Bitter much?

No, the majority do not believe that Iraq had a direct role in 9/11. Some do, but certainly not a majority. Some people believe that today is Thursday too.

The majority do not believe that gay marriage should be banned, but enough that came out and voted in the states where it was put to a vote do.

I have voted in the past 7 presidential elections and I never felt it this was 'the most important decision of our time'. I didn't this time either. One thing is certain, there will be a new guy in 4 years. I think Bush is an honest man who is doing what he feels in his heart is the best thing at the time. Is it always right, no, absolutely not. But I wouldn't expect that from anybody. Did Clinton believe in his heart that firing missles into an abandoned tent in the desert was the best way to get at terrorists at the time, probably. He was wrong. I don't hold that decision against him (much :) ).

John Kerry voted to support the President in his decision to invade Iraq based on the same evidence that the president had at the time. Was the evidence faulty?, it appears after the fact that yes, it may have been. For Kerry to say now, 'I wouldn't have went in' is disingenuous and monday morning quarterbacking. IMHO, I think people saw that and lost respect for the man.

The next guy to get elected will tell us what he is going to do to make things better. He will relate that to all (or at least a majority) of the people in the entire country. Telling us what the other guy did wrong is telling us what we already know.

Anyway, I hope Bush can get us out of this Iraq mess. It seems to me that he will. I was prepared for a 3-4 year plan. I don't know if everyone else was. These things are always messy and the best plan is a fluid plan. Quelling the rebels and holding elections will accomplish a lot. With best wishes for the next four years.......

I don't really have anything to say. Us democrats fought a brave, honest, and tough campaign, and unfortunately for us, incumbent advantage was enough for Bush to squeak by. I don't regret any aspect of our efforts, or our choice of nominee. Kerry ran like a champ, and did all he could. I don't know about any of that "most votes ever" spin the Bush people are putting out. The truth is, this election was quite close. Consider: had tuesday been a nice, sunny day in Ohio, we might not be here right now.

It's going to be a long four years.

Kerry and the Democrats put up an excellent effort, and I was worried about how it would turn out, but fortunately Bush has won.

What the fuck is wrong with this country? I think Im moving to Canada.

So they're not even going to bother counting the absentee balots?

Fortunately, that statement was made in the past. As it is no longer the past, I review it in the light of the present.

First, I'll note the warning issued in this thread by my good colleague, analog:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...68#post1506168

to wit: "Rudeness, pettiness, and general show-boating-type behavior will be sternly dealt with."
..................................................

Fortunately, as well, there are priorities involved in what aspects of the past - as seen in the light of the present - I choose to honor.

For those of you having a great need to see my ass, I refer you to the proper forum here. As for the statement, "We Won." The priority here is to indicate that it is true as far as it may connote our ongoing collective identity as constituents in the great experiment that is The United States of America.

Coming from a Republican, I think Kerry just made an outstanding speech.

good concession speech. very statesman like. as i've said before... kerry isn't a bad guy. he just isn't the man with the skillset for this time in our nation's history.

I've been trying to get on a few of the far left sites today with no luck, including www.democraticunderground.com and www.michaelmoore.com.

DU has their forum closed to non-registered users and MM is offline.

I would be interested to know their take on this.

Hooray. Let's stop bitching and move on.

Greatest number of voters who voted, yes. Badly worded on my part.

Update:

Apparently the forward is down, but you can get on MM with http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php

No update from yesterday.

Kerry was right to project some caution last night without being combative and was right to concede today. It doesn't look like there is any way for Ohio to flip. If there was, Kerry would still be fighting for every last vote. All in all, it seems that just about everyone, including the candidates and the media (Not the exit pollers) acted appropriately and rationally over the past two days. The whole democracy thing worked.

Bush got more votes than anyone ever, but not the highest percentage
Bush is the first pres who initially lost the popular vote to win re-election
This is the first re-election of a rep. pres and congress in over 100 years
First defeat of a senate leader (minority or majority) in 50 years.
Rep.s continue to lead in governerships

The country may be closely divided, but the power is not.

i'm having trouble swallowing this "divided country" idea that is getting so much attention. of course, the political arena has it's divisions... but it always has. for the first time in 16 years we've elected a President under a majority vote. why isn't that proof that the country is more unified?

methinks that the messengers have tainted the message.

Maybe he means that BIG swatch of red dividing the north east and west coasts?

Lebell, democrats.com has a couple messages about the election that are publically viewable from their home page.

Because it merely shows that fewer votes went to 3rd party candidates this year compared to last. It looks like 1% for 3rd parties this year, vs. 4% in 2000. I wouldn't even begin to consider the country to be unified unless one candidate got 75%.

EDIT: Looking back, all of the intervening years had a significant 3rd party (Nader or Perot), while the one 16 years back didn't.

55.3 million of us disagree. He won 51 to 48 for shits sake.


Was he? How many 9/11 type attacks happened during his 8 years?

89 transam, remember the first WTC bombing?

Dont forget the two attacks in saudi arabia, the embassy in africa and the USS cole

I know, but I wanted to focus on the attack inside the U.S. Sometimes too little emphasis is placed on "external attacks". Everyone jumps down Bush's throat for allowing this to happen on U.S. soil. What would the nation have said if that first attack managed to bring the tower down?

Thank you for stating that. It's fucking ridiculous that people can't comprehend that a few million people does not a popular mandate make, when over 50 million people feel disenfranchised. Start talking to the center instead of pulling the whole damn spectrum around.

So, pretty much 0 :)

The first wtc bombing was not a "9/11 type attack". There was no warning for that. There was, however, a warning before 9/11.

The others are really outside of anyone's control. Had they happened under Bush's watch, it would equally be as absurd to say he's at fault.

We're talking about HOMELAND attacks.

I don't know about whether or not the guy in office is able to prevent catastrophic terror attacks. Playing defense with a country as big and open as America is a daunting proposition. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do strongly question the decisions he made afterwards.

That's all water under the bridge I suppose. The truth is, although Bush now has some kind of a mandate to govern, he left himself quite a few messes to clean up. The problems in Iraq won't solve themselves. His overall foreign policy vision has yet to play itself out, and I remain convinced that it is doomed to fail. We almost certainly face at least one or two bitter battles over the supreme court, with no certain victory (if there is such a thing) for either side.

Like he said, being President is a tough job.

i am still working on getting my head around this act of collective self-immolation.
but i remain bewildered.

why do 50 million people feel disenfranchised? :hmm:

Disenfranchised? :rolleyes:

Because his candidate didn't win and apparently that is now akin to losing your voting rights :rolleyes:

conservatives here seem bent on confirming the worst possible interpretation of this self-immolation. like there is some perverse glee taken in it.
yes this is what you think it is...
yes we are who you think we are....

all this mixed with calls for unity.
strange business, message boards.

If 58.8 million people voted to jump off a bridge, that's suddenly the right thing to do? That's pretty much what we have here..

Nope. It's irritating that this great tool we have to represent a government was used horribly... now we have to face consequences... or rather, you do. I just won't let any of it affect me because I voted otherwise.

I don't see that sniping at each other is doing anyone any good.

If 54 million people are going to whine for four years, then yes.

Maybe you'll learn to pick wisely in the future.

As will those who pick the Democratic candidates...

that's wonderful, but the fact remains that the winner garnered a higher percentage of the vote than any other president has for 16 years.

My Dad can beat up your Dad.

As I keep noting in various threads, that's because very few people voted third party in this election. The votes for Nader and Perot in the previous three elections were enough to bring the winner's percent below 50%. There was no significant 3rd party candidate in the election 16 years ago.

The only thing this shows is that the people who might have ordinarly placed a protest vote with a 3rd party in other years thought it was important to go Rep. or Dem. this year.

Why do people keep bringing up that statistic? It means nothing when you compare it to what Kerry got :lol:

I swear, someone on that side says something, they all run with it no matter how irrelevant.

Hey.. at least he was elected this time.

Four more years of priceless comedy.

<-- lookin on the bright side