Bush wins.... what now?

RE*AC*TOR

Well, on a positive note... remember all those great vietnam movies? Chances are we'll have a new source for similar material.

Memnoch

Bard wrote:

At the moment, according to BBC News, it's BUSH 254 - KERRY 252.

Doesn't look over to me. Looks like it all hangs on Ohio...

that figure is misleading because in the state of Ohio which has 20 electoral votes, Bush is in the lead with 140,000 votes with 99% of precints having "reported in".

The issue of contention is the "provisional ballots" where Bush's thugs stopped black people from casting a proper vote by "challenging them"

supposedly there is something like 200,000-250,000 of those.

The only way kerry can "win" is if he can get all of those counted, and Bush will be doing everything to prevent that.

And IF they ARE counted THEN pretty much ALL of them need to go to Kerry.

For both of the above to be true its likely that the courts will be involved and if it comes down to it, it will be a supreme court decision, which WILL hand the victory to Bush.

So really it IS over.

Hairy Homer

meepmeep wrote:

Yup, Bush winning the popular vote means the argument of 2000 on popular vote against electoral college vote is obsolete, seeing as he has won both this time.

One of the tightest election results of all time was JFK's victory over Nixon in 1960. Kennedy is largely remembered fondly as a great president. (OK there's a huge resentment in some quarters of his parvenu wealth and his kid-in-a- sweetshop attitude to women,but in general he was deemed a success) .

One of the biggest landslides was Nixon over McGovern in 1972. Two years later Nixon was forced out of office and it's hard to find an American who would have voted in that era who will say anything nice about him.

I really think the world is a scarier place with Bush in charge. More wars. More media brainwashing. And a more confrontational approach to Europe who will probably emerge as the counterweight to American global dominance.

That debate will have huge and bitter ramifications here as we are on the boundary between US and Europe and we have America's greatest lickspittle (Britain) separating us from the continent. Are we really closer to Boston than Berlin? Do we want to side with the US against our European allies?

We are a 'swing state' in the struggle for global dominance. The debate as to which flavour of democracy we want here: European Social Democracy or American Neoconservatism will be long and bitter.

Time to keep our heads.

Memnoch

hairy homer you paint a scary picture but I think it will be a good few years before it comes to that!

meepmeep

Bard wrote:

Doesn't look over to me. Looks like it all hangs on Ohio...

It does, but Bush is winning by more than 140,000 votes there, with 99% or so of the votes counted.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Or, perhaps more relevantly, doesn't it mean that should Kerry pull a miracle and actually get the election then many boards.ie members who supported him would have to also complain about how he was unfairly elected

jc

and while we're at it, maybe we shouldn't be calling voters who democratically voted for Bush moronic either... as in the other thread.
How can the people of the most powerfull country in the world be morons??

There has to be an inate skill and inteligence to have achieved that position or if the Bush voters are morons then the rest of the world must be even bigger morons for being incapable of challenging U.S supremacy.

Incidently my Moms first cousins live in the states and voted en masse for the Bush cheney ticket simply on the abortion and stem cell issue.
They also admire his charm charisma and christian values.
It wouldn't have figured in my choice.
They are older generation and devout but it's interesting that they have been telling me that many many younger voters share their values.

Thats not moronic, it's principal.
They're also well aware that even with a democratic president some of the things they may have disquiet about on the Bush ticket would still be there

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

and while we're at it, maybe we shouldn't be calling voters who democratically voted for Bush moronic either... as in the other thread.
How can the people of the most powerfull country in the world be morons??

There has to be an inate skill and inteligence to have achieved that position or if the Bush voters are morons then the rest of the world must be even bigger morons for being incapable of challenging U.S supremacy.

Incidently my Moms first cousins live in the states and voted en masse for the Bush cheney ticket simply on the abortion and stem cell issue.
They also admire his charm charisma and christian values.
It wouldn't have figured in my choice.
They are older generation and devout but it's interesting that they have been telling me that many many younger voters share their values.

Thats not moronic, it's principal.
They're also well aware that even with a democratic president some of the things they may have disquiet about on the Bush ticket would still be there

Allowing a religious stance to influence your choice of candidate is bordering on moronic. Principal me fáinne!

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

and while we're at it, maybe we shouldn't be calling voters who democratically voted for Bush moronic either... as in the other thread.
How can the people of the most powerfull country in the world be morons??

There has to be an inate skill and inteligence to have achieved that position or if the Bush voters are morons then the rest of the world must be even bigger morons for being incapable of challenging U.S supremacy.

Incidently my Moms first cousins live in the states and voted en masse for the Bush cheney ticket simply on the abortion and stem cell issue.
They also admire his charm charisma and christian values.
It wouldn't have figured in my choice.
They are older generation and devout but it's interesting that they have been telling me that many many younger voters share their values.

Thats not moronic, it's principal.
They're also well aware that even with a democratic president some of the things they may have disquiet about on the Bush ticket would still be there

religion is an issue of personal belief, they want to practise their religion fine. But to vote for someone to try and force their beliefs eg. gay-marriage upon others IS moronic, AND wrong. They don't like gay-marriage, fine don't marry a gay person. But they have no right to tell other people to not get married because they are gay.

this kind of homophobic attitude is not only shocking but also ridiculously stupid. I'm not even getting into the abortion and stem-cells issue because thats a whole other kettle of fish.

If tomorow someone was elected to run a country because his religious belief was that slavery should be reintroduced what that also be principal?

vorbis

Blub2k4 wrote:

Allowing a religious stance to influence your choice of candidate is bordering on moronic. Principal me fáinne!

now thats just an idiotic comment. why shouldn't a person's religious views influence their vote? For some people their religous beliefs define their values. A s such they only want to vore for candidates reflecting those values.

ixoy

Memnoch wrote:

religion is an issue of personal belief, they want to practise their religion fine. But to vote for someone to try and force their beliefs eg. gay-marriage upon others IS moronic, AND wrong. They don't like gay-marriage, fine don't marry a gay person. But they have no right to tell other people to not get married because they are gay.

Exactly! This is why I almost shake with fury at their pronouncements. How DARE they impose their value system on others. That's why I wanted Kerry to win most of all - he made it clear, in the debates, that he wouldn't impose his religion on others and respect their choice. Bush never did that. Now I'm well aware how the Church had its role, constituionally embeddded at that, in our State but surely that gives us an ever better insight into just how wrong it is.

Hairy Homer

Memnoch wrote:

hairy homer you paint a scary picture but I think it will be a good few years before it comes to that!

As General de Gaulle said: 'Geography is the constant factor in the making of history'

It has been our curse that we are on the western boundary of one of the world's great powers over the past four hundred years. As Britain wasn't able to colonise us successfully and bring us into the United Kingdom fold, we have always been the most antagonistic of her ethnic minority subjects.

That was a glaring strategic weakness which Britain's powerful allies down through the centuries were keen to exploit: The Spanish in the 16th century (Kinsale and all that), the French in the 17th and 18th (St Ruth, Humbert etc etc.) The Germans in the early part of the 20th (Roger Casement, Howth gun running etc) and the Soviets and Arab potentates in the latter part of the 20th. (Suppliers of weaponry to the stickies and provisionals respectively)

At the end of the day, Britain wants to retain strategic control over Ireland not because of what we will do to her, but because of what somebody else might do to us, and then come knocking on Britain's western flank.

The Peace Process in the North is a dividend of the end of the Cold War. With no major power threatening Britain, its strategic interest in Ireland has diminished. All that we were left to do was work through the bitterness and rancour caused by 30 years of civil war, which by and large up north we have done.

Now, times are changing. America is the world's most powerful military power. There is no rival willing to take it on except a bunch of Islamic fanatics. World opinion on how to proceed is divided. Inevitably, there will be a counterweight power emerging to challenge America.

It could be China.
It could be the rest of Asia, ie India Korea etc
But it is more likely to be the EU.

Now, instead of being the crumbling back door into one of the major Western powers in the Great East v West divide, we will be on the front line between the US and Europe.

Britain has made its position clear. It has NEVER been comfortable as part of Europe. Even in its imperial heyday, it stayed aloof and concentrated on an empire overseas. It is clearly in America's camp.

