splck

My thoughts exactly.

__________________
nice line eh?

tecoyah

As many of you know in here....I am not exactly a Bush Supporter.....but it is time to accept the facts,...............He Won.

I have decided to watch carefully, and add my support to the country I love.....wherever I can do so in good conscience. It is a pointless gesture to complain about a lost election...reguardless of how close the contest was. For better or for worse,GWB is the president for another term and I for one am EXTREMELY tired of the infighting. And yes, it is infighting......we are all citizens of the United States, I honestly hope we can begin to act that way.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

bill96ab

Very well stated. I feel like i have more respect for him now simply by how much class and respect he had in losing.

THis might show my stupidity, but did he have to give up his Sen. spot to run for president, or can he pick up that where he left off?

__________________
Bill

Ctrl-Alt-Del - works for me!

lk_3000

don't worry i was thinking the exact same thing.

Arroe

gosh, some people are really bitter...

I just hope now things will calm down a bit. I supported Bush and was amazed at the victory that was very clear since about 11pm MST, or 2am EST, after Ohio came in for Bush. About half of my group of friends are democrats and the past few weeks it's been a little tense within our group. But I think today it was a "shake hands and say good game like little kids on a sports team" day, and everyone was coming back to a common ground again.

You can't complain and say "if everyone jumped off a bridge..." I wish everyone would just face the facts and get over it that the majority of the country voted for Bush and what's done is done.

Mephisto2

He can pick up where he left. He didn't resign his seat as far as I know.

Mr Mephisto

tecoyah

He is still the Minority Senator of Mass.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Mephisto2

What does "Minority" Senator mean?

He come from the party that does not hold the majority of seats in the Senate?


Mr Mephisto

adam

He's not the "Minority" senator, he's the "junior" senator, meaning only that Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate longer.

Aladdin Sane

No matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, President Bush received an overwhelming mandate from the American people.
Yesterday, President Bush:
*** Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities.
*** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988.
*** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
***Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996.
***Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts.

Now look at the map and data posted here: Have a look at the map here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Mephisto2

I don't think anyone is taking away from Bush's victory.

Obviously more Americans wanted him rather than Kerry.

So, as most Democrats I've seen have been saying, surely now is a time to move on, heal the wounds and concentrate on America.

Rather than acting like a 12 year old and shouting the "Nyaa nyaa nyaa...we won! we won! you're such a loser... nya we won!..." kind of nonesense I've seen from some, why not accept your win gracefully and concentrate on what you believe is right your country?


Mr Mephisto

james t kirk

Exactly.

Well put.

james t kirk

A lot of people are saying that actually.

The CBC was airing emails during the election last night received from Americans saying the same thing.

To all the disenfranchised democrats out there I would say, if you can stand the winter, you are welcome aboard.

We don't make "morality" an election issue here. Abortion is not an issue to be debated in an election. In fact, if you are anti-abortion, you won't get elected. Believe it or not, in the last election the Conservative guy Stephen Harper had commercials levelled against him saying that if he was elected, he would "restrict a woman's right to choose" Can't ever imagine that in the USA.

Gay marriage, most people have more important things to worry about.

smooth

Thank you James.

It's amazing that people can't understand that when a president, who is supposed to and claims to represent all the people in the country, proceeds on a course of action that doesn't represent the will of all the people in that nation, regardless of the fact that more than 50 million people voted for him, he is disenfranchising them.

Some questioned how this means my vote didn't matter. Well, reconcile how my wishes to be represented by government are fulfilled when the person elected ignores them? That's how 50+ million people are currently being disenfranchised from the political realm--our interests are not being addressed.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

89transam

Yeah, and kerry also broke the record with 55.5 million votes.No, Aladdin , %51 to %48 is Not an overwhelming mandate no matter how you spin it.

__________________
I'd rather be rich than stupid.

Ustwo

Republicans gained in the house, gained in the senate, gained state houses, gained a gov, oh and won the presidency with the first plurality of the vote since 1988.

In 1992, Clinton with 42% of the vote claimed a mandate....

I think with all off the above, the Republicans are entitled.

To the victors go the spoils, most of these Republicans were not elected to be moderates.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tspikes51

That has absolutely nothing to do with disenfranchised people. Too bad you live in this country too. It sucks that a republican can get elected, doesn't it??? What if Kerry were elected, would I feel disenfranchised because I voted for Bush? Don't think so... get real dude.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

tspikes51

And dammit, I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush because of his morals. Don't say that just because you voted for Bush that you are a stupid hick. I live in an urban area, come from a middle-class household, support civil union for same sex couples, and support stem-cell research. I mainly voted for Bush because he was better equipped to lead this country in war, which, I'm sorry, we're already in. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether Kerry would have gone to war or not. It's too easy to criticize somebody in power, but Bush had some major cajones to go to war. Kerry would rather sit back and say "I wouldn't have done that" than actually come up with something original. Why aren't we whining about the people who vote for the more handsome candidate or the guy who votes for the candidate that would make for a better dinner guest???

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

KMA-628

The only problem is that there is no such animal.

Smooth -

What course of action could President Bush pursue that would reperesent your will and mine equally? You and I believe very differently; our will cannot be followed by a single candidate. It is an either/or situation based on the winner.

If Kerry had won, then you would more likely have your will pursued and I would be "disenfranchised". Conversely, with President Bush, my will (sort of) wins and yours loses.

I do not see any scenario with a President that would satisfy both of our "wills" equally. A little over half voted for him, so therefore, by majority, their "will" is more likely to be followed.

He can represent "all" people, but he (regardless of who "he" is) cannot please all of the people all of the time.

smooth

well, technically, I wouldn't have had my will persued had kerry been elected, but that seems to go right over the conservatives heads on this board over and over and ov...

that's fine you think a majority's will ought to be followed. that doesn't detract from the fact that it's a slim majority. My entire point was that calling a few million over the top of the 55+ million people against does not mean your candidate has a popular mandate from the nation.

a popular mandate means that the country approves, as a whole, with what you are doing. we don't, this nation is very divided. and rather than shift a bit over to try and encompass their will, people are just cutting them out of the picture.

I can accept that my views along with a few hundred thousand people are so far radically to the left of mainstream politics that no candidate is going to seriously encompass all of my views.

But I don't understand how you can think half the population is wacky and irreconcilable with your views. I don't think the same way about the 55+ million people who voted for bush. I see agreement between lefts and rights all the time. It's up to the politicians not to select wedge issues to run on. People in the know do it all the fucking time--despite what they lead you to believe via the media. Bush and kerry are going to get along just fine during the next 4 years. the majority of people on both sides of the aisle are going to continue addressing each other with respect despite and work with one another to pass legislation that does what you claim can't happen--govern both sides of the political spectrum.

Now, bush can join that reality. or his administration can continue to stretch the right limits of your party's ideology. there isn't anything in your party that precludes you from wielding the power that has just been won in a respectful and representative fashion. that's all in the president's hands, now, and he hasn't shown a very willingness to do that.

what is your party going to do after the war? or is there never going to be an after the war?
if you build bridges you will create a lasting empire. if you don't, then your party will go down in flames because you don't have a popular mandate--your party won by its nose and failure to recognize that isn't going to make all those people suddently agree with you the next election cycle.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman