• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Props to John Kerry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Iceman said:
the democrats have been the master of fear mongering.. remember, "old people, the republicans are going to take away your social security and medicare!!"

Iceman said:
NY was stabbed in the heart with its own knife by terrorists and the republicans in power say, "this might happen again if we don't get out to the world and wipe these guys out.. and if Kerry takes the lead he'll drop the ball on this"

The threat is actually real in this case and there's no reason to believe that a Kerry led whit house will be motivated to the same degree to take preventative measures like the Bush white house has aside from his mimicking statements that "we will find the terrorists and kill them."

Look genius - Bush is a heavy supporter of the privitization of social security. In case you missed it, that would include eliminating the current social security system. Yet the fact that Kerry might not have fought terrorism (I'm just curious, are you this gullible on all the issues) is a real threat?

The things Republicans say to make themselves feel better about their president ...
 
Props for conceding? Kerry is the legitimate winner of this election (or should I say "appointment by Diebold"). He should be mobilizing the National Guard to claim the presidency, not rolling over and playing dead.
 
Greenpanda said:
Props for conceding? Kerry is the legitimate winner of this election (or should I say "appointment by Diebold"). He should be mobilizing the National Guard to claim the presidency, not rolling over and playing dead.
Some of you can be so God damned retarded. :lol
 

fennec fox

ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
Kerry can get the National Guard after I summon them to get my money back from this one Ebay auctioneer
 

Diablos

Member
I just asked someone why they didn't vote for Kerry. The first thing he said was "raising minimum wage to $7/hr is dangerous." Yeah, considering they now pay $5-6 to begin with right now :lol
 
A massive lead of 3M+ popular votes pretty much states that the Shrub is our president, like it or nay. Even Diebold wouldn't be THAT ballsy.

Sorry, Dems, Junior's legit. It's time to wake up to the fact that we're still a very religious nation, and that homos are still scary to most of the population. It's time to find a new bag that isn't "Republican Lite" -- it's time to shout what we REALLY stand for, rather than "we're just like the other guy, but nicer."
 

Justin Bailey

------ ------
Drinky Crow said:
A massive lead of 3M+ popular votes pretty much states that the Shrub is our president, like it or nay. Even Diebold wouldn't be THAT ballsy.

Sorry, Dems, Junior's legit. It's time to wake up to the fact that we're still a very religious nation, and that homos are still scary to most of the population. It's time to find a new bag that isn't "Republican Lite" -- it's time to shout what we REALLY stand for, rather than "we're just like the other guy, but nicer."
But the thing is some Dems actually have those ideals. I think that's one of the biggest problems for democrats, on one end you have your Moore-dems, and the other you have the republican-lites. There is too much of a dispairity so they can't come together on issues nearly as well as the republicans can.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
I haven't watched either speech, being at work and all. Regardless, I do appreciate Kerry not dragging this out. There are ~150k provisional ballots that still need to be dealt with in Ohio, and while that covers the spread, it's very unlikely that Kerry would win by those. Only a handful are from the counties with large urban centers, the areas that swung to him last night.

Kerry not contesting the election is important, it adds legitimacy to our election process abroad; maybe Bush, in the eyes of other world leaders, will have a bit more standing. It also helps the Democrats in general, they won't look like they're morphing into a party that's so desperate for power that they'll contest every election that they lose. That would set a dangerous precedent for anyone running to do that, and we've danced around the bill of rights enough to not have to throw our entire process into the shredder along with it.

I pray (obviously figuratively, I'm agnostic beyond measure) that Bush's second term won't be nearly as wreckless as his first. He either needs to stop spending, or raise taxes. He simply can't have both.
 

Lane_Myer

Member
Drinky Crow said:
It's time to wake up to the fact that we're still a very religious nation, and that homos are still scary to most of the population.
and to think, i thought we had come so far :(

oh well, time to break out the seperate drinking fountains. secretary powell, you get to the back of the bus.
 

Gorey

Member
Sorry, Dems, Junior's legit. It's time to wake up to the fact that we're still a very religious nation, and that homos are still scary to most of the population. It's time to find a new bag that isn't "Republican Lite" -- it's time to shout what we REALLY stand for, rather than "we're just like the other guy, but nicer."

Agreed

This also sorta ties into what I woke up thinking about (after giving up on Ohio early in the AM). I'm a MA resisdent and a life long new englander. The extreme pessimist in me feels like it's time to start pushing hard for state's rights (yeah, I know, not exactly a classic liberal strong point) and just hope for better luck locally, while the rest of the nation continues its swing to the right. The religious right, if some of the polling information is to be believed.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
for those with your "Bush one by the largest majority ever, fear" or whatever.. not even close. a number of presidents won more decided victories...

