The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! IV

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Stefu
So, what's happening at the Democratic Underground? Put an end to popups!


My favoritest wacky forum in the whole Internet is only letting registrants in! It's been like this since Kerry conceeded.

I'm pretty sure that there are Poly members who are also DUers - Sava, for instance. What's going on? Crying? Futile rage? What?

Well, I had a response typed up, but Ming locked the thread before I could post. Give me a moment and I'll answer again...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Gee, thanks.

Why would you live in Idaho?

[DRoseDARs]

While there are certainly flame wars erupting, the Mods have been dutiful in dealing with such threads. The General Discussion section has been divided into 2 forums: one for civil discussion and the other for ranting. There's still discussion of the many voting irregularities reported throughout the country. Also, there are still many uncounted votes in the form of absentee and provisional ballots. Kerry may have conceded, but the legal battle may yet go on. Or it might not. I find myself no longer caring either way.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Poor Tony Blair. Another four years of being a chimp's puppy-dog when he should be one of the greatest PM's in British history

He put the collar on himself.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why would you live in Idaho?

Bolded wrong portion, will correct momentarily...



I've lived in Reno since '86.

[Admiral]

With regard to Christians being more competent to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, there are both pros and cons. First, Ben Kenobi is right that (real) Christians do tend to take a somewhat longer view than your average politicians, who cannot see beyond the next election. Second, the problem is not with Islam as a whole, but with Islamic fundamentalism, which has its (somewhat less radical) mirror in the christian community, and which Christians will be more used to dealing with.
On the other hand, and this is not true with all Christians, but some Christians tend to view their opinions as God-given, and not open to question, which means the sort of negotiation and give and take that is necessary just won't happen. Also, they can forget (sometimes purposely) that they represent a nation that is nominally non-Christian.

[Stefu]

Okay.

I don't much care, either. I guess it's the European in me - Bush won the popular vote, therefore Bush won.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Bolded wrong portion, will correct momentarily...



I've lived in Reno since '86.

I didn't mean that your city should be nuked. Only letting of steam anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

On the other hand, and this is not true with all Christians, but some Christians tend to view their opinions as God-given, and not open to question, which means the sort of negotiation and give and take that is necessary just won't happen. Also, they can forget (sometimes purposely) that they represent a nation that is nominally non-Christian.

True, and I don't question this. Just for the point at hand, there are similarities between the two worldviews, that the moderns have difficulty understanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

He said competent to judge, not opinionated.

Unless you're saying that vis-a-vis Christians and athiests/agnostics, one is more competent?

That is my point, particularly with the conflict over materialism.

[Ned]

Re: Reassement and Retrenching?

Originally posted by MrFun
My feelings that I have now are a combination of

But I want to express some thoughts that I have developed since yesterday as I watched the election unfold.


First, there is a historical parallel with something that could potentially develop in the near future. One of the reasons Reconstruction failed after the Civil War, was that the Republican Party could no longer afford to be tarred and feathered by the Democrats as a "******-loving" party and to be associated with "dangerous radicals" in regards to proposed Reconstruction policies.

So in 1877, the Republican Party took the first step in compromising its founding ideals, in exchange for political power by distancing itself from the plight and real concerns of Southern blacks.


Fast forward to today. IF the Democratic Party takes the election results as a serious mandate for internal party change then Democratic leaders will foster a reassessment of its own party. Reassessment could result in a better, stronger Democratic Party while reviving its ideals of equality and civil rights, or the Democratic Party will decide to distance itself from the concerns of gays and lesbians even more so than some Democrats already have.

If the Democratic Party reassesses itself, and decides that they should compromise on ideals of equal rights and civil rights in exchange for renewed political power such as the Republican Party had done towards the end of Reconstruction, then gay communities across the nation may face even more challenges. The reason? When the Republican Party renounced its ideals and drew back from Reconstruction, African-Americans were left without a political party to appeal for their concerns from the 1880s to the middle of the 1940s.

In the near future, if the Democratic Party decides to completely renounce all efforts to consider the concerns of gays and lesbians, then gay communities across the nation will be without a political party. I am well aware of Democrats who are homophobic or who cave into political pressures from Republican homophobics now, and in recent past. What I am saying though, is that as a WHOLE -- with the entire party -- it might turn its back entirely to gays and lesbians.


I do not know though, if this kind of negative, reactionary reassessment will even occur. But we cannot simply dismiss this as a fantastical scenario. In our nation's history before, political parties have made such reassessments in order to renew their political power.

What are other people's thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you should stop thinking of the Republican Party as being anti-gay. Being against "gay marriage" is not the same thing as being homophobic. Republicans favor domestic rights legislation. It is time for Democratic gays to drop their overly aggressive anti-Republicanism, as it only makes working together for better gay rights very difficult.

I would like to point to what almost happened to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Martin Luther King and his highly partisan organization demonstrated outside of Senator Dirksen's headquarters in Illinois. Dirksen at the time was a Republican minority leader of the Senate and was cooperating with Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson in attempting to override the Southern Democrat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. As a result of Kings demonstration, Dirksen complained publicly and said that he would withdraw his support of the Civil Rights Act if these kind of demonstrations continued.

I hear no gay bashing from the Republican leadership. I do hear a substantial amount of Republican-bashing from gays. Republican-bashing has got to stop.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


People who voted for him largely didn't do considering most of his foreign or domestic policy.

They rated "values" and "terrorism" as their biggest issues, not the economy, foreign relations, Iraq, etc.

-Drachasor

Drach, you are uncompromising in you persistent self-delusion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
So which Southern State should OBL nuke?

I reckon Arkansas, because it's spelled stupidly. The downside is that no one really lives there, so I doubt anyone would notice.

Dallas. After all, it's about the OIL.

[lord of the mark]

as far as i can tell, anyone who voted for bush on values was already with him in 2000. That was just a way of keeping his base.


He has, as far i am concerned no mandate on cultural issues. Most of which a Prez has little direct effect on anyway.

The only thing he DOES have a mandate to do is to win in Iraq, and to fight radical Islamist terror.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Admiral
With regard to Christians being more competent to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, there are both pros and cons. First, Ben Kenobi is right that (real) Christians do tend to take a somewhat longer view than your average politicians, who cannot see beyond the next election. Second, the problem is not with Islam as a whole, but with Islamic fundamentalism, which has its (somewhat less radical) mirror in the christian community, and which Christians will be more used to dealing with.
On the other hand, and this is not true with all Christians, but some Christians tend to view their opinions as God-given, and not open to question, which means the sort of negotiation and give and take that is necessary just won't happen. Also, they can forget (sometimes purposely) that they represent a nation that is nominally non-Christian.

The problem is with lack of freedom and democracy that encourages impoverished youth to joint radical organizations that seeks "revenge" against the "external" cause of the poverty. The solution is to bring freedom and democracy to a land bereft of rights and hope.