Holy Shit.. Bush says no God no Job??

[Lord Sander]

Just a quick word about this "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate who probably won't win" bullshit:

IT'S NOT A FUCKING HORSE RACE!!!

You don't win squat if you correctly pick the winner. (unless of course you contributed shit loads of money to one candidate) If enough people bought into this 'wasted vote' crap 140 years ago, there would have been no Abraham Lincoln in the White House. How many more Lincolns will we pass up while we vote for more Dem and Rep clowns because we believe only they can win?

You mean, other parties exist?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just a quick word about this "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate who probably won't win" bullshit:

IT'S NOT A FUCKING HORSE RACE!!!

You don't win squat if you correctly pick the winner. (unless of course you contributed shit loads of money to one candidate) If enough people bought into this 'wasted vote' crap 140 years ago, there would have been no Abraham Lincoln in the White House. How many more Lincolns will we pass up while we vote for more Dem and Rep clowns because we believe only they can win?

And if this were any other election i would agree with you. But frankly, I dont want bush to win. If Bush wins, we are all screwed IMHO so I would rather vote for somene that agrees with me on MOST issues, and has a good chance at winning, than someone who agrees with me on all issues, whos chances are slim to none.. at least i this election when my freedom from religion is on the edge of a knife.

[kojikun]

i understand that the president will likely be the electorally voted one, but how will the PEOPLE react when the nation votes for a democrat far more then the electors voted for?

[Montcalm]

i understand that the president will likely be the electorally voted one, but how will the PEOPLE react when the nation votes for a democrat far more then the electors voted for?

They did it once,they might try it again but this time they will use another method of counting.

[RedImperator]

i understand that the president will likely be the electorally voted one, but how will the PEOPLE react when the nation votes for a democrat far more then the electors voted for?

Like I said, it's impossible for the margin to be enormous, so likely you'd see the same thing you saw the last time: the loser's supporters wailing that the election was stolen (not even that if you don't have fuckups like there were in Florida) and bumper stickers saying "X isn't my president", and the winner's supporters saying, "Read the Constitution, you asswipes." There'll be pundits yammering for a few months about abolishing the electoral college, a few books about how the college is undemocratic and/or the Vast Conspiracy conspired to foist an undemocratically elected president on the people, and then it will all fade to nothing by the middle of the next year. And of course, smug foreigners will make snide remarks on message boards about how the American system is fucked up or America is really a dictatorship or how glad they are they're not American.

Really, the American system is remarkably stable considering the douchebags running it. Americans ignore the government as much as they can most of the time anyway, and they're not going to take to the streets unless something really horrible happens like a coup or a President who refuses to step down at the end of his term.

[Joe]

Actually Dean s a rock solid fiscal conservative... socially liberal.. he will only put money into social programs and such if the country can afford it.

Right, and Bill Clinton will cut taxes for the middle class.

[Coyote]

The big problem with voting within party lines is the assumption of "mandate", as in, "we have a mandate from the people to....".

In truth, when you vote Liberatarian (or Green, or whatever) you are sending a message. Lately bot the Republicans and the Demcrats have been digging deeper into their "roots", ie, their most extreme (and most motivated to vote) members.

For the Republicans this means the uberconservative Christian bloc; for the Democrats this means the quasi-Marxist/Socialist movement. Both are groups I deplore. I-- and apparantly many more people-- are somewhat middle of the road, wanting to choose a few Dem platforms and a few Repub platforms and mix them.

So here's what happens-- if you vote within Party lines, then you give them a 'mandate' (excuse) to go deeper into their Parrty roots. But lets say a bunch od Conservatives vote Liberatarian.... and at the same time, a bunch of Dems vote Green.

Now, it is true that these parties do not hold a proverbial snowball's chance of winning the the election. But-- when a Major Party gets an election by Majority the think they have a blanket hall pass to get radical..... but if they Barely Scrape By and are almost backstabbed by a centrist wild card party, the realize that mainstream America is not behind them 100% and they better learn to back off the extremism .

