And for Clinton - I never gave him credit (or congress for that matter) for the internet boom - likewise I don't blame Bush(es) for recent recessions. The Economy is a Thing Unto Itself, not so easy for a mere president to influence.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Flat rate UNTIL 300K, then 90% of the excess.

That's a great idea! Let's punish people for their success instead of letting them enjoy the fruits of their hard work. Then we can use the money to provide assistance for the lazy masses. And why stop at income? I only have about 1 acre of property while the greedy farmers and ranchers have hundreds and thousands of acres of land. I don't think that's fair! I don't care if that land has been in their family for generations or that they were able to purchase the land after long hours of toil. I propose that individual's be allowed to own up to 10 acres of land and 75% of any additional acreage be made available for public usage. I know it's not my land and I didn't earn it, but I think I still should be able to have a piece of it. This way resources will be more communal thus bringing us one step closer to communism.

Maybe your kids should get jobs, if they aren't willing to study hard enough to get a merit scholarship!

Better yet, let's do away with minority scholarships and make all scholarships merit based as they should be. Or how about the people on welfare get jobs so the public doesn't have to spend so much money on supporting them. Then the money we save can be put towards making public education cheaper. Grant it, many people on welfare, medicaid, diasability, etc. are deserving. There are thousands that receive aid that are perfectly capable of sustaining themselves though. Increasing taxes to increase handouts won't help the situation. By doing so you take away the incentive of people to actually work.

[michael1123]

Ha, Clinton, he blew as a president (pun masta trip fizzle in da house (white)).

He was truly slick Willy.

Maybe it was the Republican Congress that was in control at the time that attributed to this nation's success...


You might be gay if you're a man and don't like Bush... then again you liberals do not have a problem with gays...

Oya, we are setting up a fund to purchase a plane ticket for Zenbitz, it's a one way to Havana, hope you like RED eye flights.

Cheers!

Nice to know that we're getting some intelligent new members ...........

[zenbitz]

Yes, DaNutzInYourEye it's true. All rich people got that way because they were hard working and industrious, and all people who are poor are lazy

No one ever inherits anything, and everyone gets what they deserve.

[michael1123]

Better yet, let's do away with minority scholarships and make all scholarships merit based as they should be.

Jesus. So you're saying that there should be no need based scholarships, mainly because if you had kids, they wouldn't get any? You realize that you're being just as self serving as the opposite side of the spectrum, people on welfare that don't need to be, and being for welfare because it helps them. You're critisizing them, and then sounding like your against whatever doesn't help you and for whatever does.

Not that I can be too critical. It is human nature to be for what helps you, of course. But its the being against whatever doesn't part, even if it helps people that truly need it, that sounds overly self centered.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

But its the being against whatever doesn't part, even if it helps people that truly need it, that sounds overly self centered.

No, I acknowledged that there are people that truly need assistance. Yet you chose to attack my statement that there are many people that receive assistance when they don't necessarily deserve it or are capable of providing for themselves.

I work in a hospital in a large urban area. The majority of the patients that come to the emergency room have Medicare, Medicaid or receive some sort of financial assistance. Most of these people need it. Some of them have gone through hardships that I can't even imagine myself going through. These are the people that the programs were designed to help.

Then there are the people that receive the same kind of assistance and yet they come in with pagers, talking on their cell phones, wearing designer clothes... Do you not see something wrong with this picture? These type of people are the minority, but there is still a significant amount of them. Then there are the people you see in the grocery stores using food stamps to buy groceries and their own money to buy alcohol and tobacco products. Maybe it's just me, but I view cell phones and beer as a commodity. They don't need that stuff yet we give them assistance so they purchase it anyways. If they were supporting themselves with their own money I'd have no problem with whatever the hell they bought. But when they are using tax payer money to get drunk or walk around in prada clothing it bothers me.