We don't have too many happy memories of the British Empire. We did far better as a sovereign nation in the EU than we ever did as an integral part of the United Kingdom. We have yet to lose a million people to starvation since we joined the EU for a start.

So there will be some reluctance to throw our hat into the US-UK ring.

As against that, we are one of America's most prolific and influential mother countries. MAny of them are our own seed and breed. We speak the same language and share many values and aspirations.

In short, our population is going to be ideologically divided, and the arguments pumped out by the media will be shrill. Most of them will be Pro-American, and anti-European. And as they proclaim these arguments, they will shriek about the 'liberal left-wing media elite' the 'educated chattering classes of Dublin 4 and Dublin 6 who wasted so much tax payers money at college just picking up weird unrealistic esoteric philosophies' and the 'evil terrorists' who use drainpipe mortars against massive armies equipped with billion dollar planes, tanks and warships.

Watch them. Myers, Harris, Steyn, Waters, and all their attendant groupies in the Times, Indo and Sindo.

We're in for some rough times ahead, folks.

Let's keep it civil or it will be civil war.

seamus

meepmeep wrote:

Yup, Bush winning the popular vote means the argument of 2000 on popular vote against electoral college vote is obsolete, seeing as he has won both this time.

I disagree. Every time Bush goes on about his love of Democracy, we can continue to point to 2000 and how he was a hypocrite for not stepping down, if he loves democracy so much. But yes, the "Bush wasn't even elected by the American people" argument does fall by the wayside now.

Memnoch

but surely geography being the key thing if there was ever an issue of "war" it would be very difficult for britain to side with america due to being on europe's doorstep. Yes off course america projects its military might all over the world. But i'm sure even Britain would find itself greatly divided on this issue. Yes the "euro-skepticism" in britain is increasing, but one would feel that as a majoritythe british population are more left leaning and this should only increase as time progresses.

RE*AC*TOR

That's it! I'm done with reality!

MG

Hairy Homer wrote:

Time to keep our heads.

I agree. This might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I believe that the PNAC and the policies of the Bush administration are doomed to failure. Iraq is a quagmire which won't improve in the short term, tours of duty are being increased, Soldiers are being killed, the budget is running a deficit yet taxes to pay for the war are being decreased, international isolation etc. Had Kerry won (it looks unlikely) he would have been faced with the same problems and the PNAC types who grew in opposition without real responsibility during the Clinton era would remain. Now they have to deal with these problems.

I think the Bush presidency has been a failure on both economic and security issues. It got some artificial boosts and has propped itself up with fear. There is no government in a democracy which can rule based on fear. Sooner, not later, people will yearn for hope and will discard the message of fear of the PNAC/Bush administration. Like taking a course of antibiotics, it may require us to finish off the whole course for us to get better. A second term may well destroy the militarist, right wing, socially conservatives of the PNAC/Bush administration for good, something a victory from Kerry would not have.

bonkey

Blub2k4 wrote:

Allowing a religious stance to influence your choice of candidate is bordering on moronic.

Yes, that seems to be the general consensus of anyone who is either not particularly religious, who's religious convictions aren't particularly strong, or who's religion influences in a different direction.

Every time I hear comments like that, I keep thinking back to Carl Sagan's Contact (the book moreso than the movie, but its in both) where Ellie is asked whether or not she believes in God, and she says that she doesn't see the relevance. The answer is that surely in a world where over 90% of the population do believe in a God, that it is only right they should be represented by someone sharing that belief.

There's an awful lot of people who allow their religious beliefs to sway them in one way or another. I'd go so far as to say its the majority (although it mightn't be the majority on any single issue). In a democratic society, how can the wishes of the majority (to be influenced by their religion) be wrong, let alone moronic?

jc

Memnoch

also i wouldn't be so sure of the whole "counter-balance" issue. There is no guarentee that any of the other "blocks" will develop into a "super power" that will challenge america's dominance.

The oil is going to start running out very soon, and I believe america will flex its mucsles once more to exert greater control. Europe might subserve america as long as it keeps getting a slice of the cake.

China however with its constantly growing demand will probably not get to join the "club" and is much more likely to have the motivation to challenge America's dominance as it were.

Not to mention I can't imagine the democrats in america being happy about fighting a "liberal" europe.

Chinese "communists" maybe.

narommy

Blub2k4 wrote:

Allowing a religious stance to influence your choice of candidate is bordering on moronic. Principal me fáinne!

Religion is a set of values. Voting for a person on religion is agreeing with those values. How else would you vote?

Gizzard

allow USA to continue to issolate themselves, cut off diplomatic relations with them

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

Yes, that seems to be the general consensus of anyone who is either not particularly religious, who's religious convictions aren't particularly strong, or who's religion influences in a different direction.

Every time I hear comments like that, I keep thinking back to Carl Sagan's Contact (the book moreso than the movie, but its in both) where Ellie is asked whether or not she believes in God, and she says that she doesn't see the relevance. The answer is that surely in a world where over 90% of the population do believe in a God, that it is only right they should be represented by someone sharing that belief.

There's an awful lot of people who allow their religious beliefs to sway them in one way or another. I'd go so far as to say its the majority (although it mightn't be the majority on any single issue). In a democratic society, how can the wishes of the majority (to be influenced by their religion) be wrong, let alone moronic?

jc

because the very basis of individual "rights" is that your rights must be respected, however in no way do your "rights" allow you to "impose" upon the "rights" of others.

this is essentially however what religion does.
Taking gay-marriage as an issue.

Its a persons right to believe according to their religious faith that gay's shouldn't be allowed to be married.

however someone getting married as gay IS Not transgressing on the right of the relgious person to "believe".

Once you take that religious belief, and turn it into a vote that results in actual law, then you have imposed your "belief" to restrict someone else's "rights". and thats why its wrong.

Its like the heretics in the middle ages. Heretics didn't want to "force" everyone to act according to their beliefs. but those that believed were happy to burn the heretics at the stake for disagreeing with them.

Human beings do not infringe on anyone else's rights by getting married weather same sex or not. Religious fanatics do however infringe on the rights of human beings by forcing them to partake in their beliefs.

Or have you decided that seperation of religion and state is no longer necessary bonkey?

Hairy Homer

Memnoch wrote:

also i wouldn't be so sure of the whole "counter-balance" issue.
Not to mention I can't imagine the democrats in america being happy about fighting a "liberal" europe.

Chinese "communists" maybe.

It's one thing fighting a bunch of towel heads with home made mortars and Kalashnikovs.

France has nukes. Russia has nukes. So has the US.

Like the Cold War, this is not going to degenerate into a full scale shooting war. Instead, it will be characterised by many smaller localised wars of influence building, which will be egged on by the super powers without getting directly involved.

I think the phrase in vogue in America now is 'Fighting terrorism abroad, so we don't have to fight it here'

A nasty little squabble with just the right amount of violence to allow normal democratic processes to be delegitimised will do just fine. 'Can't negotiate with terrorists' and all that sort of palaver.

We've got to be careful not to go down that route.

Blub2k4

I find adherence to any religion to be for the weak-minded, if that's your thing then go for it, but it's a cop out, this is intended as an opinion and not a condemnation or an insult of anyone religiously inclined.
The problem with allowing religion to enter into it is that as it enters rationality tends to leave the building.

Religion is solely a tool of political control and as such should not be allowed into the debate as it is in the case of the Bush camp a tool of manipulation and is used to beat people over the head with.
Make a rational argument against stem cells, people (foetuses) get killed to produce stem cells so surely that is emotive enough without bringing in the immortal omnipotentn being who disagrees with it, any person can disagree with it, if you need a non-existent entity to back up your life choices then you are lost anyway.

Bard

meepmeep wrote:

It does, but Bush is winning by more than 140,000 votes there, with 99% or so of the votes counted.

I don't know where people get this 99% figure. According to most news sources I've read, there are about 250,000 votes yet to be counted with a huge majority (90% or so) of those expected to go to Kerry. If that happens, it would hand the election to Kerry.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

religion is an issue of personal belief, they want to practise their religion fine. But to vote for someone to try and force their beliefs eg. gay-marriage upon others IS moronic, AND wrong. They don't like gay-marriage, fine don't marry a gay person. But they have no right to tell other people to not get married because they are gay.

Oh I'd agree with you regarding forcing their principals down other peoples necks.
But they do have a democratic right to vote for a candidate who shares their beliefs.
It's seems to be reality that 3 million more americans voted for Bush this time ultimately because they agreed with him, given that most commentators were stating that a vote for Kerry or the democratic party was a vote against Bush this time rather than a vote specifically for the Democrats.

China however with its constantly growing demand will probably not get to join the "club" and is much more likely to have the motivation to challenge America's dominance as it were.

Would you be in favour of China exerting America like dominance over the world?
What are gay rights like in China??

Bard

meepmeep wrote:

It does, but Bush is winning by more than 140,000 votes there, with 99% or so of the votes counted.

I don't know where people get this 99% figure. According to most news sources I've read, there are about 250,000 votes yet to be counted with a huge majority (90% or so) of those expected to go to Kerry. If that happens, it would hand the election to Kerry.

Of course, as has been said, Bush will do what he can to prevent these votes from being counted.

Frankly, yeah, it looks like it's Bush's election - but the fat lady hasn't opened her gob to sing just yet.

seamus

Both are > 250, and Ohio has 20 votes to give. Whoever takes Ohio, takes the election, it's as simple as that. I don't see either party giving up Ohio without a fight though.

steviec

Bard wrote:

I don't know where people get this 99% figure. According to most news sources I've read, there are about 250,000 votes yet to be counted with a huge majority (90% or so) of those expected to go to Kerry. If that happens, it would hand the election to Kerry.

Of course, as has been said, Bush will do what he can to prevent these votes from being counted.

Frankly, yeah, it looks like it's Bush's election - but the fat lady hasn't opened her gob to sing just yet.

Kerry needs practically 100% of the provisional ballots to both be valid and be votes for him. It's statistically as good as impossible.

If Bush had lost the national popular vote by 4 million and lost Ohio by 150,000 yet still wanted to take it to court there'd be uproar, yet when its the other way round people see it completely differently.

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

Once you take that religious belief, and turn it into a vote that results in actual law, then you have imposed your "belief" to restrict someone else's "rights". and thats why its wrong.

Thats an amazing statement given that , it's what goes on in virtually every country in the world.
To say that a voters belief system whether athiest Christian or otherwise shouldn't impact on the way they vote is delusionary to be honest.
A same sex marriage ban was approved in 11 states yesterday.
Theres peoples belief systems translating into their votes in practice.

If there was a referendum for that in Ireland in the morning, it wouldn't pass either, like it or lump it.
Civil unions might though. Personally I don't like this gay activist obsession with the institution of marriage,I'd have a more practical approach and demand simple equality in tax and inheritance treatment etc and have a registered committment,I'd dump the word marriage it's for Dana not for me.

meepmeep

Bard wrote:

I don't know where people get this 99% figure. According to most news sources I've read, there are about 250,000 votes yet to be counted with a huge majority (90% or so) of those expected to go to Kerry. If that happens, it would hand the election to Kerry.

I didn't make it up off the top of my head. They said it on the BBC. I don't think theres anywhere near 250,000 still to be counted. A good few of the major networks have pretty much conceded that Bush has won Ohio, and Bush himself is apparently preparing his victory speech on the current figures. If theres such a strong chance of Kerry coming through then I don't think such predictions would have been made....

Hairy Homer

steviec wrote:

.

If Bush had lost the national popular vote by 4 million and lost Ohio by 150,000 yet still wanted to take it to court there'd be uproar, yet when its the other way round people see it completely differently.

People who won the US election despite losing the popular vote
(Since the current electoral college system was introduced in 1872)

1876 Rutherford B Hayes Republican 1 Electoral College Vote
1888 Benjamin Harrison Republican 65 Electoral College Votes (go figure)
2000 George W Bush Republican 5 electoral College Votes

See a pattern developing?

If Kerry wins despite losing out on the popular vote, I don't think the Republicans can complain. It would be the first time a Democrat had won despite polling fewer votes.

Mind you. Looks unlikely.