The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! IV

[Dinner]

Yep, blue as the sky.

[Ned]

Sava, et al., civil unions or rather domestic partner rights are not something that Republicans oppose. What the people are against is the word "marriage" being adopted by gays. According to surveys, 80% of American are against gay marriages. If you add in to that "domestic partner rights" then the numbers switch dramatically.

I also think the majority of Americans are very sick and tired of unelected liberal judges changing fundamental social policy through judicial legislation.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Very true.

They are not inconsequential issues, the people who find them important, believe that the fate of the Republic will hinge on their decision.

This is why it is good for the US to rely upon these people for their important decisions, because they, moreso than the liberals, understand the challenge offered by the Islamic countries. They understand the viewpoint that it may take generations to accomplish what will be needed, so it is best to start on the right path now.

As an agnostic deep in the bible-belting south, I've gotta disagree. The perspective given by holding religious beliefs oneself doesnt make one any more or less competent to judge issues associated with another faith.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I hope Al Qaeda nukes a red state.

Sava, this is pretty much which Bob Bectel said as well. He said that the South should now secede.

Healing? It looks like Kerry's message has not been heard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kaak
edwards speech

Agreed. He continues in denial. Or better, he is positioning himself for the next election.

[muxec]

Bush
Cheney

Where can I get those famouse parody flash-animations about elections-2004 ?

[Agathon]

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain. Exalted reason,
Resplendent daughter of the head divine,
Wise foundress of the system of the world,
Guide of the stars, who art thou then if thou,
Bound to the tail of folly's uncurbed steed,
Must, vainly shrieking with the drunken crowd,
Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.
Accursed, who striveth after noble ends,
And with deliberate wisdom forms his plans!
To the fool-king belongs the world.

Friedrich von Schiller
The Maid of Orleans (1801) Act iii scene 6 (as translated by Anna Swanwick)

[Theben]

Originally posted by Sava
I hope Al Qaeda nukes a red state.

If it's Indiana, can this red leave the red state's red zone 1st? Please?

[MrFun]

Reassement and Retrenching?

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?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Agathon

Great quote.

[Theben]

My feeling is that's teh longest post I've ever seen by your name, MrConcisewording.

[Agathon]

MrFun

The problem is that there is this myth in America that the 60s changed everything. It did, for a few people. The rest still have much the same prejudices. Outside the US it is different.

I don't think the Democratic Party should compromise at all. They don't have a chance at winning for the foreseeable future, so they should just lie low or engage in mild civil disobedience.

One day the bigots may be in the minority, but don't hold your breath.

[Japher]

My feeling to MrFun's post is that it ain't about gays, it's about rights, so stop making everything about you, and that the Dems have already turned their backs on gay communities thanks to Kerry and Edwards.

Dem restructure needs to occur, that's for sure, however they can keep their ideals, it's the way in which they semi-reach for them that is the problem.

[Kaak]

is it just me, or are the bush girls getting hotter

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
My feeling to MrFun's post is that it ain't about gays, it's about rights, so stop making everything about you, and that the Dems have already turned their backs on gay communities thanks to Kerry and Edwards.

Dem restructure needs to occur, that's for sure, however they can keep their ideals, it's the way in which they semi-reach for them that is the problem.

Should I just ignore your ad-hominem attack that my post was all about me and get to your other comments?


My concern was not that Kerry and Edwards were ignoring the concerns of gays and lesbians. My concern is that now that Kerry and Edwards lost BECAUSE they tried dealing with the issue of gays and lesbians fairly, and lost as a result, that the Democratic Party will reassess itself at the expense of its ideals.