Post-Election Analysis

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

By the way - he's just named Gonzales as his Attorney General.

Once he's approve he'll be the first Hispanic to hold that position.

Rian... you mentioned his diverse cabinet and such. Looks like the tradition will continue this term.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It doesn't happen to everyone on the left. The reason why Dan Rather and particularly Michael Moore were vilified is because of what they did. Michael Moore did NOT make a documentary - the thing is full of lies. If he didn't spread his outright hatred - then a lot less people would be attacking him. I find it funny that you make this statement - but refuse to acknowledge the way many republicans have been vilified throughout the years by Democrats.

The attitude toward Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman - it has to do with her political beliefs.

You mean like your attack methods and the ones used by democrats during the campaign and even BEFORE the campaign?

If you want to stop the hatred and the constant villification - then why don't you stop it yourself. You see nothing wrong with making very biggotted remarks about religious people. How is you making fun of their beliefs (which Earniel edited out) a positive step forward? You seem to ignore the attack methods used by yourself and the democratic party.

See? an attack on my failings (the perceived bigotry against religious people) is supposed to invalidate my ideas. THAT is how they accomplished this election. The result is that, instead of me having to find more support for my idea, I have to defend my "character".

What was deleted was sarcasm in which I misquoted the opposite of what Christianity teaches. The obvious falsehood of the quotes, which everyone knows by heart in their correct presentation, was supposed to make people think of what he really said. But JD just used the sarcastic statement, (which were deleted) to attack my personal morality.

Look, even if I were a drug-out crazed whacko, I am not wrong for asking what exactly is "Christian" in the policies of the Administration beyond stirring up the anti-gay, anti-abortion crowd?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

See? an attack on my failings (the perceived bigotry against religious people) is supposed to invalidate my ideas. THAT is how they accomplished this election. The result is that, instead of me having to find more support for my idea, I have to defend my "character".

Where did I invalidate your ideas? I'm not questioning your ideas - I'm just referring to things you have actually said. [edited: And it was NOT perceived bigotry - but actual bigotry against religious people[/edit].

What was deleted was sarcasm in which I misquoted the opposite of what Christianity teaches. The obvious falsehood of the quotes, which everyone knows by heart in their correct presentation, was supposed to make people think of what he really said. But JD just used the sarcastic statement, (which were deleted) to attack my personal morality.

I never attacked your personal morality. I attacked your statements you made against religious people. Not all your statements were just scarcastic remarks that stated the opposite of what Christianity teaches as a way of making a point. You had a lot of contempt for anyone that didn't believe as you do.

Look, even if I were a drug-out crazed whacko, I am not wrong for asking what exactly is "Christian" in the policies of the Administration beyond stirring up the anti-gay, anti-abortion crowd?

I like your terms - "anti-abortion" and "anti-gay" - not everyone is anti those things. The gay is solely about marriage and the "anti-abortion" crowd is about the protection of the fetus. Also - many people, such as myself - supports abortion rights - but with limitations. I do not think that unless a woman's life is in danger that there should be abortions allowed after the first trimester. I also am not anti-gay - I'm just currently against gay marriage - but fully support civil unions. Explain to me how that is being "anti-gay"? You want to go calling that "anti-abortion" then go ahead. If you want to use the "anti" label - then republicans can turn it around and say democrats are anti-life (instead of pro-choice), anti-religion, etc. It's your choice.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - Gonzales isn't really supported the Christian right becuase when he was on the Texas Supreme court he upheld the right of a minor to have an abortion. I think you have your answer concerning what type of people Bush will put into his cabinet.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But here's the problem: What, aside from gay marriage and abortion, is "Christian" about the policies of this Administration? Are the teachings of Jesus as presented in The Beatitudes and that story about "what you do to these the least of my brethren you do unto me", the basis of even one policy of this adminstration?

oy... I edited it so far down you can't even tell... that's a reply to Rian.

And I'll reply - are you saying that this administration wants to cancel ALL of the programs and ALL of the funding designed to help the poor, etc., ? If so, then I guess I just won't respond any more, except to note it's not true.

If not, then I'll say that this administration is using the SAME programs that the Dems use to carry out the things mentioned in the Beatitudes and other teachings, but they have a different take on how to best accomplish them - one that involves more personal responsibility (when appropriate) and more accountability in the system (which is ALSO taught in the Bible in a BIG way). And also that society as a whole will be better with policies that respect life more and honor traditional marriage, and that a society like this will have less poor to care for, and be more able to help the poor, and so it is very worthwhile to make these policies a priority. Jesus had a VERY high regard for life and for man/woman marriage. And I think the Dems tend to err on the side of too many handouts without accountability, and disregard for the life of babies, and disregard for traditional marriage, all of which are harmful to society. I think the Reps err, too - both sides do - but I agree with their positions more.

And now will you answer MY question? Would you please stop using the term "Republican Christian" when you're talking about people that don't care about the poor at all? Please use something like "a faction within Republican Christians" or something like that. Of course, you could tell me "yes" and not mean it, but you seem to be a moral person, so I"m hoping if you tell me "yes" that you'll honor it We don't need to divide this country any further by throwing people wholesale into little groups, esp. when it's not accurate.

What I see on tv is what other people here see, too - Dems treating Reps (and esp. "religious" Reps) like they're total idiots. I actually read some quotes by Jesse Jackson telling people in a black Baptist Church (and why wasn't there an uproar about THAT when they endorsed Kerry from the pulpit?!?!) that their true concern should not be gay marriages (from what I've seen, this is a big concern in black churches), but rather what the Dem leadership thought it should be! The GALL of that statement! telling people what they should think!! Especially since typical rhetoric going around EQUATES stopping gay marriage with black suppression!!! How hypocritical

But I don't think ALL Dems think that way by any means - altho I think the majority of the leadership thinks that way.

[HOBBIT]

i have a good understanding of the the electoral college system. The electors from each state arent exactly very well known, now are they (hence me saying "shadowy figures" maybe not the best terms, but definitely doesnt warrant being torn apart)?

If i dont agree with you about the electoral college, I don't understand it??

Of course JD, that is usually the first thing out of your mouth when someone disagrees with you - they dont understand it as well as you do

I personally disagree with the electoral college system adn think it is very flawed (as i pointed out in my first post)...... the popular vote should actually mean something.

why shouldn't 1 person = 1 vote?

Ah well, I'm out of this topic. Michael Moore is anti-america now? He certainly is not. He is very patriotic and loves the US, he just doesn't love Bush. I guess if you disagree with a President and the war in Iraq you are being anti-american.................. oh wait - we have free speech here.

[Rían]

One quickie on Michael Moore - the night before the election, I saw him on tv, just ripping apart Bush personally. Not his policies - his person. Now there's a guy I just don't respect.

Another thing, Elfhelm, on your question to me - a perfect example, IMO, is unions. Dems STRONGLY support them (and vice versa). Now unions, years ago, served a VERY important purpose - I think they really helped stop some labor abuses. However, because of labor laws that have been passed, I think they have not only outlived their purpose, they have been become corrupted. Ties to the mafia, bullying tactics to members, etc.

That year-long grocery strike a year or so ago is a perfect example. The union called a strike over some negotiations that they weren't happy about - and put thousands - THOUSANDS - of people out of jobs over it. They didn't have a choice if they were in the union. And let's put what they were striking ABOUT into some perspective - these were jobs like box boys and stock people and checkers - jobs that did NOT require a higher education - and these people were paid HIGHER than the teachers at my kids' school! (who had years of extra education and are trying to pay it off). IMO, the strike really started to fade when the time came when it was legal to rehire, and the wages of the workers were actually POSTED for all to see. It made them look totally ridiculous. And it's not as if these box boys were FORCED to stay at that job! Now that would be a different matter entirely. There is no forcing to stay at their job; they get paid higher wages than some teachers; and they're striking?!

A friend of my mom, who is a widow with a teenage son to support, went to work as a replacement cashier during the strike.

Her tires got slashed.

I was personally intimidated and impeded when I attempted to go into a store, even when my children were with me.

A friend called a union rep about the tire-slashing going on (stores had to hire security guards), and was told that if people wanted to cross the line, they had to take that risk, and there was nothing the unions could do.

BULL-PUCKY!!! The unions could come out with STRONG, public statements against this! They could fine local groups where these incidents took place. They could place their OWN people as guards to protect the public that they are supposedly so concerned about!

I think unions are very, very corrupt. Yet their original purpose was good. And the Dems just can't seem to see that it has changed, or are afraid to acknowledge that, because they get a LOT of money and support from the unions, and it would go against their "image" to actually tell it like it really is about the unions, IMO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

i have a good understanding of the the electoral college system. The electors from each state arent exactly very well known, now are they (hence me saying "shadowy figures" maybe not the best terms, but definitely doesnt warrant being torn apart)?

If i dont agree with you about the electoral college, I don't understand it??

Of course JD, that is usually the first thing out of your mouth when someone disagrees with you - they dont understand it as well as you do

You haven't demonstrated an understanding of the electoral college - even your comment regarding that the electors aren't know. Do you know where the electors come from?

I personally disagree with the electoral college system adn think it is very flawed (as i pointed out in my first post)...... the popular vote should actually mean something.

why shouldn't 1 person = 1 vote?

Because we have a federal government -- not a national government. We have state rights - it is the states who elect. There is one 1 person=1 vote - at the STATE level.

Ah well, I'm out of this topic. Michael Moore is anti-america now? He certainly is not. He is very patriotic and loves the US, he just doesn't love Bush. I guess if you disagree with a President and the war in Iraq you are being anti-american.................. oh wait - we have free speech here.

It's just like someone who doesn't want to face the truth about Michael Moore to say that it has something to do with free speech. Michael Moore has a right to free speech - just like I have a right to call his film what it is - a propaganda peice which is full of lies and twisted facts. Michael Moore in my opinion does NOT love the US - nor is he patriotic at all. He is only happy with the America he wants and he will denegrate anyone who does not agree with him. YOu can be blinded by Farenheit 9/11 - I'm not. I used to watch his TV show - before I looked into the crap he was saying.

[HOBBIT]

Yes electors are conjured up by magic, right? :P

Ok - i just think that the electoral college has its flaws. thats all I said. and it is a shame that the popular vote doesn't mean much. Can we agree on any of this? :P

Of course, if the election were determined solely on the popular vote, there would be flaws to that too.

"just like I have a right to call his film what it is - a propaganda peice which is full of lies and twisted facts." ok...... you have a right to this opinion. but you have not seen the movie.

I don't think he is anti-america at all. Like I said before, just very anti-bush, anti-iraq war - but not against our troops.

*leaves topic, really.... . * This is not a michael moore or F 9/11 discussion thread, but it clearly relates to this election.

[Rían]

(and btw, Elfhelm, the day I had yesterday is not a typical day by any means - I'm no Mother Teresa - but it is a big priority of our family to help others in need, and it was just really ironic and sad that after a day like that, I came home to a post like that ... )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Yes electors are conjured up by magic, right? :P

I take it that's a no - you don't know who the electors are - I rest my case.

Ok - i just think that the electoral college has its flaws. thats all I said. and it is a shame that the popular vote doesn't mean much. Can we agree on any of this? :P

Of course, if the election were determined solely on the popular vote, there would be flaws to that too.

There would be far MORE flaws with a popular vote - as a for instance - can you image if the ENTIRE country had to do a recount becuase the election was close - instead of ONE state? And where would the voice of Hawaii be like it was for this election - even though Kerry won the state?

"just like I have a right to call his film what it is - a propaganda peice which is full of lies and twisted facts." ok...... you have a right to this opinion. but you have not seen the movie.

I don't think he is anti-america at all. Like I said before, just very anti-bush, anti-iraq war - but not against our troops.

Hmmm - let me ask my brother if he feels that Michael Moore is anti-troops. He used the troops for one purpose - and that was to back up his political agenda. He could care less about the troops.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm talking about they as in the group that wrote the article.

The "group" that wrote the article may "finally want to talk"? No I think the "they" you were referring to was democrats in general.

I am well awar of the fact that many - if not MOST democrats will still want to take the militant stand against anything that does not agree with their beliefs.

is this some kind of consilation? "most"? I ask if you are treating democrats (and liberals) as a monolithic group and you say well MOST of THEM are militants in regards to their belief system? *blink* Is this a softball or a trick? A conservative castagating liberals for being rigid in their belief system?? Im highly ammused. Did you keep a straight face when you typed that? Republicans are shouting about a victory for morals and democrats are the party of closed minded rigid fundamental belief?! Thats pretty funny Jersey.

But no I wont take the bait. My whole point was that NEITHER group are monolithic thats why i posted that article. thats why ive been going on and on about the "christian moral revolution" nonsense since the election. Because I think its a joke and misleading. Republicans dont own the concept of morals. And democrats arent all hedonistic baby killing pagans looking to destroy our country with their sick ideas on sex and social justice. In fact it seems more americans are concerned with infidelity and financial situations harmful to marriage then gays wanting to get married. in fact its not even close. yet why is it you dont hear people screaming about creating a constitutional amendment to make infidelity illegal. Im guessing because those that believe it is wrong WONT engage in it. Even though it certainly harms our society (unlike gay marriage) its still a non issue. But then dont let me get off on a gay marriage tangent here. This is about the fact that we got a false picture of what america is by the exit polls taken the night of the election. There are in fact many many people who feel that the Iraq war is a "moral" issue. For some reason that was seperated out in the exit polling. There are plenty of republicans who believe in the right of a woman to choose. There are plenty of democrats who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This has been true forever. So why is it that republicans are the party of "morals" and democrats are the party of "being out of touch with morals"? Thats what I want to know.

[Elfhelm]

Bush made a speech explaining "compassionate conservatism" two years ago. It is the Republican Xxxxxxxxx agenda. Here anyone can read it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020430-5.html

All talk. We have actual ways to see the results of their agenda and the impact on poor people in America. The poverty rate incresed from 1.7 million to 2 million, for instance. And 86% of the families with incomes under the poverty level have two working parents, so it isn't a breakdown of traditional marriage that is causing their poverty.

Read the speech, consider the last two years, and ask yourself, was the wool pulled over my eyes? ???

Again, I say, the Democratic platform is still the right way to go.

We don't like abortion either, but the old-fashioned method of accidental crib death is just too barbaric to reconsider. And we can see that the Republicans have no intention of helping teen Moms or encouraging birth control. Their old-fashioned method there is, lecture the kids in church about the fires of hell, if they get pregnant, force them to have the baby, then cast the sinner out into the cold world with a scarlet letter -- or -- have a home for fallen women where all these troubled girls can be hidden from society and re-educated in the right way of thinking, their way. If a girl does want to abort, it's back alleys and coat-hangers all over again. It's easy to be against abortion. Everyone is. But it's harder to be against the alternative to legal abortions. As ever, the Democratic Party is right for standing our ground on the issue that is harder to understand.

Gay couples should have visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney for funerals, etc. Any other stance is prejudice.

I still believe the platform of the Democratic Party is right. And I think the Republicans whipped up fears of gays and abortionists tearing America apart and turning us into a gay nation. That attitude may win one or two elections, but it is immoral and we Democrats should stick to our guns.

[jerseydevil]

[QUOTE=Insidious Rex]The "group" that wrote the article may "finally want to talk"? No I think the "they" you were referring to was democrats in general.
[/quoe]
You can think what you want IR.

is this some kind of consilation? "most"? I ask if you are treating democrats (and liberals) as a monolithic group and you say well MOST of THEM are militants in regards to their belief system? *blink* Is this a softball or a trick? A conservative castagating liberals for being rigid in their belief system?? Im highly ammused. Did you keep a straight face when you typed that? Republicans are shouting about a victory for morals and democrats are the party of closed minded rigid fundamental belief?! Thats pretty funny Jersey.

Well then your militant side - such as Michael Moore - and the many people who demonstrate in NY - have a loud voice that drown out most of your "moderates". Just like you and Elfhelm seem to think the Republican party is made up of all these "right wing fanatics" - or as he called them - "zealots".

But no I wont take the bait. My whole point was that NEITHER group are monolithic thats why i posted that article. thats why ive been going on and on about the "christian moral revolution" nonsense since the election. Because I think its a joke and misleading.

And if you bothered reading what I have written over the years - instead of suffering from memory lose - you would know that I feel the same way. But you pick out a sentence and that is all - ignoring anythign I have said at other times.

Republicans dont own the concept of morals. And democrats arent all hedonistic baby killing pagans looking to destroy our country with their sick ideas on sex and social justice. In fact it seems more americans are concerned with infidelity and financial situations harmful to marriage then gays wanting to get married. in fact its not even close. yet why is it you dont hear people screaming about creating a constitutional amendment to make infidelity illegal. Im guessing because those that believe it is wrong WONT engage in it. Even though it certainly harms our society (unlike gay marriage) its still a non issue. But then dont let me get off on a gay marriage tangent here. This is about the fact that we got a false picture of what america is by the exit polls taken the night of the election. There are in fact many many people who feel that the Iraq war is a "moral" issue. For some reason that was seperated out in the exit polling. There are plenty of republicans who believe in the right of a woman to choose. There are plenty of democrats who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This has been true forever. So why is it that republicans are the party of "morals" and democrats are the party of "being out of touch with morals"? Thats what I want to know.

Because I think the democratic leaders need to keep the democratic base angry - so THEY are the ones that are going on the news saying all this stuff about morality being the issue. I haven't seen much of the religious right on TV saying anything about this at all. It's mostly the media just saying what these "supposed" polls say. It's a good way to keep the nation divided - keep the base scared because of the "fanatics" now in the white house - "Dman - what is Bush going to do now?" attitude.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

In fact it seems more americans are concerned with infidelity and financial situations harmful to marriage then gays wanting to get married. in fact its not even close. yet why is it you dont hear people screaming about creating a constitutional amendment to make infidelity illegal. Im guessing because those that believe it is wrong WONT engage in it. Even though it certainly harms our society (unlike gay marriage) its still a non issue.

I think infidelity is wrong and harmful.

I think gay marriage is wrong and harmful.

I don't "scream" about either one , however, I realize that a law against infidelity is pretty unenforceable and totally impractical. Laws against gay marriage are entirely 100% enforceable and practical.

I also think thinking hateful thoughts is harmful. I don't scream or talk about making a law against that one, either.

I don't think one can legislate morality, only certain aspects of it, like laws against theft, etc.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Bush made a speech explaining "compassionate conservatism" two years ago. It is the Republican Xxxxxxxxx agenda. Here anyone can read it.

I'll read it, thanks for the link

Originally Posted by typical Elfhelm talk

All talk. ... And we can see that the Republicans have no intention of helping teen Moms or encouraging birth control. Their old-fashioned method there is, lecture the kids in church about the fires of hell, if they get pregnant, force them to have the baby, then cast the sinner out into the cold world with a scarlet letter -- or -- have a home for fallen women where all these troubled girls can be hidden from society and re-educated in the right way of thinking, their way. If a girl does want to abort, it's back alleys and coat-hangers all over again. ... Any other stance is prejudice. ... And I think the Republicans whipped up fears of gays and abortionists tearing America apart and turning us into a gay nation. That attitude may win one or two elections, but it is immoral and we Democrats should stick to our guns.

At this point, I'm refusing to talk to you anymore Your continued refusal to see things realistically, as evidenced by your continued use of things like "no intention", "force", etc., even after I point out your error by telling you about myself and some friends that are Republicans and Christians, show me that you're unwilling to do anything but wrongly lump millions of people into groups like "Republicans" and TOTALLY IGNORE the facts that I presented. You are COMPLETELY WRONG about me, and about many people I know. COMPLETELY WRONG. Yet you continue to lump us all together and vilify us, and use exaggerated, inflamatory speech.

You're welcome to have your guns and stick to them. I wish you all the best, and hope that you'll be able to get over your hate and see more clearly and be less prejudiced.

[Elfhelm]

Criticism is not hate. Once every four years the side that is not in power gets to critique the side that is in power. That is democracy. To call it hate is to hate democracy.

I only wanted to say that I think all that talk about changing our Democratic Party platform is wrong. We are morally right. Gay rights are morally right. Legalised abortion, compared with the way things would be otherwise, is morally right. We should not appeal to one specific religion. We are composed of people of many different religions. That, too, is morally right.

Morality doesn't fit into a book. It comes from daily action. It is easy to think being against gay marriage is moral. But if you vote for people who create poverty and increase the power of the hoarding class, you'll always have trouble convincing the rest of us that you are really moral.

My take on the election is, we appear to have gotten 48% in an attempt to oust an incumbent. It wasn't success, but it was pretty darn good! It wasn't even a setback.

Admins, not a word of that is flame-baiting. Not a word of that is sarcasm. That happens to be my opinion and it appears to be shared by almost half of the people in the country. If I'm not allowed to say that here, then I should leave.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

My take on the election is, we appear to have gotten 48% in an attempt to oust an incumbent. It wasn't success, but it was pretty darn good! It wasn't even a setback.

I find it interesing that you don't consider losing seats in Congress - including the Minority Leader - as a setback. The Democrats were hoping to retake Congress - at least the senate and instead went the otherway. To me that is a setback for the democrats no matter how you want to spin the percentages for the presidential vote.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I find it interesing that you don't consider losing seats in Congress - including the Minority Leader - as a setback. The Democrats were hoping to retake Congress - at least the senate and instead went the otherway. To me that is a setback for the democrats no matter how you want to spin the percentages for the presidential vote.

Granted. I was refering to the Presidential Election. Here in Portland we sent our anti-war Senator (Ron Wydan) back to fight the good fight, and we took over the State Senate.

Oh, and we also re-elected every single one of our County Commisioners who declared gay marriage legal last summer, even though the people in the rest of the state passed an Amendment to ban it.

Nationally, the lost seats in Congress are a setback. Agreed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Granted. I was refering to the Presidential Election. Here in Portland we sent our anti-war Senator (Ron Wydan) back to fight the good fight, and we took over the State Senate. Nationally, the lost seats in Congress are a setback. Agreed.

Which leads one to question - why did gay marriage lose out in Oregon? It could not have been because of the Religious Right being against it and all the supporters of Bush - because then Oregon wouldn't have gone so democratic with it's candidates. Surely you must admit there are many people besides Republicans and religious people who are against Gay Marriage.