Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Interesting point. Proud and stubborn.

So if I get you right, you mean people from the "backbone" like Utah never change their mind, no matter what? That they spit in the face of everyone who dares to criticize their view?

Basically that would be the unability to accept criticism. Like a child that says "I´m right because I´m right, and besides I got the bigger ..."

Is that what you mean or am I mistaken?

No, that's not what I meant. I think it's a lot more complicated then that. I think that Americans, ulitmately, just voted for what they want and believe, period. I think maybe more people, like me, which I did, would've opted to see what Kerry would do, and go against their natural inclination and beliefs. Know what I mean? I think there would've been more people who would've gone AGAINST what they sincerely believe for the sake of changem, taken a chance. But, maybe some people made it seem really icky, or too risky. I know I had to overlook some people and their views to vote for Kerry. But, then, I'm not your ordinary type of person, either. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Sometimes I say something that I feel instinctively is right, but it takes me a while to figure out where it's coming from.
 
Last edited:
Frankly I think that anti-Bush people and Kerry supporters had done things right a lot more people who are independents, like me, or who are not super-strong Republicans, and even strong Republicans would've gone to Kerry.

They basically dug their own hole with their insults, etc. But, there are many other issues. Kerry wasn't really a better alternative. Possibly a weaker one, in many Americans' eyes.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
LOL at calling people who oppose gay marriage bigots... way to go!


can you give me a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't predicated upon the assumption that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships?

i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, i have no idea what your stance on the issue is. i'd just like to hear an argument, if you've got one, that isn't predicated upon the above assumption.
 
Some quick thoughts on Traveller and (I think it was) Headache's point about Americans giving the finger to the world via the election-

I have long thought this. I think some Bush voters had (to them) valid policy reasons for doing so, but I believe what pushed Bush over the top was just this dynamic. Folks voted their anger, their identity, their "in group", rather than (in my view) voting the issues. Classic conflict psychology. This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, so many polls show that people don't think the economy is recoving, and they don't think Iraq is going well, and yet just over half of us voted for Bush anyhow.

Question: Is this a wise way to vote? Shouldn't the issues matter more?

We get the leaders we deserve....

Peace,
Cheryl
 
Sherry Darling said:
Some quick thoughts on Traveller and (I think it was) Headache's point about Americans giving the finger to the world via the election-

I have long thought this. I think some Bush voters had (to them) valid policy reasons for doing so, but I believe what pushed Bush over the top was just this dynamic. Folks voted their anger, their identity, their "in group", rather than (in my view) voting the issues. Classic conflict psychology. This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, so many polls show that people don't think the economy is recoving, and they don't think Iraq is going well, and yet just over half of us voted for Bush anyhow.

Question: Is this a wise way to vote? Shouldn't the issues matter more?

We get the leaders we deserve....

Peace,
Cheryl

I do believe that was a dynamic. It may have cost Kerry the election. MAY HAVE. But, like I said, I think people ultimately voted for what they really and truly think is best. Not the "in group". People, when they are pushed, when they are threatened will ALWAYS go exactly with what they believe in. It's not about being in an in group or fear, it is about wanting what's best for YOU!!! Perhaps some would've been more willing to give the Democrats a chance if they hadn't felt so threatened and insulted. They would've ultimately, taken a risk and gone outside of themselves. BUT, you cannot fail to overlook this...Kerry was also NOT a better choice.

The fact is that more Americans, period, thought Bush was the better choice, the lesser of two evils, and many Kerry supporters contributed to him looking even worse.

I think Americans are smart. They voted smartly.
 
Last edited:
U2_Guy said:


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That's your opinion. You do realize this, right? You don't presume you can force your opinion on everybody else, right? You do give people credit and leeway, right? You're not the only smart person in this world, right?

They had their reasons for voting Bush and they sincerely believed in them, and they felt strongly about them. I believe they voted for the best pres...and yes, I voted for Kerry. I just really began to see that Kerry really is weaker as I watched him during the elections.

*Sigh* I was just stuck right in the middle. There WAS no better alternative. I have hope for the next elections.

I believe most Americans voted the best they could. They voted smartly. They voted for themselves. They didn't need your support.
 
Last edited:
The idea of civil unions exists and is promoted by many people who don't support the "redefining of marriage." There are people who support these unions but don't want traditonal marriage to be redefined. Maybe they want to keep tradition, sort of like the issue of the pledge, In God We Trust. People who don't like change especially if an option is already open to gay couples.

There are also religious people (even in evangelical circles) who preach that whole love the sinner hate the sin idea. They may seem like a mythical group but they do exist. Many of these religious groups consider homosexuality as sin. (I'm not going to argue pro-con for that issue or whether its even Biblical b/c I'm not trying to make that point) but try to be loving/ accepting towards these people. Does that make them a biggot if they "disagree" but are repspectful and friendly? Bigot is a very negative word.

There are also people against the issue of homosexual marriage b/c maybe they don't even believe the institution of marriage should receive any type of tax credits, etc. "ITs already bad enough now, why open it up even further by increasing the membership in that group."

Are all of the above bigots? I just can't see it that way. There isn't some kind of absolute intolerance by every person.
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:
The idea of civil unions exists and is promoted by many people who don't support the "redefining of marriage." There are people who support these unions but don't want traditonal marriage to be redefined. Maybe they want to keep tradition, sort of like the issue of the pledge, In God We Trust. People who don't like change especially if an option is already open to gay couples.

There are also religious people (even in evangelical circles) who preach that whole love the sinner hate the sin idea. They may seem like a mythical group but they do exist. Many of these religious groups consider homosexuality as sin. (I'm not going to argue pro-con for that issue or whether its even Biblical b/c I'm not trying to make that point) but try to be loving/ accepting towards these people. Does that make them a biggot if they "disagree" but are repspectful and friendly? Bigot is a very negative word.

There are also people against the issue of homosexual marriage b/c maybe they don't even believe the institution of marriage should receive any type of tax credits, etc. "ITs already bad enough now, why open it up even further by increasing the membership in that group."

Are all of the above bigots? I just can't see it that way. There isn't some kind of absolute intolerance by every person.

You are SO correct, and I'm an example of what you are talking about, and I know MANY people like you describe who "hate the sin but love the sinner" no matter what!
 
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.
 
U2Traveller said:


You are SO correct, and I'm an example of what you are talking about, and I know MANY people like you describe who "hate the sin but love the sinner" no matter what!


so, every time a gay man falls in love with another gay man, or a lesbian with another lesbian, this is a sin? how? what is sinful about love?

the problem many people have is they think homosexuality is purely about sex. sex comprises as big a part in a homosexual relationship as it does in a heterosexual one. there's also love, and trust, and friendship, and all the other things that go into any human relationship. this is what homosexuality is, and i cannot understand how that is sinful.
 
Diemen said:
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.


:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

it's not about cultural norms, it is about legal rights.
 
Hm. Psychologically, I don´t know what to make of that.

Icky, and risky..

What is icky and risky, in American surroundings? I mean, every average middle-class American has 2 cars, 3 TVs, a house and a job. Where´s the icky and risky part when it comes to voting?

Is it that the neighborhood will talk bad of you? Is it that you fear the FBI who will check whether you´re a terrorist if you meet with friends to discuss politics every weekend? Is it that they are afraid of the extreme right, like the KKK? Is it that they have fear of not being respected at the church? Is it that they have fear of losing their face?

I really try to understand those people from a psychological point of view, because (sorry to say so, its not meant as a criticism, just as a fact) many Americans are really less open-minded than some Europeans.

Europeans will bark up every tree, no matter what. You see, we are used to protests, used to people having other opinions; we are used to clashing troops, to oppositions. We never were as afraid of communists as the Americans. Maybe because we had them right around the corner.

Americans generally buy what politicians and the media serve them (also this is not meant as criticism, but as a fact) - they have been watching more TV for decades; for example I doubt that a channel like Fox would have success in Europe, people just wouldn´t buy that high grade of manipulation. In Europe, the leaders rather tend to get critical people in all kinds of alternative movements as long as those don´t pose a real threat to the exisiting power system, so people can blow their steam off, rather than doing something useful.

But let´s get back to the point. I also think most Americans have more fear.

I will always remember when a guy from Vegas told me that everytime he sees a plane, he fears that it crashes into one of those superduper motels. I was like, what? That´s not a military target. Not an economical target. Who the fuck cares for the MGM Grand?

A European would never think so. If I think of the potential terrorist targets in my city, well ok, there´s the U.N., the airport, some governmental buildings - but that´s about it. No terrorist is interested in blowing up a skyscaper which is half as high as the average New York doghouse.

I will also remember an American woman this summer who told me that "the conservaties are right, no matter what". I have heard lots of opinions like that, not just one, without quoting them all here, I can surely agree that some Americans are stubborn (hey, we´re all stubborn, so take it easy).

I can also recall many threads here where fellow FYMers always feel personally attacked, when they weren´t attacked personally! It´s just like a crybaby mentality "oh yeah sure, we´re the bad ones, we´re all so stupid, myyyy".

Until the present day I have not been able to figure out if that´s tactics in order to get a psycho band-aid and to weaken potential criticizers, or if that´s what they really feel - because they often feel so without any real reason.

Generally, we can conclude that many Americans don´t deal with criticism like Europeans.

Some Europeans (arguably a bigger percentage than Americans, excluding young European Neo-Nazis who will rather smash your head, and many people who - also in Europe - don´t give a shit about politics) will be eager to discuss, to inform, to show you that their point is the right point. They always hope that you change your mind.

Typically the American, at some point, will just retreat because either you have hurt his holy life model, or because he is sick of the discussion and wants to turn on the telly, eat a BigMac and watch his children play basketball instead of dealing with a crook like you - but in the back of his mind he will think "Wait until I get the chance to show you my middle finger".

So, actually the question I pose is:

How can people, who are (just a little) stubborn, full of fear, proud of the social values they have inherited, who have no interest in changing their mind or even discussing about it, and who will follow most of what their leader says - how can those people be influenced, without making it too "icky and risky" to change their mind?
 
Diemen said:
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.

Look, I'm not denying there are issues with some propositions. States all vary. I was diasagreeing with the throwing around the word bigot. And looking at how you're approaching the word bigot, the majority of people complaining about religious people/ repubs who voted Bush as being dumb, foolish, not smart, etc.... then there are bigots all around.

The word bigot is an inflammatory word if not offensive as hell.
 
Diemen said:
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

Perhaps if we address the concept of domestic arrangements in a broad sense, legal rights could be adequately defined and addressed. There are plenty of couples out there who could benefit - regardless of sexual orientation.

As many have suggested, when you try to shove an idea down someone's throat, people will choke. SF Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't exactly help the cause with his actions.
 
I'm not intending to throw it around casually, nor am I suggesting that anyone who voted for Bush is a bigot - I think my definition is pretty specific, actually.

If you turn your belief into a law, or are in favor of a law that would infringe upon or deny equal rights to another because of their sexual orientation, then you are a bigot.
 
nbcrusader said:



As many have suggested, when you try to shove an idea down someone's throat, people will choke. SF Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't exactly help the cause with his actions.


sadly, this is *exactly* what happened. based upon the exit polls that showed republican voters putting "moral values" at the top of their voting agenda, and a Republican platform "moral values" agenda that was carefully constructed around opposition to gay marriage (or even civil unions), abortion, and stem cell research, it is clear that these issues won GWB the election.

how these issues trump Iraq, health care, and the economy ... i don't know. maybe a Bush voter who voted on the above "moral values" can explain it to us. because the Blue States -- i live in Washington, DC and we went 90% for Kerry -- as well as the rest of the Western world would really like to know.
 
When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.

Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc... Of course, I know a lot of people support the rights of those who believe in such things, but I don't... Does that make me a bigot? I guess from that assessment, I am. Hey, maybe I shouldn't be arguing about the use of the word bigot.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
As many have suggested, when you try to shove an idea down someone's throat, people will choke. SF Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't exactly help the cause with his actions.

That brings up an interesting point. A friend of mine believes that if Massachusetts and San Francisco waited until after the election to bring the issue of gay marriage to the forefront, then Kerry probably would have won. I'm inclined to agree with him.
 
Again.... IMO people are overrating the morals issues. The exit polls also showed Kerry stomping Bush in this election. To some degree, especially, today... I don't think moral values were the main issue. It may have contributed to Kerry's loss but to say Bush won primarily b/c of morals is just too simplistic, just as people who are being pretty offensive are over-generalizing the intelligence, the mindset of the Bush voter.

Pundits and the media need something to latch onto in order to explain how Bush won considering the year he was having. Hell, I'm surprised to some degree that Bush won, and how he won rather convincingly.
 
Flying FuManchu said:


Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc... Of course, I know a lot of people support the rights of those who believe in such things, but I don't...

:eyebrow:

Please tell me you're not honestly comparing homosexuality to beastiality.
 
Flying FuManchu said:


Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc...


comparing homosexuality to crimes is quite insulting.

the difference is that no one is harmed by a homosexual relationship, whereas beastiality and incest involve acts that are harmful because at least one of those involved is unable to give consent -- your dog cannot consent -- or has been forbidden by law due to the high rate of birth defects. in those situations, someone is clearly harmed by the act.

as for polygamy ... in all honesty, the libertarian in me says "why not?" but as it stands, marriage has always been between 2 people. it also bothers me the words "redefining" marriage. why don't we call it "expanding" marriage.

the right wing does this well, defining the terms of the debate. for example, abortion. really, there are two sides: pro-choice and anti-choice, since the issue isn't about whether abortion is wrong or whether or not a fetus is human life but about whether or not it should be legal.
 
Diemen said:


:eyebrow:

Please tell me you're not honestly comparing homosexuality to beastiality.

I would doubt that FuManchu is making the comparison.

The underlying issue is how do we address the numerous laws that restrict personal freedoms based on some sort of moral code. How can we reconcil that on a consistant basis?
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Hm. Psychologically, I don´t know what to make of that.

Icky, and risky..

What is icky and risky, in American surroundings? I mean, every average middle-class American has 2 cars, 3 TVs, a house and a job. Where´s the icky and risky part when it comes to voting?

Is it that the neighborhood will talk bad of you? Is it that you fear the FBI who will check whether you´re a terrorist if you meet with friends to discuss politics every weekend? Is it that they are afraid of the extreme right, like the KKK? Is it that they have fear of not being respected at the church? Is it that they have fear of losing their face?

I really try to understand those people from a psychological point of view, because (sorry to say so, its not meant as a criticism, just as a fact) many Americans are really less open-minded than some Europeans.

Europeans will bark up every tree, no matter what. You see, we are used to protests, used to people having other opinions; we are used to clashing troops, to oppositions. We never were as afraid of communists as the Americans. Maybe because we had them right around the corner.

Americans generally buy what politicians and the media serve them (also this is not meant as criticism, but as a fact) - they have been watching more TV for decades; for example I doubt that a channel like Fox would have success in Europe, people just wouldn´t buy that high grade of manipulation. In Europe, the leaders rather tend to get critical people in all kinds of alternative movements as long as those don´t pose a real threat to the exisiting power system, so people can blow their steam off, rather than doing something useful.

But let´s get back to the point. I also think most Americans have more fear.

I will always remember when a guy from Vegas told me that everytime he sees a plane, he fears that it crashes into one of those superduper motels. I was like, what? That´s not a military target. Not an economical target. Who the fuck cares for the MGM Grand?

A European would never think so. If I think of the potential terrorist targets in my city, well ok, there´s the U.N., the airport, some governmental buildings - but that´s about it. No terrorist is interested in blowing up a skyscaper which is half as high as the average New York doghouse.

I will also remember an American woman this summer who told me that "the conservaties are right, no matter what". I have heard lots of opinions like that, not just one, without quoting them all here, I can surely agree that some Americans are stubborn (hey, we´re all stubborn, so take it easy).

I can also recall many threads here where fellow FYMers always feel personally attacked, when they weren´t attacked personally! It´s just like a crybaby mentality "oh yeah sure, we´re the bad ones, we´re all so stupid, myyyy".