Bush got lucky-- after his election there was the 9-11 attacks, which really pushed people into defensive mode. Even now, despite all the Leftist hype about what a fucktard Bush is, we cannot deny that his recent AIDS package and African aid package are quite generous; and the Administration's recent moves towards the gay and lesbian population are groundbreaking. Despite the President's leanings he realizes he still has to court that center-line feeling.

A Third Party vote is not wasted-- if for no other reason than so you can send the message that "no, sir, America is not 110% behind everythig you do-- there are still a lot of people who feel that these other isssues are important."

So seriously vote your conscience-- if for no other reason that to break the "mandate for extremism" mindset and force them to look at more Centrist philosophies.

[Tribun]

Every country got the government, it deserves, thats an old wisdom, and it seems to beome true sgain. America voted for the moron, so they get the moron. American voted for the idiot, so they get the idiot. It is thier own fault, that the totally incompetent son of a texan oil-baron and former president is now president of the USA.
The whole system of the two political parties in the US seems to me like to choose between starving and pestilence. Either way you are fucked up the ass.
By the way....my opinion about G. W. Bush is mirrored good in this here:

[Perinquus]

Every country got the government, it deserves, thats an old wisdom, and it seems to beome true sgain. America voted for the moron, so they get the moron. American voted for the idiot, so they get the idiot. It is thier own fault, that the totally incompetent son of a texan oil-baron and former president is now president of the USA.
The whole system of the two political parties in the US seems to me like to choose between starving and pestilence. Either way you are fucked up the ass.
By the way....my opinion about G. W. Bush is mirrored good in this here:
[image]

And the Germans are getting the governemnt they deserve. The Schröder victory is a disaster for Germany's economy (the past years' figures speak for themselves).

But you elected him not because of what he would do for Germany, but for what he would do against the United States. And your economic woes may well worsen since you choose to put your priorities so badly out of order - so you will get the government you deserve for letting anti-Americanism determine the outcome of your elections rather than electing your leaders on the basis of who will do the most good for your country. Schröder's anti-war (anti-America) rhetoric was nothing but cunning pre-election populism. Schröder has used anti-American feeling in Germany for his own gain, then he turns around and accuses Stoiber of stirring up anti-foreigner attitudes.

As Robert Kagan said:

With the Soviet and communist threats safely behind them and the Balkan crises settled, most Western Europeans either do not remember, do not choose to remember or perhaps even resent America's long record of strategic "generosity" toward them.

Certainly they do not feel a scintilla of generosity toward the US. Instead, as keen observers such as Christopher Caldwell have noted, anti-Americanism has become the organising theme for all European grievances about their world. And just as Arab leaders channel domestic unhappiness with their rule into anti-Americanism as a kind of safety valve for discontent, so, in perhaps more subtle ways, do European leaders. Schroeder surely hopes his impoverished constituents in the former East Germany can be encouraged to vent their anger at Bush and not at their own chancellor. French anxieties about France's growing Muslim population are channeled into hostility toward Israel and the Bush administration's Middle East policies.

The German people opposed us in the war and that is fair enough. That’s their right. It’s not the first time the German people have gone on the wrong side of history.

[Peregrin Toker]

In truth, when you vote Liberatarian (or Green, or whatever) you are sending a message. Lately bot the Republicans and the Demcrats have been digging deeper into their "roots", ie, their most extreme (and most motivated to vote) members.

Huh??

I always thought the Greens were to the left of the Democrats, and always would be.

[Coyote]

Right, Simon, my post was to imply that if you vote for the Greens or the Libertarians, you are voting for a fringe element. The Greens are a frings of the Democrats; the Libertarians are a fringe of the Republicans.

Were you thinking I was saying that the Greens and the Libertarians are the same thing? Hmmm....



You know, I see a lot of attacks on Bush, a lot of virulent hatred that borders on the pathological. This is far, far worse than any of the disapproval I ever saw portrayed against Bill Clinton.

I disliked Clinton but I still call him Bill Clinton and I state my dislike for his policies and what he did as a leader/politician. I don't draw pictures of him as a lunatic fucking infants in the ass or anything like that. But the crude, disgusting, virulent and disgustingly hateful treatment of President Bush seems to me to be rather over the top.

