so, who's emigrating?

[MKSheppard]

You're advocating cuts in the military?

I was thinking some real unpopular thing such as welfare. Sell
all those housing projects in the inner cities off to yuppies

[irishmick79]

I guess I'm considering going to Grad school abroad. I'm still an undergrad student, so it might be a few years before actually making a decision to leave the United States or not, but leaving the United States is definitely on the radar map now.

I was looking into Irish citizenship, and found out that it's a dual citizenship - I could get Irish citizenship and not have to give up my US citizenship as well. It looks like Irish law is also designed to give pesons of Irish decent an easier inroad to obtaining citizenship. My great-grandfather was an Irish born citizen, while my grandfather was an Irish citizen born in New York. I could have an easier time than most if I decide to apply for citizenship....

[Hotfoot]

If it was so temporary, how did he win two terms, and how did Al Gore end up with the popular vote in 2000? It seems to me like there was a trend that was getting started but got fumbled in the 2000 election.

Yeah, right. Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage act", remember? He hardly represented the resurgence of liberal social policies in America. What social liberal policies did he spearhead?

And Bush publicly stated that he didn't oppose civil unions, does that mean he's not conservative?

The DoMa was not a ban on civil unions, in fact, it opened the door for them in several states. It was a clarification on the terms "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law, and a passing of the buck for legalizing same sex marriage to the states, rather than it being a national decision. Chretien made a similar move in passing the buck to your supreme court to make the decision for him. The difference, of course, is that Chretien's move worked pretty well, but then he could look at what happened in the US as an example of what not to do, since the DoMa was about six years prior.

[Darth Wong]

And Bush publicly stated that he didn't oppose civil unions, does that mean he's not conservative?

It means there's a certain position which is acceptable in America, and that position does not change, that's what it means. And that's the point I was making, so don't be an idiot.

[Col. Crackpot]

The Republicans are already asking for the national debt ceiling to be raised so they can go plunging past the $8 trillion mark.

Or they could always kill a major social program. Has nobody thought of that angle?

You're advocating cuts in the military?

i'm sorta fine with that, in a limited way. It is time to trim the fat and re-tool. For example, do we really need a dozen CVN's?

[Hotfoot]

It means there's a certain position which is acceptable in America, and that position does not change, that's what it means. And that's the point I was making, so don't be an idiot.

And the only way to alter that is through slow, gradual change for the positive. Championing for extremes tends to be dangerous for one's political career, so you have to be smart about how you go about things. For example, an overt push by the democrats now to improve public schools in areas that were moderately or heavily Republican this election would send off waves of indignance throughout those regions. However, say you're improving health care and education across the board by slapping penalties on frivilous lawsuits, and the power of stupid people to change what schools teach and do is reduced. After that, push for increases in school funding as well as pushing for improved teaching staff, and the results you want will likely start coming in. Moreso, even, if you give benefits to students who want to attend out of state colleges and universities. Nothing opens the mind quite like travel does.

If you have any other ideas, of course, I would like to hear them. Let's face it, more than anything, the International intrest in the recent election shows more than ever that the US is a significant factor to the rest of the world, and if we do end up going down the shitter, I don't want to think of what will happen across the globe.

[Iceberg]

I hate fucking greedy people. I bet you anything that now that the school levy was defeated, this bullshit "Committee for a Responsible School Board" will melt back into the woodwork and vanish, secure in the fact that they won't have to pay an extra 300 bucks a year in property taxes (do the math, 3 million dollars divided by 10,000 households) for Winona area schools.

[Darth Wong]

It means there's a certain position which is acceptable in America, and that position does not change, that's what it means. And that's the point I was making, so don't be an idiot.

And the only way to alter that is through slow, gradual change for the positive.

And for the umpteenth fucking time, NO ONE IS PERSONALLY OBLIGATED TO SACRIFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, or to let their kids grow up in an environment where they're being taught these kinds of attitudes. I have kids; if I felt that I was living in a society where it was becoming really popular to be a theocratic asshole, I would look into leaving. It's easy to say that people are "pussies" for not staying and tilting at windmills when you're a snot-nosed little wet-behind-the-ears dumbshit with no real responsibilities to worry about.

[SirNitram]

You know, while I don't advocate leaving over Dubya's leaving(And the major reason I was ruminating on seeking greener pastures is going), it is really ridiculous to see this idea that 'YOU CAN'T LEAVE, YOU HAVE TO FIGHT!'. Risking an argument that goes too extreme in it's analogy, at what point in the transformation of Germany in the 1930s was it 'acceptable' for Jewish to high-tail it, Hotfoot? By your logic they should have stayed and tried voting Hitler out of power as he resculpted the nation to try and obliterate them.

This comes up because there is a definate chance things will simply get worse; that Bush will react to the positive reinforcement he got by expanding his war against the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and sensible use of military. People will lose more rights and fear will continue to be trotted out to excuse everything. While I doubt he will become the next Hitler(He doesn't have the defining mustache, for example), I expect things to get a fuckload worse before they get better.

If the DNC doesn't get it's shit together, why should people stay? A future dominated by the fundie demographic is not a pleasant one, and they quite frankly outnumber us. They breed like rabbits.

[Hotfoot]

And for the umpteenth fucking time, NO ONE IS PERSONALLY OBLIGATED TO SACRIFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

You are right, and I am not trying to challenge that. If it seems like I am, I apologize once again for not communicating that clearly.

[The Dark]

Or they could always kill a major social program. Has nobody thought of that angle?

You're advocating cuts in the military?

i'm sorta fine with that, in a limited way. It is time to trim the fat and re-tool. For example, do we really need a dozen CVN's?

Or the F-22, or the F-35, or the M-8. The newest fighters are only truly superior to the current ones if we engage in a large-scale war against high-technology opponents. Given that (IIRC) we still have the dies for F-15s and F-16s, there's really not much reason to ignore the potential for new Blocks with upgrades, which would be a much cheaper way of providing an almost as good air force without requiring years of R&D and billions of taxpayer dollars for minimal returns in most practical scenarios. The M-8 I'm about, as it's basically an M-16 made of plastic with interchangable barrels and a selector switch that allows full auto. Whoopee.

[Broomstick]

A temporary, very small reversal at best - he was one out of four presidents since 1980. And he was pretty damn conservative for a democrat - they were calling him a "stealth republican" at one point during his first term.

If it was so temporary, how did he win two terms, and how did Al Gore end up with the popular vote in 2000? It seems to me like there was a trend that was getting started but got fumbled in the 2000 election.

Not much of a trend - remember Defense of Marriage Act? Don't ask/don't tell? Clinton was a liberal only in contrast to Reagan and Bush - in 1970 his views/actions as POTUS would has been considered those of a conservative.

Gore barely won the popular vote in 2000, just as the Shrub barely won it in 2004. I don't see 51% vs 49% as being a hugely significant difference. The real message is that the country is divided nearly in two on a significant number of issues.

Sure it is. Not as easy as it once was, true, but there are a couple thousand miles of undefended territory between the two countries, it's quite easy to cross if you don't mind hiking through some backcountry. And, of course, you'd be living on the run as an illegal alien but hey, it wasn't really that wonderful for the young men back in the 1960's/early 70's

By the same logic, you could just head out into the forests of the USA and disappear if you felt like it. That way you don't even have to deal with the border.

Sure, why not? That was done, too. There is a LOT of empty territory in the US.

By the time we got to the Kent State incident and the various riots in various cities it was starting to look pretty dicey to the young folks even if they weren't drafted.

True, but I haven't seen police killing protesters as of late.

No - but Chicago has seen mass arrests over the past few years. Situations where the cops block off a few streets, round up everyone inside, and arrest all of them regardless of whether they were shouting and waving signs or office workers blocked from going home by those same protestors or terrified little old ladies in wheelchairs who didn't want to be in the crowd in the first place or passengers on a city bus.

[Broomstick]

The Republicans are already asking for the national debt ceiling to be raised so they can go plunging past the $8 trillion mark.

Or they could always kill a major social program. Has nobody thought of that angle?

You're advocating cuts in the military?

Good one!

Yes, the military plays a vital role, but some of its bloated aspects DO take on the appearance of a social program. Meanwhile, the families of the lower-level grunts live in sub-standard housing and receive food stamps due to low pay.

What is it with these guys? They'll spend millions on machines, but get cheap with human beings. I'm begining to think they just don't like their fellow human beings.

[Broomstick]

I was thinking some real unpopular thing such as welfare. Sell all those housing projects in the inner cities off to yuppies

Ah, Shep, only a young able-bodied would-be immortal young man can take the sort of stances you do.

Every now and then I fantacize about you suffering some horrific accident and winding up with your fine, young-stud body folded into a wheelchair, twisting and atrophying, and dependent on the assistance of other people to change your diaper on a regular basis. Unemployed, unsexy, and staring at potentially decades of such existance with no way out. Only then will you truly understand that people do not choose to be ugly, poor, weak, or helpless.

But then I remind myself that I am a better person than that, and it's not nice to wish such things on other people.

By the way - Chicago has done as you suggested. The poor have not gone away - they're still there, with a higher proportion sleeping in the subway stations and others jammed four families to a condo (because rentals are fast disappearing). They are reproducing just as fast, because the conservative influences in this country won't pay for such "luxuries" as birth control or sterilization (much less abortion) for poor women and men. Apparently the "compasionate conservatives" can't stomach people starving or freezing to death in the streets (and yes, people do freeze to death in Chicago winters - getting a corpsicle off a sidewalk is a bitch), which is a foreseeable outcome of their policies, yet they won't fund the public schools, the training programs, or medical clinics that would edcuate people, restore their health, and allow them to be productive members of society.

[KrauserKrauser]

Gore barely won the popular vote in 2000, just as the Shrub barely won it in 2004. I don't see 51% vs 49% as being a hugely significant difference. The real message is that the country is divided nearly in two on a significant number of issues.

The difference was 52 vs 48 with an excess of 4 million more votes for Bush. Whether you think that is a significant difference is meaningless. Trying to downplay his victory is bullshit.

[Broomstick]

Stating that he won by a very small margin in no way "minimizes" the election result. Bush managed to win despite alienating virtually every other country on the planet and trying to keep the average American citizen scared shitless - that's a rather impressive accomplishment.

Despite that, 4 million out of 280 million is... pretty small, statistically. That means only 1.4% of the population favored him enough over Kerry, Nader, and that Liberterian guy Badnarik to get off their asses and vote for him. 2% of the actual voters. Oh, wow. Big hairy deal. That's not a landslide.

Hype the results all you want - a significant chunk of the US population preferred someone else, and would still prefer someone else either positively (they're for someone else) or negatively (the "anyone but Bush" crowd). That's not a "mandate" or an affirmation of his policies - it basically says we're not that different than in 2000, with the country extremely divided more or less down the middle.

The only way I see this as an improvement over 2000 is that the results didn't end up in court.

[KrauserKrauser]

Stating that he won by a very small margin in no way "minimizes" the election result. Bush managed to win despite alienating virtually every other country on the planet and trying to keep the average American citizen scared shitless - that's a rather impressive accomplishment.

Despite that, 4 million out of 280 million is... pretty small, statistically. That means only 1.4% of the population favored him enough over Kerry, Nader, and that Liberterian guy Badnarik to get off their asses and vote for him. 2% of the actual voters. Oh, wow. Big hairy deal. That's not a landslide.

Hype the results all you want - a significant chunk of the US population preferred someone else, and would still prefer someone else either positively (they're for someone else) or negatively (the "anyone but Bush" crowd). That's not a "mandate" or an affirmation of his policies - it basically says we're not that different than in 2000, with the country extremely divided more or less down the middle.

The only way I see this as an improvement over 2000 is that the results didn't end up in court.

Sorry 280 million would be the US' entire population. Last time I checked not everyone was eleigle or registered to vote. Nice try there.

Oh and how you get 2% from a 5% gap is boggling to me.

He won, by a large majority, get over it. The libs will get another chance in 4 years. If they can actually get their head out of their ass and run a decent campaign with a real canidate they might have a chance. Though with either Guilliani or McCain on the ticket next term, they are going to have to really get a good canidate.

[KrauserKrauser]

Bah make that a 4% gap. Man I need to learn math.

[Broomstick]

1) Seeing as you have no clue how I voted (or if I even bothered) maybe you shouldn't be so quick to tell me to "get over it". A significant number of people in my state of Indiana actually consider W to be a bit left of their own position on some issues, and for all you know I may be one of them.

2) You are confusing absolute numbers with percentages. While in absolute numbers 4,000,000 (as an example) may be a lot of whatever you're counting, 4% is not a very high percentage, even if that 4% = 4,000,000,000,000. Bush "won" by a small percentage and no posturing and dancing will change that fact.

That's going solely by the popular vote which, you should know, doesn't matter in the US presidential election - it's strictly electoral college. Which is how we can have a candidate lose the popular vote yet still win the presidency.