What do you think about the results of the elections?

[DaFrench]

Jsut wondering .... BEcause, you know, we in what you're calling the "Old Europe" it's so surprising for us to see Bush being chosen !!! Electing somebody who hardly speak English and who confesses he doesn't know whether Spain has a president or not for instance, it's just thundersticken !
For instance, a 79% of French people is they were asked to would have chosen KErry ; and the

Econonomist, a British magazin, has issued a magazin with on the frontcover " The incompetent or the incoherent? "

Anyway, i don't blame anyone for this, i was just asking myself about the deeply-rooted reasons. By the way, I forefelt Bush to win, éhéhé .... coz i've spent a couple of there in the Us this summer in a host family, and i discovered the country from the inside .... very interesting anyway

[Sprachbund]

I'm happy. Having turned 18 in September, I voted for the first time in that election, and my presidential vote went to Bush.

Why?

Well, let's face it, he's not perfect. Certainly not. But he was a much better choice than the alternative. I think one of the main reasons Bush won is because of his stance on **morals**. The problem with modern-day Democrats, Kerry being a good example of one, is that they do not convey from themselves a sense of traditional Christian morals, something which people in the "red states" (and many in the blue states) tend to associate very closely with. By "traditional morals", I mean...

1. Opposition to abortion
2. Opposition to gay marriage
3. Support of God in the public square (something many liberals seem to be afraid of doing)
4. (other things)

Not so much the War on Iraq, something which is arguable (whether it was Christian or not) in the first place. The simple thing is that Americans in general do not want to be led under a president who they conceive as being "progressive" or contra-Judeo-Christian beliefs.

[Crossfire]

I too am extremely happy with the results of the election.

And I subscribe to the Economist, it is my favorite magazine.The front cover title, the incompetent or the incoherent referred to Bush and Kerry respectivly, not purely to bush.

Referring to world opinion, France was not alone in it's favoring of John Kerry as you can see here http://www.theworldvotes.org/index.php?nid=876&newsid=174
and here
http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/

Bush gets 6% and 9% respectivly.

[DaFrench]

Crossfire>>> I ve just forgotten to notice that it referred to both of them, i thaught i did

[Sassy]

Disappointed, and a little bit worried.

[silver_knight]

3. Support of God in the public square (something many liberals seem to be afraid of doing)

Hah! I find that a little backwards since this country was based on the belief of freedom of religion.

[Sprachbund]

Hah! I find that a little backwards since this country was based on the belief of freedom of religion.
No, hah! from me. That's what it is; freedom of religion - being able to speak of that aspect of your life freely, rather than keeping it under some kind of precarious veil. Many liberal politicians are afraid to speak of God or anything religious in public - not necessarily to enforce their religion, but just to talk about it. It seems that in, or at least among the elite of our society, speaking of your relationship with Christ or giving thanks to God is a one-way ticket to hillbillydom. Bush was far more comfortable with religion than Kerry, as Clinton was, although Kerry did mention God at times.

[diogenes]

Bush offends most of us who actually think and use reason in making choices. He (or more appropriately his 'brain', Karl Rove) did a brillant job first of confusing the issues of this election, and then convincing 55% of the voters that the reality the Repubs where selling was in fact accurate.

The idea that the Reds actually are more 'moral' than the Blues is a masterful distortion and deception. What energized the Reds was a narrow definition of morality, specifically sexual morality (Gays, abortion). But what about the morality of lying to the nation in order to justify a war? What about those tax cuts for the rich? And the spending cuts for the needy, like school lunch for the poor? How 'moral' is that?

The Dems are right not to talk about God and religion in public: It's called Seperaton Of Church and State, it's in the Constitution, and it's worked for over 200 years. Go look at Iran and see what happens when the 2 become one.

I'm okay with morality and all, I just value honesty and integrity more. What the Reds did was just pander to fear in order to win to push thru their agenda. And we'll see if it has anything at all to do with such lofty goals as 'morality'.

[Spanky]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/17/politics/main656345.shtml

thats what i think about the result. Good luck America- please dont bring the rest of the world down with you

[DeathbyJupiter]

Dissapointed but optmistic. The next election lookls like it might be good, possibly resulting in a McCain presidency.

[Crossfire]

I am hopeful that bush can push tax reform through. Changing the Supreme Court would be great too. We need some strict constructionalists in there to rule social programs unconstitutional, which they are.

[Sassy]

Actually, his appointing an ultra conservative to the supreme court is highly unlikely as congress said they would not approve.

[Crossfire]

Actually, his appointing an ultra conservative to the supreme court is highly unlikely as congress said they would not approve.I've still got my hopes. :)

[Sassy]

The fact that it's very unlikely for him to mess up the supreme court or women's rights really take away my worry about his last term. As long as he can't hurt the country's future too much I'm okay with him being in office.

[Sprachbund]

The fact that it's very unlikely for him to mess up the supreme court or women's rights really take away my worry about his last term. As long as he can't hurt the country's future too much I'm okay with him being in office.
You mean "abortion rights"? That gets at it better. "Womens' rights" sounds so just. But what you are speaking of is merely the right of a mother to kill her child. And that I hope Bush, through his appointments, will do something to help end.

[Sassy]

Nope, I don't mean "abortion rights", I mean all that Women's rights encompass. Broaden your knowledge a bit before you try to name call others.


Oh and by the way, Bush has neither the right nor the power to do anything to abortion. Even his partial birth abortion ban didn't pass. If he couldn't stop abortions after the second trimester, why do you think he could affect the majority of abortions?

[Crossfire]

Even his partial birth abortion ban didn't pass.Yes, I do believe it did... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html

[Sassy]

That was over a year ago. It did not pass.

Plus, remember that Bush was speaking there, he is well known for misspeaking.

[Crossfire]

You're not understanding...

Bush SIGNED the BILL, making it LAW.

Here's a picture of the event if you need further proof. :) http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/PBAsigning.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/PBAsigning_whitehouse_photo.html&h=274&w=410&sz=35&tbnid=I6e6Iwsmjt8J:&tbnh=80&tbnw=119&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpartial%2Bbirth%2Babortion%2Bban%26hl %3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN

[Sassy]

It did not allow for the mother's health. It was repealed as being unconstitutional. Bush's signing it means nothing.

[Sprachbund]

Nope, I don't mean "abortion rights", I mean all that Women's rights encompass. Broaden your knowledge a bit before you try to name call others.


Oh and by the way, Bush has neither the right nor the power to do anything to abortion. Even his partial birth abortion ban didn't pass. If he couldn't stop abortions after the second trimester, why do you think he could affect the majority of abortions?
I've visited NOW many times, so have an idea of the other things they call "women's rights". But beyond abortion, not much is of too much political substance...e.g. Title IX, Welfare Reform (which isn't really a women's rights issue), Pay Equity...really, neither Bush nor the Supreme Court can do much about these things...do you really think they are going to become major judicial issues. They could, but I don't think so. And it's not like Bush is going to bring back male-only suffrage...

BTW...I believe it passed...but it was revoked because it didn't include a provision for women's life or health or something. (In the case of health, interpreted via Roe V. Wade, it's possible that a woman could get an abortion because her pregnancy would have a bad effect on her social life through this examption).

[diogenes]

I'm glad that some of y'all can't vote yet! It's real easy to compartmentalize issues and just vote based on one or two issues which stir your emotion. Unfortunately being the leader of the country (and the Free World) requires the abiities that G seems to proudly lack: Flexibility, accomodation, and the ability to think in nuance. And the willingness to to listen. Nobody knows everything, nobody is infalliable. Funny how the Reds use 'religion' when it serves they're political ends. True Believers are humble servants. Who see value in reaching out and helping.

I like all the checks and balances in our system, it keeps things MODERATE. I'm afraid that those cherished values, like true freedom, will be eroded. Nothing ruins freedom like the imposition of one's values on another.

I'm glad I've never encountered an unwanted pregnancy. But man, if I did, I surely wouldn't want the government to tell me what I can and cannot do. If you're against abortion, don;t have one. But keep your values to yourself.

[hey1000]

the only thing supprising is that kerry got 49% and not less

[Mecher]

The Dems are right not to talk about God and religion in public: It's called Seperaton Of Church and State, it's in the Constitution, and it's worked for over 200 years. Go look at Iran and see what happens when the 2 become one.


Where is it in the Constitution that says the Church must be seperated from the State?

[Africa]

Where is it in the Constitution that says the Church must be seperated from the State? I believe it is in the first amendment. No?

[optid]

I believe it is in the first amendment. No?
It's interesting that some Brits are better informed on this than many Americans. It's in the very first clause of the first amendment.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. They were strongly opposed to the idea of a "state religion" which existed in European countries at the time.

Here's some background on the "establishment of religion" clause.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html

[crazydude88]

Maybe I am a backwards country boy but im glad Bush won. First off with the war in Iraq i'd supported it no matter what saddam broke treaties and the world was just going to let him go. Next on the deficit when i read studies from the United States Taxpayer Association they belived Keryy would of increased it by almost a trillion more than Bush would while Kerry raised taxes. Next Kerry has done nothing really most of his proposed laws have been shot down he flip floped on issues and still some how people thought he'd be a good president. On morals i aggre with both alot of the Democrats and the Republicans morals, I'm for a womens right to chose and gay marrige, but i think people should be able to talk about their religion as long as its not discriminating against another religion when ever they want where they want.

[optid]

Next on the deficit when i read studies from the United States Taxpayer Association they belived Keryy would of increased it by almost a trillion more than Bush would while Kerry raised taxes.
You don't increase the deficit by increasing taxes. do'h!

Anybody who supported Bush because they think he is going to decrease the budget deficit is gonna be sooooooo disappointed.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39791000/gif/_39791523_us_budget_deficit2_gra416.gif

The last Democratic president to increase the deficit was Lyndon Johnson back in the mid 1960s. And even that was a little girly-man sized increase by today's standards.
Even Nobel Peace Prize winning President Jimmy Carter, one of the Republicans' favorite scapegoats, left office with the deficit no worse that it was when he was inaugurated.
On the other hand, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes borrowed and spent like drunken sailors*.
Bill Clinton left us with over a $230 billion surplus. But we may have to wait until another Clinton is in the White House before all that red ink is replaced by black. (Yes, Chelsea in 2020!)

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif


If the budget deficit wasn't bad enough, the sinking dollar is causing Asian banks to think twice about financing it. Even Indonesia is worried about the dollar.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=&sid=avCV1rRGSBpg


* My apologies to drunken sailors. :)

[Mr. Apathetic]

To begin with, I pretty much hate Bush beyond all reason. Now I'm not a stupid trend whore or anything that just thinks "OMFG WELL (insert celebrity here) HATES DUBYA! I...MUST...FOLLOW." I genuinely believe he has achieved nothing in his first term that wasn't counterbalanced by:

-Killing them nukular ayrab turrists
-The goddamn tax cuts
-The USA PATRIOT Act

I'm sure you've all heard about the first two through-and-through. However, you probably don't know about the USA PATRIOT act. It essentially lets the government list you as a suspected terrorist (read "free-thinking liberal") and spies on you. Your medical, educational, and credit card records become the government's bitch in the name of protecting the land of the free and home of the brave. How free are we, though, if credit card companies hand over your records and aren't allowed to tell you?