1956
Ike 57.4%
Stevenson 42%
19.8M vote difference

1964
Johnson 61%
Goldwater 38.4%
15.7M vote difference

1972
Nixon 60.7%
McGovern 37.5%
17.8M vote difference

1980
Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41%
18.5M vote difference

1984
Reagan 58.8%
Mondale 40.5%
16.9M vote difference

etc...

this was more decided than 2000 or whatnot, but hardly a decisive victory. if anything it shows that people ARen'T falling into line with bush and are questioning his leadership. Hardly "America acting dumb".

America acting dumb would be 60% voting for a ridiculously incapable candidate (see 1964 and 1972 elections for reference).
 

Crowza

Member
It was a run of the mill speech. This would have been much better:

"My fellow Americans, I lost and I'd like to take this chance to say that it fucking sucks. I'd like to tell all of my staff that if they would have just worked harder, we would have won. But they were lazy and incompetent and my supporters didn't get out and get more people to vote. In the end, there simply wasn't enough people that voted for me. Don't the people that voted for Bush know that on the Internet, everyone bitches about him? Don't they know that on the Internet, they all think he is stupid? CNN is the last major network that is still holding up Ohio's electoral count in the air. CNN, I say this: give it up. I have and you should too. To those who voted for me God bless, everyone else - fuck you... (mumbling as he steps off the stage with his mic still on) Thank God I didn't give up my Senate seat. "
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Drinky Crow said:
A massive lead of 3M+ popular votes pretty much states that the Shrub is our president, like it or nay. Even Diebold wouldn't be THAT ballsy.

Sorry, Dems, Junior's legit. It's time to wake up to the fact that we're still a very religious nation, and that homos are still scary to most of the population. It's time to find a new bag that isn't "Republican Lite" -- it's time to shout what we REALLY stand for, rather than "we're just like the other guy, but nicer."

And you still support universal sufferage.

Having a test required voter registration or some such is definetly a lesser of 2 evils; makes sure people are aware of what they're voting for, even if what they're voting for isn't the 'right thing'.

Either you can have the tyranny of the well informed. Or the tyranny of the highly manipulative.

The baseline simply isn't high enough to properly cope with a democracy in this day and age and culture.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Kerry was never my first choice for a democratic candidate but I respect him infinitely more than I will ever respect Bush.
 

mrmyth

Member
JC10001 said:
Kerry was never my first choice for a democratic candidate but I respect him infinitely more than I will ever respect Bush.


Which is pretty much the same thing as saying, "I would rather have sex with Monica Belluci than have my penis cooked on a Weber grill while I am still attached to it." Its kinda a no-brainer.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Ninja Scooter said:
Don't try to distract from the issue. John Kerry loves back. You put an itty bitty waist and a round thing in his face and he gets SPRUNG!

:lol
 

DJ Sl4m

Member
Tritroid said:
Agreed. Props to the man (Even if I didn't vote for him).

I thank him for not dragging this out needlessly for days.


I agree, and chose the same. At least he didn't turn out to be a sore loser like Gore, it takes a big man to stand proud after something like this.
 

Dilbert

Member
Zaptruder said:
And you still support universal sufferage.

Having a test required voter registration or some such is definetly a lesser of 2 evils; makes sure people are aware of what they're voting for, even if what they're voting for isn't the 'right thing'.

Either you can have the tyranny of the well informed. Or the tyranny of the highly manipulative.

The baseline simply isn't high enough to properly cope with a democracy in this day and age and culture.
Funny...I tried to make this argument not too long ago, and I got all kinds of shit. Hopefully you'll have better luck.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
No upsetting electoral outcome would EVER make me want to put any limit on voting. It's a dangerous path that our country must never go down again.

It's like that Trapper Keeper episode of South Park where Mr. Garrison really lets Rosie O'Donnell have it, something along the lines of "how dare you intellectual liberals think you need to tell middle America how to think."
 
Ninja Scooter said:
some guy in the audience screamed at him "WE STILL GOT YOUR BACK, JOHN!" and Kerry said back to him "And im gonna love yours, man!" WTF?!?!
I noticed this. Oh shit. As it turns out, losing the popular vote causes one to make Bushisms. Hopefully our main source hasn't run dry. ;)

Diablos said:
Call it petty drama if you want, but if Gore won the election (like he SHOULD HAVE) in 2000, we would not be freting over this today.
We'd have been fretting over the victory of McCain or Giuliani after Gore was demonized for 9/11.

I think that the obituaries for the Democratic party are a bit early, though. The popular vote was lost by a big margin... but still only a ratio like 17:16. If Bush can go from losing it to winning it by a large amount anything is possible. And on the odd side, though Republicans won more of the Senate and Governor races... they actually got fewer votes for them. It's all about the allocation. Haven't done the math on the hundreds of House races, though.

Drinky Crow said:
A massive lead of 3M+ popular votes pretty much states that the Shrub is our president, like it or nay. Even Diebold wouldn't be THAT ballsy.
But of course as I'm fond of bitching of, the popular vote doesn't matter. Playing around with a few dozen thousand in Ohio or Florida would do it. Haven't seen evidence that that's happened, but hey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom