Bush wins.... what now?

Memnoch

So it looks like america has voted. Bush wins not just the electoral but also a fair majority of the "popular" vote it would seem.

The people of america have shown their decision weather we like it or not.

So i guess the key question now is.. how are the next 4 years going to pan out under bush?

On the international front i don't see much changing. I'm pretty sure that Bush won't attack any other countries, except MAYBE syria. He just doesn't have the military resources without a draft, which is unpopular everywhere.

OfflerCrocGod

Yes the idiots came out and voted for their kind I hope they enjoy each others company for the next 4 years Bush is not going to change anything in his stance towards the rest of the world. The ass will still be an ass.

Hobbes

Its far from over. Most of what you are seeing is projections. If you were to believe some channels Bush has already won.

Memnoch

i think its safe to say its over at this stage hobbes. Most international networks outside the US seem to agree on this from what i hear. I've been sitting in a "dem" irc channel for a couple of hours and most of them have pretty much conceeded defeat.. though a few are complaining that Ohio is this elections Florida from the last election with "provisional ballots" and the like because republicans "challanged" black voters to prevent them from casting their vote.

Micheal Wittman

He's won.....


First I heard about it. I'm getting this strange urge to kill myself or him for that matter. It's going to be a long four years in the White House.

At least now he will have the time invade Iran and N Korea.

p.pete

Micheal Wittman wrote:

At least now he will have the time invade Iran and N Korea.

Don't be daft, I hear they have weapons... :rolleyes:

Memnoch

america fights wars for profit, they will not invade countries capable of defending themselves or hitting back.

N. Korea has nukes... iran will prolly have em soon.

If bush invades anywhere it will be Syria.

you can already hear the war mongerers among them going on about how the insurgency in iraq is supported by a large influx of "foreign terrorists" from accorss the border from Syria.

probably won't happen for a couple of years while they "pacify" iraq and put an "elected government" there. Then they will leave ~18,000 troops in iraq like they did in afghanasthan and conquer syria. By then tony should have been "re-elected" with labour in the UK, and since Howard won in australia recently the "coalition of the killing" will be ready to roll!

SkepticOne

Memnoch wrote:

probably won't happen for a couple of years while they "pacify" iraq and put an "elected government" there. Then they will leave ~18,000 troops in iraq like they did in afghanasthan and conquer syria. By then tony should have been "re-elected" with labour in the UK, and since Howard won in australia recently the "coalition of the killing" will be ready to roll!

Looking good so far, but Kerry is still in with a chance. It all hinges on Ohio.

Yoda

Memnoch wrote:

So it looks like america has voted. Bush wins not just the electoral but also a fair majority of the "popular" vote it would seem.

It is far from over. Every vote is going to count in this election, and they have not all been counted. There are hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots yet to count, and the overseas ballot (7 million potential voters) have to be counted.

If it does come down to Ohio, it may take 11 days before anything is known.

Villain

Provisional Ballots in Ohio are estimated between 150,000 and 250,000, and it could end up up that the gap is only 100,000 so it won't be over until Kerry's lawyers have fought for every vote. New Mexico is looking towards Bush at the moment but is still very close.

However you have to accept that Bush has won the popular vote beating Kerry by 3 million.

Memnoch

Yoda wrote:

It is far from over. Every vote is going to count in this election, and they have not all been counted. There are hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots yet to count, and the overseas ballot (7 million potential voters) have to be counted.

If it does come down to Ohio, it may take 11 days before anything is known.

if it comes down to fighting over provisional votes, it will go to the supreme court and Bush will win. Either way its over. Its hard to accept but its the truth.

Yoda

I'll wait until all the votes are counted, thanks.

including Ohio there's another 4 states left to be completely counted. Its not over yet.

However, it is disturbing that its gotten this close. A difference of abt 126k votes, with Bush in the lead, gives me the chills that the American People actually want Bush to be their President.

pickarooney

Fox called Ohio a few hours ago (to Bush, amazingly). Why are they allowed to do this?

its a game. Its been allowed for years. Last election they got embarrassed because they were wrong. This year they could be right <shrugs> I'm not sure I can say why any part of the US election process works or is allowed. :rolleyes:

Gurgle

So it looks like 4 years of a GWB who doesn't have another election to worry about. For his second term he can do anything that won't actually get him impeached, and we know what he considers 'presidential' behaviour.

I would not like to be living in Iran or Syria right now.

humanji

pickarooney wrote:

Fox called Ohio a few hours ago (to Bush, amazingly). Why are they allowed to do this?

It's because the networks in america are run by Bush supporters. Last year they did the same thing.

I say we get a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers and liberate America. Then we can finally give them the democracy they yearn for! We can claim they have weapons of mass destruction (we'll have to be careful because they actually do :eek: ).

pickarooney

By the same token, he doesn't have to spend 4 years making people so afraid they vote for him again.

sanvean

Didn't Kerry criticise Bush for being too leniant on Iran? And doesn't Kerry hold identical views with Bush re Israel? And didn't Kerry support the war in the first place? He was also claiming to have a 'secret plan' for solving the crisis in Iraq. In the past these 'secret plans' (see Kennedy, Nixon) involved pumping ever increasing soldiers into the problem area.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush winning is a good thing. Far from it. But I'm still annoyed at those people saying that you couldn't vote for the third choice, because *this time it's too important*. Every election, you hear that. And so nothing will change.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote:

However, it is disturbing that its gotten this close. A difference of abt 126k votes, with Bush in the lead, gives me the chills that the American People actually want Bush to be their President.

It does look like he has the overall popular vote.

It's because the networks in america are run by Bush supporters. Last year they did the same thing

Not all networks. Fox has always been extremely pro bush. Some of the other networks have been very cautious abt saying who will gain Ohio.

I say we get a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers and liberate America.

They couldn't defend their own country and you want to invade the strongest military nation in the world. A country whose populase has enough weaponary and training to block any such "liberation". Might be best to wait for Aliens.

I would not like to be living in Iran or Syria right now.

Oddly enough there's alot more nations out there that should be worried. Remember this is Bush we're talking abt being the President. Any nation that doesn't fall to its knees in worship of teh Coalition of the Almighty could face similiar responses.

meepmeep

Yep, 56.5 million votes for Bush and 52.8 for Kerry

Yoda

Deleted User wrote:

A difference of abt 126k votes, with Bush in the lead, gives me the chills that the American People actually want Bush to be their President.

Half the American people, you mean.

Carpo

Say yer prayers?

Horde iodine pills, duct tape and canned goods?

Invest in Heckler and Koch shares?

But seriously, we've had 4 years to see how Bush operates and we can expect pretty much more of the same now, with maybe a slight increase in the trend (or spiral) now that the proverbial reelection leash is off. Tomorrow will be pretty much like yesterday only moreso.

Also, although many people dismiss the chance, if I were a 18 - 34 year old (or 18 - 44 year old with skills in medicene or computers) 'Merkin I'd be pretty worried right now.

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

Fox called Ohio a few hours ago (to Bush, amazingly). Why are they allowed to do this?

Because their word carries as much actual weight as you or I saying that someone has won.

They are giving their best guess, and its not in their interest to look stupid calling it wrongly. Being first to call it right gives bragging rights. So its a calculated guess.....how early can you call it accurately.

jc

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

Because their word carries as much actual weight as you or I saying that someone has won.

They are giving their best guess, and its not in their interest to look stupid calling it wrongly. Being first to call it right gives bragging rights. So its a calculated guess.....how early can you call it accurately.

jc

tbh at this stage i think you can be pretty sure that bush is staying in. Bush has the "popular vote" and it looks like Ohio is the "key" to the electoral vote, which barring miracles like all of the last 2% voting for kerry will go to bush.

Kerry will protest and maybe even file law suits over the whole provisonal and absentee ballot issue, but bush is the one with the real power in his hands and the USSC to do his bidding, IF it gets to that stage (which i don't think it will on this occasion ) they will simply award the presidency to Bush like they did last time.

ixoy

Doesn't the fact he won the popular vote mean that, even if the electoral college system was dumped, we'd probably still have seen a Bush victory?

meepmeep

ixoy wrote:

Doesn't the fact he won the popular vote mean that, even if the electoral college system was dumped, we'd probably still have seen a Bush victory?

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.

bonkey

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

meepmeep

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

Absolutely! We'll have no hypocrisy on boards

Bard

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...

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?