Until the present day I have not been able to figure out if that´s tactics in order to get a psycho band-aid and to weaken potential criticizers, or if that´s what they really feel - because they often feel so without any real reason.

Generally, we can conclude that many Americans don´t deal with criticism like Europeans.

Some Europeans (arguably a bigger percentage than Americans, excluding young European Neo-Nazis who will rather smash your head, and many people who - also in Europe - don´t give a shit about politics) will be eager to discuss, to inform, to show you that their point is the right point. They always hope that you change your mind.

Typically the American, at some point, will just retreat because either you have hurt his holy life model, or because he is sick of the discussion and wants to turn on the telly, eat a BigMac and watch his children play basketball instead of dealing with a crook like you - but in the back of his mind he will think "Wait until I get the chance to show you my middle finger".

So, actually the question I pose is:

How can people, who are (just a little) stubborn, full of fear, proud of the social values they have inherited, who have no interest in changing their mind or even discussing about it, and who will follow most of what their leader says - how can those people be influenced, without making it too "icky and risky" to change their mind?

Lol. Your conclusion is funny if I don't agree with your description of the people.

Perhaps by having a truly good candidate, bottom-line. Then most would even overlook their supporters. I did, but that's because I am a risk-taker. But, it WAS a big risk to vote for Kerry. I think, bottom-line, the only problem was that Kerry just wasn't good enough.

I believe that Kerry is probably wondering that about himself at one point or another, too.
 
Diemen said:


That brings up an interesting point. A friend of mine believes that if Massachusetts and San Francisco waited until after the election to bring the issue of gay marriage to the forefront, then Kerry probably would have won. I'm inclined to agree with him.

This, I believe, goes to the point of how the left frames their arguments. The practice of "you're a bigot, prove me wrong" won't win one vote. Looking at the ultimate goal and describing it in such a way that you get cross cultural buy-in will bring you an election.
 
Diemen said:
I'm not intending to throw it around casually, nor am I suggesting that anyone who voted for Bush is a bigot - I think my definition is pretty specific, actually.

If you turn your belief into a law, or are in favor of a law that would infringe upon or deny equal rights to another because of their sexual orientation, then you are a bigot.

No, you're not. That's just too cut and dried. I don't believe that most people who voted for Bush went there just to vote on these other amendments. They went to vote for Bush, PERIOD. They had something to say and they said it, just like everybody else. Period. Nothing about bigotry. Those issues just happened to be on some ballots. I know that it was NO BIG ISSUE HERE!!! Maybe they should've made it a bigger one.
 
No... but its about the issue of relationships and people's rights... Its taking what you said about, "When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this." That can't be a good use/standard of the word bigot.
 
Irvine511 said:



sadly, this is *exactly* what happened. based upon the exit polls that showed republican voters putting "moral values" at the top of their voting agenda, and a Republican platform "moral values" agenda that was carefully constructed around opposition to gay marriage (or even civil unions), abortion, and stem cell research, it is clear that these issues won GWB the election.

how these issues trump Iraq, health care, and the economy ... i don't know. maybe a Bush voter who voted on the above "moral values" can explain it to us. because the Blue States -- i live in Washington, DC and we went 90% for Kerry -- as well as the rest of the Western world would really like to know.

No, Kerry being a bad candidate lost the election. Stop trying to blame everyone else.
 
U2Traveller said:


No, you're not. That's just too cut and dried. I don't believe that most people who voted for Bush went there just to vote on these other amendments. They went to vote for Bush, PERIOD. They had something to say and they said it, just like everybody else. Period. Nothing about bigotry. Those issues just happened to be on some ballots. I know that it was NO BIG ISSUE HERE!!! Maybe they should've made it a bigger one.

Excuse me, but where did I say that most people who voted for bush went to vote mainly for the other amendments? Oh that's right, I didn't say that. I am specifically addressing the issue of these amendments (and if you had read the first paragraph of what you quoted, you'd realize that).

Although you can't deny that the Republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue to energize their base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom