-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
OFFICIAL ELECTION THREAD MEANS ALL ELECTION-RELATED STUFF GOES IN HERE, DUR
- Thread starter Mandark
- Start date
- Status
videogamer
Banned
KE04 said:
The plan for me is to go to school and not check the internet until 8 or so PST. I couldn't sleep last night at all... every couple of hours I'd just jerk up suddenly awake. It's sleeping pills tonight and kava kava tomorrow....
I can't wait to spend all of tomorrow surrounded by all those well meaning democrats who'll complain about how I'm ruining their futures and single handedly responsible for killing a couple of Iraqi's every day and that I'm a moron and should be fleeced from the earth along with every other conservative and that they're glad I voted in California and not in their contested state ...
But while they'll be stressed all day I'll be working unfazed.
Some people put so much stock in these elections.. like their lives hang in the balance. It's quite scary. That said, I will carry such the air of superiority on Wednesday should Bush be the clear winner. Hey, it's always good to be with the winner. For example, being a Boston Red Sox fan feels huge right now... New Yorkers can't even look me in the eye, heh, heh.
But while they'll be stressed all day I'll be working unfazed.
Some people put so much stock in these elections.. like their lives hang in the balance. It's quite scary. That said, I will carry such the air of superiority on Wednesday should Bush be the clear winner. Hey, it's always good to be with the winner. For example, being a Boston Red Sox fan feels huge right now... New Yorkers can't even look me in the eye, heh, heh.
videogamer
Banned
Iceman said:
Uh yes. Bush is slowing down the progression toward additional gay rights. Second class citizenship is crap. And yes, I definitely care for equal rights as a citizen and as a human being.
Can any of you guys be civil in your discussion of politics? That's why I haven't even bothered entering these threads over the last few months or even talk about politics at work. It immediately becomes a lecture on how I'm ignorant.
You guys do realize that many of us conservatives think you guys are daft right?
It works both ways. Heck I'll even throw around the notion that the democratic party is innately racist... but you know I try to hold my tongue in the interest of having an intelligent, considerate conversation about what the right policies should be at all levels of our government.
Like coming to an agreement on abortion, weighing out the consequences of establishing a flat tax, shifting some of the powers and responsibilities of governance to that of state and local versus federal and vice versa, coming up with intelligent ways of dealing with health care in America without having to accept a money siphoning and minimally effective federal blanket system, weaning us away from the old, tired and useless social security system, etc...
But the moment the venom comes out all these thoughts go out the window and we (at least I) have to get defensive. It's stupid. You can't start a debate by calling the other person a offensive/dangerous/an idiot and hope that something useful can come out of it.
You guys do realize that many of us conservatives think you guys are daft right?
It works both ways. Heck I'll even throw around the notion that the democratic party is innately racist... but you know I try to hold my tongue in the interest of having an intelligent, considerate conversation about what the right policies should be at all levels of our government.
Like coming to an agreement on abortion, weighing out the consequences of establishing a flat tax, shifting some of the powers and responsibilities of governance to that of state and local versus federal and vice versa, coming up with intelligent ways of dealing with health care in America without having to accept a money siphoning and minimally effective federal blanket system, weaning us away from the old, tired and useless social security system, etc...
But the moment the venom comes out all these thoughts go out the window and we (at least I) have to get defensive. It's stupid. You can't start a debate by calling the other person a offensive/dangerous/an idiot and hope that something useful can come out of it.
the world is going to FUCK no matter if bush OR kerry wins. it doesnt even matter.
bush is horrible and so is kerry. the system will not change. life will continue to get worse. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.. sure, some things that bush does or doesnt do will improve if kerry wins but then things that kerry does or does not do will make things worse in other ways.
we are on on a continual slide downwards into the pit of death and destruction with each passing year, presidential term, decade, generation, century.
those who cant see that are blind.
bush is horrible and so is kerry. the system will not change. life will continue to get worse. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.. sure, some things that bush does or doesnt do will improve if kerry wins but then things that kerry does or does not do will make things worse in other ways.
we are on on a continual slide downwards into the pit of death and destruction with each passing year, presidential term, decade, generation, century.
those who cant see that are blind.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Iceman said:
Bush is not a conservative, not in practice at least.
Where is he going to get the 2.2 trillion dollars needed to privatize Social Security? Hmm, privatizing Social Security. Sounds familiar, oh yeah, he promised to do this back in 2000. Wonder what he's waiting for?
What solutions has he come up with for the health care problem this country faces? All we have to go by is his record the last 4 years, which does not look favourably upon him.
Don't even get me started on how "fiscally" responsible the man is.
Shifting power to states? Is that why he supports a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of states to decide if gay marriage is supported?
Environmental record? Holy christ let's not go there.
Blah blah blah I'm done for the night, goodnight all.
Banjo Tango
Member
It's like I'm always sayin', things were so much better in the 1900's.xexex said:
Banjo Tango
Member
It's late, so maybe I'm misinterpreting your post... but I wasn't actually trying to say we were better off in the 1900 to 1910 era. I suck at sarcasm.Socreges said:
I have to say that ultimately, I agree with xexex. In the ultimate "big picture", it's not going to matter if either side of the corporate run duopoly wins. If terrorists want to attack us, they will find a way. Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry are going to magically wave a wand to make everything all better(Ralph Nader wouldn't either, just so some of you don't think I've finally seperated from reality). If Bush or Kerry wins, the fundamental inequalities in our nation's socio-economic class structure will continue to widen; the rich will just get richer and the poor poorer, while the middle class gradually shrinks into the poor.
Mindlessly siding with one side and/or compromising core principles just so you can side with a "winner" is destroying this country. Having essentially only two choices that aren't all that different from each other is a product from concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the few. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We can have a Democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." Justice Brandeis said this in the 1930's, warning of the destructive powers that huge corporations could have on our country. Gee, I wonder if he was right?
I won't go into the disgusting nature of the Corporate ownership of what should be our civically controlled Government on the Federal and local levels. That's not just a thread unto itself, it is countless books, documentaries and magazine articles unto itself. I am not a Communist, Socialist or some insane Luddite. I believe in a capitalistic society, but that capitalism must be regulated, and it must bow to the wishes and demands of the people represented by their duly elected officials. We do not have such a reality in this country today, and that is disturbing and saddening.
I am pleased to see the enthusiasm with which many of you are preparing to engage in the most basic interactive facet of our representative democracy, voting. However, whatever your opinion and beliefs, and whether your "side" wins or loses(or loses but wins, heh), please, for the sake of our country, don't stop there. Direct civic involvement with our governing process is the only thing that is going to redeem our society. Don't just vote. Write a letter to your elected representatives, whether they be national or local, when they have to make a decision on an issue that concerns you or that you care deeply about. If you don't think that will do the trick, make a phone call. If that doesn't work, try to arrange a face to face meeting at their offices. If your elected officials refuse to represent your interests, then perhaps you should protest outside of their offices.
Five of my friends were arrested for attempting to have their "Democratic" Senator, Zell Miller, answer questions on why he has been voting the way that he has and behaving the way that he has in the past few years. They don't feel that he represents Democratic Party ideals for them in the United States Senate. They have been going to his offices for over a year to attempt to speak with him, and have been denied access. Finally, they were arrested and jailed for trespassing. Such flagrant disregard by an elected official for his constituency is appalling, whether he agrees with them or not. If, like my aqcuaintances, you don't think your elected officials will hear you, form a PAC or civic activist group and start making your case to other voters and the media. Infiltrate your local party and raise your concerns, and if they won't hear you, take enough of your friends until you are the majority and take over. Run for office. Shit, somebody has to do this horrible work. It might as well be us.
Get informed. Get involved. Stay that way. Or else P. Diddy will shoot you.
Mindlessly siding with one side and/or compromising core principles just so you can side with a "winner" is destroying this country. Having essentially only two choices that aren't all that different from each other is a product from concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the few. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We can have a Democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." Justice Brandeis said this in the 1930's, warning of the destructive powers that huge corporations could have on our country. Gee, I wonder if he was right?
I won't go into the disgusting nature of the Corporate ownership of what should be our civically controlled Government on the Federal and local levels. That's not just a thread unto itself, it is countless books, documentaries and magazine articles unto itself. I am not a Communist, Socialist or some insane Luddite. I believe in a capitalistic society, but that capitalism must be regulated, and it must bow to the wishes and demands of the people represented by their duly elected officials. We do not have such a reality in this country today, and that is disturbing and saddening.
I am pleased to see the enthusiasm with which many of you are preparing to engage in the most basic interactive facet of our representative democracy, voting. However, whatever your opinion and beliefs, and whether your "side" wins or loses(or loses but wins, heh), please, for the sake of our country, don't stop there. Direct civic involvement with our governing process is the only thing that is going to redeem our society. Don't just vote. Write a letter to your elected representatives, whether they be national or local, when they have to make a decision on an issue that concerns you or that you care deeply about. If you don't think that will do the trick, make a phone call. If that doesn't work, try to arrange a face to face meeting at their offices. If your elected officials refuse to represent your interests, then perhaps you should protest outside of their offices.
Five of my friends were arrested for attempting to have their "Democratic" Senator, Zell Miller, answer questions on why he has been voting the way that he has and behaving the way that he has in the past few years. They don't feel that he represents Democratic Party ideals for them in the United States Senate. They have been going to his offices for over a year to attempt to speak with him, and have been denied access. Finally, they were arrested and jailed for trespassing. Such flagrant disregard by an elected official for his constituency is appalling, whether he agrees with them or not. If, like my aqcuaintances, you don't think your elected officials will hear you, form a PAC or civic activist group and start making your case to other voters and the media. Infiltrate your local party and raise your concerns, and if they won't hear you, take enough of your friends until you are the majority and take over. Run for office. Shit, somebody has to do this horrible work. It might as well be us.
Get informed. Get involved. Stay that way. Or else P. Diddy will shoot you.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
The slope will be different, though.xexex said:
ConfusingJazz
Member
Banjo Tango said:
Don't worry man, I caught your sarcasm. I was banking on that at least, because the last person to say something like that got owned in every which way.
ErasureAcer
Banned
eggplant said:
I'm not even gay and I agree. Just because someone may be a homosexual doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights.
There is a difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush is extreme, Kerry is a moderate(on the full scale of the political realm).
ErasureAcer
Banned
Kettch said:I think you have that backwards.
Sorry to dash your hope for Camejo.
Damn...I had it backwards. Looks like Pete will never see the oval office.
This system is really stupid though. Having the house/senate decide takes all power away from we the people...but into easily persuaded congresspersons.
I'll be shocked if this election goes smoother than 2000.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Seth C said:
I might just stay up. I have to work wednesday(last day then I'm layed off)....but hell...it'd be cool to be the first one at my polling place. Was thinking about volunteering at the Democratic Headquarters too...they'd probably put me on phones or something because I don't have a car. Then again...I could be sleepy but the adrenaline rush might get me through. That would suck though if I stayed up all night just to fall asleep when all the results came in. haha.
Probably actually get a couple hours of sleep soon.
they sent my absentee ballot to my permanent address even though i specifically stated that it should be sent to my mailing address, dudes
and for triumph; everyone has to fucking deal with money these days. it's a tumorous growth on our society, yes, but there are clearly still differences between all the greedy people of the world. the sooner you see that the less you will consider drinking yourself to death to be a worthwhile use of your fleeting spark of life aka deconstructionist biological automata.
and for triumph; everyone has to fucking deal with money these days. it's a tumorous growth on our society, yes, but there are clearly still differences between all the greedy people of the world. the sooner you see that the less you will consider drinking yourself to death to be a worthwhile use of your fleeting spark of life aka deconstructionist biological automata.
Alcibiades
Member
If by extreme you mean supporting civil unions just like Kerry and Dean, yes, he's extreme...ErasureAcer said:
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bush supports civil unions?
*looks over Bush record as President over the past 4 years*
Nope...no actions taken on making Civil Unions happen.
*Looks over Bush's record as Governor of Texas*
Nope...no actions taken on making Civil Unions happen.
BUSH IS NOT FOR CIVIL UNIONS
*looks over Bush record as President over the past 4 years*
Nope...no actions taken on making Civil Unions happen.
*Looks over Bush's record as Governor of Texas*
Nope...no actions taken on making Civil Unions happen.
BUSH IS NOT FOR CIVIL UNIONS
ManDudeChild
Member
ErasureAcer
Banned
Exactly...Bush is against them. If you're not promoting the cause, you can't claim you're "for it".
Alcibiades
Member
ok, woops, the headline I read was "Bush: Civil Unions OK"...
either way, he knows he's not getting the same-sex vote no matter what he says, so he could only lose with his statements last week, indicating IMO that he's really pretty close to Kerry position, even saying that nature may have the final say in sexuality or something like that...
my guess is he's not all that concerned with either same-sex rights or the sanctity of marriage but is playing to his base, and I feel the same way about John Kerry, I don't think he cares either way but he wants to be President and walks the fine political line...
As for who would actually do something about it, I don't see anything actually happening at the federal level with either man in power, the anti-marriage thing doesn't have a chance of passage, so it's a moot point...
Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act to pander to "middle america" as well, just like Bush and Kerry are trying to do with positions not to removed from one another actually, but that could be interpreted by their own side as beneficial to their side...
either way, he knows he's not getting the same-sex vote no matter what he says, so he could only lose with his statements last week, indicating IMO that he's really pretty close to Kerry position, even saying that nature may have the final say in sexuality or something like that...
my guess is he's not all that concerned with either same-sex rights or the sanctity of marriage but is playing to his base, and I feel the same way about John Kerry, I don't think he cares either way but he wants to be President and walks the fine political line...
As for who would actually do something about it, I don't see anything actually happening at the federal level with either man in power, the anti-marriage thing doesn't have a chance of passage, so it's a moot point...
Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act to pander to "middle america" as well, just like Bush and Kerry are trying to do with positions not to removed from one another actually, but that could be interpreted by their own side as beneficial to their side...
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bush in office = a threat to Massachusettes same-sex marriages.
Kerry in office /= a threat to Massachusettes same-sex marriages
The choice is clear for those who believe in equal rights at least on a state basis. Since Bush nor Kerry has the balls to stand up for equal rights on a federal level. It comes down to Kerry protecting same-sex marriage in Mass.(even though he is personally against it) or Bush continuing to overturn the matter(with his new "activist judges" should he get a 2nd term).
I honestly don't see how equal rights is a bad thing. Oh my god...Steve and Jerry just got married. You're not losing your rights, so what is the deal? Is god going to send you to hell because you let homosexuals be equals? of course not.
Kerry in office /= a threat to Massachusettes same-sex marriages
The choice is clear for those who believe in equal rights at least on a state basis. Since Bush nor Kerry has the balls to stand up for equal rights on a federal level. It comes down to Kerry protecting same-sex marriage in Mass.(even though he is personally against it) or Bush continuing to overturn the matter(with his new "activist judges" should he get a 2nd term).
I honestly don't see how equal rights is a bad thing. Oh my god...Steve and Jerry just got married. You're not losing your rights, so what is the deal? Is god going to send you to hell because you let homosexuals be equals? of course not.
Alcibiades
Member
don't know if those were rhetorical or not, but I fully agree with equal rights and support same-sex marriage. but looking at the overall picture, I don't see even slight movement in either direction no matter which is President...
Wasn't Breyer supposed to help the Republican cause?
I doubt judges are going to be deciding stuff either way, and conservative judges are more libertarian on the issue anyway... Scalia himself said he thought the Texas sodomy law was silly and didn't need to exist...
and, not matter who becomes President, my guess is the "sanctity of marriage" issue won't be an issue again until the final months of the '08 campaign... If Howard Dean were on the Democratic ticket a case could be made that movement was possible (not that anything would happen w/ a Republican house, but some executive order stuff maybe, like open policy in the military), but he's not, and Kerry has basically defaulted to the "moderate-liberal" stance best suiting his political needs...
Bush has defaulted to a "moderate-conservative" position is what I was saying, and I was making that case mostly to rebut the "Bush is extreme, Kerry is moderate" idea, even though IMO I think that deep down, he probably at worst supports civil unions...
Wasn't Breyer supposed to help the Republican cause?
I doubt judges are going to be deciding stuff either way, and conservative judges are more libertarian on the issue anyway... Scalia himself said he thought the Texas sodomy law was silly and didn't need to exist...
and, not matter who becomes President, my guess is the "sanctity of marriage" issue won't be an issue again until the final months of the '08 campaign... If Howard Dean were on the Democratic ticket a case could be made that movement was possible (not that anything would happen w/ a Republican house, but some executive order stuff maybe, like open policy in the military), but he's not, and Kerry has basically defaulted to the "moderate-liberal" stance best suiting his political needs...
Bush has defaulted to a "moderate-conservative" position is what I was saying, and I was making that case mostly to rebut the "Bush is extreme, Kerry is moderate" idea, even though IMO I think that deep down, he probably at worst supports civil unions...
ErasureAcer
Banned
Dean was against gay marriage and very stubbornly so. He couldn't even answer questions about it before the Wisc. primaries. While watching C-SPAN Dean finished his speech and walked out to the crowd to shake hands, a lady walked up to him and asked him why he wasn't for same sex marriage. His answer was "it's personal and a long story." He started to walk away and the lady asked him again. Dean, in fashion, responded with the same words but in an angried tone and continued to walk away.
Now if Kucinich were President, something could be done for the GLBT community.
Now if Kucinich were President, something could be done for the GLBT community.
Alcibiades
Member
Dean was always angry, I wouldn't read the angry factor into that comment...
either way, my guess is he was moderating his position so it wouldn't seem to liberal, even Ralph Nader is afraid of scaring off young hetero libbies and is pro-civil unions...
Either way, I think you'll agree Dean and Kerry's positions, or at least attitudes, were further apart than are Kerry and Bush's...
Dean brought it up constantly and that "it's a long story and personal" comment sounds like a political copout than a true position...
Bush and Kerry simply afraid of the issue and both would rather not have dealt with it at all...
either way, my guess is he was moderating his position so it wouldn't seem to liberal, even Ralph Nader is afraid of scaring off young hetero libbies and is pro-civil unions...
Either way, I think you'll agree Dean and Kerry's positions, or at least attitudes, were further apart than are Kerry and Bush's...
Dean brought it up constantly and that "it's a long story and personal" comment sounds like a political copout than a true position...
Bush and Kerry simply afraid of the issue and both would rather not have dealt with it at all...
ErasureAcer
Banned
make no mistake about it...Dean always was and still is against homosexual marriage. It would have gone nowhere if he were President.
And for a guy trying to become President...not answering the lady's question was pretty weak. Thank goodness he wasn't the nominee. There is nothing charismatic about that guy.
"Mr. Dean, how do you feel about NAFTA?"
Dean "It's a long story and it's personal."
That wouldn't fly either, no? What a joke.
And for a guy trying to become President...not answering the lady's question was pretty weak. Thank goodness he wasn't the nominee. There is nothing charismatic about that guy.
"Mr. Dean, how do you feel about NAFTA?"
Dean "It's a long story and it's personal."
That wouldn't fly either, no? What a joke.
Alcibiades
Member
I actually think Dean was a phenomenal candidate in how he didn't play by traditional rules...
ok, so maybe he was against same-sex marriage, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got from following CNN, Fox News, etc... and listening to his interviews...
either way, if he was pro-war, he would have easily gotten my support (he already had for the primary at least) and I would have been an ardent suppoter... too bad I felt he was on the wrong side of that issue...
I don't think he was a joke at all, and certainly was a more viable "step in the right direction" than Kerry attempts to be...
either way, I think he was charismatic in his own "I'm PO'd and let's do something" way, but yeah he turned a lot of people off with the way the media spun that "YEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHRRRHHHHH" speech...
ok, so maybe he was against same-sex marriage, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got from following CNN, Fox News, etc... and listening to his interviews...
either way, if he was pro-war, he would have easily gotten my support (he already had for the primary at least) and I would have been an ardent suppoter... too bad I felt he was on the wrong side of that issue...
I don't think he was a joke at all, and certainly was a more viable "step in the right direction" than Kerry attempts to be...
either way, I think he was charismatic in his own "I'm PO'd and let's do something" way, but yeah he turned a lot of people off with the way the media spun that "YEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHRRRHHHHH" speech...
ErasureAcer
Banned
that's because all those stations suck.
I still recall Christ Matthews saying "Dean is so liberal." And I shook my head and turned off Matthews forever(plus the guy flips his opinions every week...I'll write a book about being against the war and then I'll go on my show and say I'm for it).
The only decent guy on those cable news shows is Keith Olberman on MSNBC. The rest suck, if you ask me.
Kerry is more liberal than Dean. I don't exactly want to argue that one out though...so I'll concede.
I still recall Christ Matthews saying "Dean is so liberal." And I shook my head and turned off Matthews forever(plus the guy flips his opinions every week...I'll write a book about being against the war and then I'll go on my show and say I'm for it).
The only decent guy on those cable news shows is Keith Olberman on MSNBC. The rest suck, if you ask me.
Kerry is more liberal than Dean. I don't exactly want to argue that one out though...so I'll concede.
Alcibiades
Member
no I'll concede, it's not even relevant to Bush/Kerry, and even O'Reilly was pitching the Dean is a moderate thing cause of gun-rights and record in Vermont...
To be honest it's not about equal rights for most people who are against it. I know a lot of the congregations around are being told gay's are going to steal your social security. I think the main problem is a general fear of gay marriage and people capitalizing on those fears. I would think rather than spreading intolerance and bigotry, it owuld be in politicians best interest to help people understand. I guess candidates have to worry about firing up the base and such.
ErasureAcer
Banned
+1 Kerry in Minnesota.
It the US it has been blacks, then it was women, now it's gays... I wonder what the next majorily discrimnated against group is going to be that has to fight for rights... illegal aliens?(I don't personally think they SHOULD have rights, but apparently some folks do) actual aliens?
What a country.
Oh and like I said in another thread Bush gets my vote cause I'm glad that he made us go after Bin Laden (after Bin Laden basically admitted to being behind 9/11) and killed him cause he told us Bin Laden was a high priority and now he isn't around anymore to publish those annoying tapes to be broadcast by Al-Jaz.....whoops.
+1 Kerry
What a country.
Oh and like I said in another thread Bush gets my vote cause I'm glad that he made us go after Bin Laden (after Bin Laden basically admitted to being behind 9/11) and killed him cause he told us Bin Laden was a high priority and now he isn't around anymore to publish those annoying tapes to be broadcast by Al-Jaz.....whoops.
+1 Kerry
- Status