Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-03-2004, 12:19 PM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Traveller


I don't know of ANY newspaper that does that. They'd get in big trouble for that. Do you know what an editorial is? It's the writer's opinion. Some writers, that's their job, to write their opinions, to get a discussion going. It's not the newspapers' opinion.
most major newspapers in the US endorse a candidate. the NY Times and the Washington Post endorsed Kerry, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.

a few things to keep in mind:

1. the election was, again, extremely close

2. the Republicans are simply better organized and got out their "base" -- white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots

3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude

4. domestic issues are far, far too complicated for anyone who doesn't live in the US to understand, so to all those from other countries, i say this: i feel your pain, and sympathize, but please try to understand the complexities of the domestic situation before you make sweeping judgements about 300m people.

5. the true danger in the Bush re-election isn't foreign policy -- both candidates had similar positions on Iraq, and the military is to strung out to go invading any other countries anytime soon -- but the culture war that is bound to follow, and that's really only going to affect Americans like me who are members of vulnerable minority groups.

what we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian
revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly
political as well. unsurprising given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks of 9-11, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America.

and it is completely legitimate for such views to be represented in public policy. but the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. we have to live and let live.

as blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. that goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. federalism is now more important than ever.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:21 PM   #62
Babyface
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aalst, Belgium
Posts: 22
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by RademR
We're not in the best of times. There's nothing wrong with speaking about the country you live in and love, it's postives and negatives.
No country is perfect. I could make an even longer list with things that go wrong in my own country. We ALL have positive and negative things going on in our countries.
__________________

__________________
mathieu_cpfan is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:23 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 12:19 PM

I've heard concerns similar to those of Irvine511 on tv during the elections.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:27 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
RademR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 5,281
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude
very true. It's tough to win an election when a lot of the people are voting for you because they don't like the other guy, not because of you.
__________________
RademR is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:28 PM   #65
War Child
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 965
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by RademR


very true. It's tough to win an election when a lot of the people are voting for you because they don't like the other guy, not because of you.
This is an excellent point. There were too many people I knew who were voting for Kerry, not because they liked Kerry, but because they hated Bush.

That doesn't work. You've got to have a clear message you're trying to convey.

Bush did. Many may disagree, but he was very clear with his position on Iraq and terrorism.
__________________
Zoocoustic is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:31 PM   #66
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[B]

white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots
Quote:
sweeping judgements about 300m people.
I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:32 PM   #67
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


most major newspapers in the US endorse a candidate. the NY Times and the Washington Post endorsed Kerry, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.

a few things to keep in mind:

1. the election was, again, extremely close

2. the Republicans are simply better organized and got out their "base" -- white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots

3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude

4. domestic issues are far, far too complicated for anyone who doesn't live in the US to understand, so to all those from other countries, i say this: i feel your pain, and sympathize, but please try to understand the complexities of the domestic situation before you make sweeping judgements about 300m people.

5. the true danger in the Bush re-election isn't foreign policy -- both candidates had similar positions on Iraq, and the military is to strung out to go invading any other countries anytime soon -- but the culture war that is bound to follow, and that's really only going to affect Americans like me who are members of vulnerable minority groups.

what we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian
revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly
political as well. unsurprising given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks of 9-11, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America.

and it is completely legitimate for such views to be represented in public policy. but the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. we have to live and let live.

as blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. that goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. federalism is now more important than ever.
It's not about bigotry, at least not around here...it's about religious beliefs which don't equate to bigotry here. I'm sure there are a few bigots in the country who voted for it, but I know it wasn't about bigotry here.

We actually didn't think it was a good idea to have this vote here, which explains our results compared to the other states. I don't think people really knew what their alternative was, though. I think the side against it should've laid out an alternative plan.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:35 PM   #68
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave




I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:37 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave




I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.


i'm talking about the people who voted against the gay marriage amendments. particularly in places like Ohio where the amendments also outlawed anything resembling civil unions. if you look at the tactics of Karl Rove, what they did was gay-bait to get out the evangelical vote. this is why they came out with the FMA to begin with way back in February, and why they were on the ballots in key states. this was all part of the GOP plan to get the base out, and the republican base dislikes homosexuals based upon their turnout and how they voted. that's not a judgement, that's a fact reflected in voting records and political strategy.

when you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. we have seen, and not for the first time, how using fear of a minority can be so effective a tool in building a political movement (think Irish in the 19th century, think african-americans in the 1960s). the single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls, was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy: it was "moral values." by demonizing gay couples, the Republicans were able to bring in whole swathes of new anti-gay believers into their party.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:40 PM   #70
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 06:19 AM
since i enjoy copying posts from the closed threads and moving them into this one, let me now post this brilliant post by yours truely re: the assumption that bush won because of the gay marrage ban on the ballot...

Quote:
let's annalyze this for a second...

the states that approved the gay marrage ban are arkansas, georgia, kentucky, michigan, mississippi, montana, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, oregon and utah

all of those states went for bush with the exception of michigan and oregon

--bush won arkansas 55% to 44%, the gay marrage ban won 75% to 25%
--bush won georgia 59% to 41%, the gay marrage ban won 77% to 23%
--bush won kentucky 60% to 40$, the gay marrage ban won 75% to 25%
--kerry won michigan 51% to 48%, the gay marrage ban won 59% to 41%
--bush won mississippi 60% to 40%, the gay marrage ban won 86% to 14%
--bush won montana 59% to 39%, the gay marrage ban won 66% to 44%
--bush won north dakota 63% to 36%, the gay marrage ban won 73% to 27%
--bush won ohio 51% to 49%, the gay marrage ban won 62% to 38%
--bush won oklahoma 66% to 34%, the gay marrage ban won 76% to 24%
--kerry won oregon 52% to 47%, the gay marrage ban won 57% to 43%
--bush won utah 71% to 37%, the gay marrage ban won 66% to 34%

the point? many kerry voters voted for the gay marrage ban. in every state, the % of people who voted for the ban was more than the % of people who voted for bush, with the exception of utah... where more people actually voted for bush than voted for the ban. people from the south, midwest, north and west, red states and blue states, voted for the ban. to use this as the reason kerry lost would be, at best, an incomplete reason.



on a side note, if this ever came up for vote in new york, i would vote against the ban.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:43 PM   #71
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Once again, I'm proud of Utah. Utah's vote would've gone for Bush no matter what.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:44 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
since i enjoy copying posts from the closed threads and moving them into this one, let me now post this brilliant post by yours truely re: the assumption that bush won because of the gay marrage ban on the ballot...

you're correlations are too simple. it's not a because of A, B happened. this was one issue that motivates a base and gets them out to the polls. there are democrats who are against gay marriage, true, but it's not an issue that gets them up in the morning the way that it does the evangelical base. while the margins against gay marriage might have been similar due to the cultural conservatism of these states, the overal numbers of people who voted in these culturally conservative states went up due to the gay marriage iniative on the ballots. simply put: it whips the Republican base into a frenzy and gets them to the polls. dont' forget -- Rove was convinced that 4m evangelicals sat home in 2000. he knew that this was a way to get them to the polls, and probably explains much of Bush's winning by 3.5m in the popular vote.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:47 PM   #73
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Wow. I know some of you are a little upset over the election, but some comments I'm reading are utterly irrational. I guarantee (I know this doesn't mean much to you) there will be NO draft. If anyone wants to bet on that, I will gladly take you up on that.
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:50 PM   #74
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


you're correlations are too simple. it's not a because of A, B happened. this was one issue that motivates a base and gets them out to the polls. there are democrats who are against gay marriage, true, but it's not an issue that gets them up in the morning the way that it does the evangelical base. while the margins against gay marriage might have been similar due to the cultural conservatism of these states, the overal numbers of people who voted in these culturally conservative states went up due to the gay marriage iniative on the ballots. simply put: it whips the Republican base into a frenzy and gets them to the polls. dont' forget -- Rove was convinced that 4m evangelicals sat home in 2000. he knew that this was a way to get them to the polls, and probably explains much of Bush's winning by 3.5m in the popular vote.
in most of these states the percentage of people in favor of the ban was 20 to 30 times more than the percentage of those who voted for bush. that's an awful lot of kerry supporters. yes, a large number of bush's base came out strong to vote for the ban... but you can't place that much of the blame for the loss by kerry on this issue, because in these same states large numbers of dems also voted for the ban.

so as i said... it's a reason, but it's an incomplete reason, not the only reason. there's more to why bush defeated kerry in these states.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:51 PM   #75
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
Wow. I know some of you are a little upset over the election, but some comments I'm reading are utterly irrational. I guarantee (I know this doesn't mean much to you) there will be NO draft. If anyone wants to bet on that, I will gladly take you up on that.
if you find someone willing to take you up on that action, send them my way, as well.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com