I am not a big fan of George W. Bush, he does a lot of things I don't like and I really don't much care for him as a man, but if someone has a disagreement of him, can you at least present in a manner somewhat beyond the level of a four-year-old? It would lead us to believe that you actually have observed the man and his actions and are able to articulate your dislike as a coherent human being rather than a screeching zoo animal.

[Coyote]

Uh, Simon, the above is not directed towards you, just in general for the rabid Bush-bashers that screech but make no point.

[Darth Wong]

You know, I see a lot of attacks on Bush, a lot of virulent hatred that borders on the pathological. This is far, far worse than any of the disapproval I ever saw portrayed against Bill Clinton.

Really? Even today, 3 years after he left office, Clinton's name is still predictably trotted out whenever right-wingers want to defend Bush by bashing Slick Willie.

I disliked Clinton but I still call him Bill Clinton and I state my dislike for his policies and what he did as a leader/politician. I don't draw pictures of him as a lunatic fucking infants in the ass or anything like that. But the crude, disgusting, virulent and disgustingly hateful treatment of President Bush seems to me to be rather over the top.

Methinks your memory is faulty. During Clinton's presidency, one could have been forgiven for thinking that his real name was "Slick Willie", since we seemed to hear that moniker more often than his real name. And nasty political cartoons have been around during every presidency, but this presidency takes place during a more mature phrase of the trash-talking Internet era. I don't see why the increased vulgarity of Internet political cartoons should be blamed on leftism rather than the fact that the Internet fosters vulgarity.

[Perinquus]

Methinks your memory is faulty. During Clinton's presidency, one could have been forgiven for thinking that his real name was "Slick Willie", since we seemed to hear that moniker more often than his real name. And nasty political cartoons have been around during every presidency, but this presidency takes place during a more mature phrase of the trash-talking Internet era. I don't see why the increased vulgarity of Internet political cartoons should be blamed on leftism rather than the fact that the Internet fosters vulgarity.

Critics of Clinton could certainly go off the deep end. And I may have missed it, but I just don't recall political cartoonists portraying Clinton in nearly as unflattering a manner as they do Bush. They regularly draw Geo. W. Bush with markedly simian features. Note the political cartoon our German friend posted above - note the monkeyish facial features and the chimpanzee hands and feet. It's as blatant an attempt to portray someone as subhuman as there is, and as I said, I just don't recall ever seeing that sort of thing done to Clinton.

[Hamel]

Methinks your memory is faulty. During Clinton's presidency, one could have been forgiven for thinking that his real name was "Slick Willie", since we seemed to hear that moniker more often than his real name. And nasty political cartoons have been around during every presidency, but this presidency takes place during a more mature phrase of the trash-talking Internet era. I don't see why the increased vulgarity of Internet political cartoons should be blamed on leftism rather than the fact that the Internet fosters vulgarity.

Critics of Clinton could certainly go off the deep end. And I may have missed it, but I just don't recall political cartoonists portraying Clinton in nearly as unflattering a manner as they do Bush. They regularly draw Geo. W. Bush with markedly simian features. Note the political cartoon our German friend posted above - note the monkeyish facial features and the chimpanzee hands and feet. It's as blatant an attempt to portray someone as subhuman as there is, and as I said, I just don't recall ever seeing that sort of thing done to Clinton.

Dear god man! Clinton was portrayed as a fucking MOLESTER.

[Perinquus]

Dear god man! Clinton was portrayed as a fucking MOLESTER.

Where?

I don't recall ever seeing any political cartoons that portrayed Clinton as a child molester. If you could find one I'd like to see it.

I do recall seeing a few cartoons that portrayed him as a cheap lothario, but that's hardly the same thing. It also has the virtue of being nothing less than the truth - he was a cheap lothario.

[Coyote]

Mike, I know what others did to Clinton but even then I did not play that game. I dislike the man because of his political points of view but throughout his administration I rarely ever referred to him by some deragatory nickname. If I was caught off-guard by something he did that really pissed me off I might drag up the term Slick Willie but overwhelmingly I called him Bill Clinton, or "the Prez" or other normal things. I considered name calling and similar derogatory acts to be a sign of immaturity.

But while the term "slick Willie" calls to question Clinton's character, the constant portrayal of Bush as a sub-human animal recalls, to my mind, the demonization and sub-humanizing of a political propaganda machine against a chosen enemy. If right-wingers had treated Saddam Hussein this way, the Left would have argued loud and passionate about such vilification.

I despised Clinton but did not treat him in such a childish manner. And I apply the same rules to him as I do to Bush-- like or dislike, the man is stil the President and represents the will of a portion of the American populace.

George W. Bush did not "win" the election in a difinitive manner; but remember that Bill Clinton also did not secure a clear majority-- the vote was siphoned by Perot. I believe his actual vote tally was in the 40% range, so why should he be seen as any more "legitimate"?

I have pointed out before that I am willing to respect and listen to the arguments of the Left, even though I tend to dislike what I hear, and I try (although I fail sometimes) to maintain respect for the person even though I find the politics disreputable. But the constant dehumanization and blatnt vilification of George W. Bush is out of a propgandists' dream, and I cannot take seriously a point of view that boils down to "Bush is a subhuman fukking idiot". That is not political discourse, that is just screeching.

I cannot control the radical right's portrayal of Clinton, but in the same light of fairness that I apply to portrayals of Bush I dismiss their rabid Clinton-bashing as equally pointless. Argue a man's policies and I understand; fling mud and you're just another person covered in crap.

[Gil Hamilton]

Critics of Clinton could certainly go off the deep end. And I may have missed it, but I just don't recall political cartoonists portraying Clinton in nearly as unflattering a manner as they do Bush. They regularly draw Geo. W. Bush with markedly simian features. Note the political cartoon our German friend posted above - note the monkeyish facial features and the chimpanzee hands and feet. It's as blatant an attempt to portray someone as subhuman as there is, and as I said, I just don't recall ever seeing that sort of thing done to Clinton.

It's not Bill Clinton's fault that George W. Bush has chimpish features that are so easy to exaggerate to the point that it implies he's a chimp.

Seriously though, you need only turn to have turned on any sort of conservative talk radio to find pundits saving things equally as rotten about Bill Clinton as people have said about George Bush (I'm sure I can dig up something by Anne Coulter that makes most political cartoons about Bush look like hugs and kisses) Hell you can dig up political cartoons from 200 years ago that are just as bad. I hope you don't think that political cartoons portraying political figures as animals or with downright vicious commentary is a recent phenomena? There are countless cartoons in existance where people are portrayed literally as pigs or dogs, which is a bit worse than being a chimp. You're complaining about something that has been a huge tradiation in the Western world for centuries.

[Peregrin Toker]

If right-wingers had treated Saddam Hussein this way, the Left would have argued loud and passionate about such vilification.

Actually, I don't think they would have cared that much. The left (save for the Maoist movement) - at least in Europe - make a big point of that they don't like Saddam Hussein - they just think Bush is no better than Hussein, or that his solutions are worse than the problem. (kinda hypocritical, considering Communism's own track record of solving problems by replacing them with even bigger problems)

[Perinquus]

No, it's not a recent phenomenon. Political cartoonists can be vicious in their characterizations. But the point is that far more of them seem to be willing to characterize Bush in a worse light than they were to characterize Clinton. As Coyote said, when you portray someone as a subhuman, it is a way of dehumanizing your opponent that indicates a depth of contempt and hatred that, for most of them, just wasn't there with Clinton.

And I'd hardly take Ann Coulter as typical of conservative commentators. Coulter is basically a female, conservative version of Michael Moore (albeit slimmer and not nearly as much of a slob). She has a tendency to engage in exactly the same kind of name calling she blasts the left for, and also a tendency to take extreme positions, and make hasty generalizations about liberals. Her recent defense of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and her recent charactization of a liberal political philosophy as basically treasonous is a perfect example. As a result, you have other conservative pundits like Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz writing columns that basically say she's gone around the bend into crackpot conservatism, and whatver good points she does occasionally make get lost in all the extreme garbage she comes up with. I think they're absolutely right about that; she has gone around the bend.