Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dear God let election day be over!

*Sigh* Yes, men and women in the armed services have died fighting terrorism. However, they are not "kids". They made an adult decision, and are respected for it. And the margin they voted for Bush was over 70%. It is a volunteer army now. They made a concious decision, they know the stakes, and saying that "kids are getting killed" denigrates them, and pretty much dehumanizes all the people that have been killed by terrorists all over the world.

You can't have a free society, as much as it is possible to be free, and not expect to have to pay a price in a world where petty tyrants and dictators can buy protection from other nations in a corrupt UN.

I just found out that i have two friends from childhood over in Iraq. I worry that they may be killed, but i don't denigrate their decisions as adults as to what they choose to do with their lives. I know that patriotism is reviled in this country right now by some sides, but you need to distinguish between undeserved pride, and the pride of doing something to help make the world a better place.

Rape chambers with little girls and boys in them, mass graves of people that had absolutely no chance to defend themselves, people being gassed in masse...things things exist and don't go away just because you don't like it.

The hardest thing in the world to do is to put aside "feelings" and make a concious choice from a field of tough decisions. In this world, the luxury of "feelings" disappeared when over 3,000 people were murdered in cowardly attacks.

I was really upset last night, as one could tell from my last couple of posts then on this thread. But you know, I had a good night's sleep, and today's a new day, and you're absolutely right, Rickshaw. This is not the time for divisiveness.

I think I'm entitled to my opinon, thank you.

As far as the "mandate" goes, although Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote his margin of victory (51% to 48%, with less than 1% going to Nader) proved to be far less than either of Clinton's wins over G.H.W. Bush (43% to 37% with 19% for Perot) or Bob Dole (49% to 41% with 8% for Perot). A majority yes, but hardly the resounding call to arms that a true "mandate from the people" suggests.

And you're right Jeff, the Republicans made significant gains in both the Senate and house, including ousting the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, the first loss by a sitting party leader in Congress in some 60 years.

I agree, Prime. The country needs to heal and pull together for a while. The single interest stresses have been pulling the country apart. And yes, i have a single interest that i fight for, as well.

So is this how it begins? "We're right and you're wrong"?
I have hopes that the winners will be gracious and reach out to the people that have been so bitterly divided and alienated by this administration's secret meetings and behind closed doors deals but I don't have any faith that it will happen.

It's up to people like you guys and the Republican party to bring us together or to divide us even farther. Now that you've won it's in your hands, you have the opportunity to heal or hurt, to do what's right and stand against opportunism and disenfranchisement or to continue the hatred and this insane war of conquest.

You have the time and the power now to do it. Choose wisely.

Now let me get this straight... You're claiming the moral high ground for Clinton because he LIED about having sex with a woman other than his wife ? Don't forget the aspirin factory that he bombed in Somalia or Mogadishu in order to divert attention from Monica's testimony later that day. I bet some innocent people died in that... Also, I'm pretty sure that some of "our" children died in Clinton's "military" actions... didn't you see Blackhawk Down?

Clinton on the moral highground? Really? How soon they forget.

<edit for typo>

So you're claiming a better madate for Clinton, who didn't even win a majority of the popular vote, based on margin of victory? Look at the numbers for the third candidate and you'll find your reason for such a great Clinton margin of victory. I should know, I was one of the ones that voted for Perot the first time around.

Like it or not, Bush has what could be interpretted as a huge mandate... More votes than any other president in history (although this is skewed because of a greater population today than at any other time, still he did manage to rouse the voters into voting), and for all the reasons Prime pointed out. Just the fact that he received a majority of the popular vote blows away any mandate Clinton had.

<edit for quick fingers>

The rabid hatred for Clinton frustrates me at times.

And while we're on unity, let me just say that I think John McCain is the man who can unify this country. (And coming from a gay liberal Democrat, that's pretty huge!)

It makes me furious. I think Clinton was a great President, and I don't care what he did in the bedroom. I also like reading about Eisenhower, another President I like, and don't care about his personnel life either.

I'd take Clinton over Bush, Bush Jr. and especially Regan anyday. Carter, Ford and LBJ too. Hell, I'd take Nixon over most of them.

Actually, I don't recall claiming a mandate in favor of Clinton at all. I simply said that his margin of victory was larger. You can't deny me that. And just as you point to the 3rd party as a reason why the margin was so large you can also point to that 3rd party as a reason why Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. Perot chipped away votes from both sides.

Kippy, your post on page 10 was... well, incredible. It really helped me understand just why Bush won. Thanks.

After just mentioning Eisenhower, I'd like to mention that I see McCain as the closest thing in politics there is to ol' Ike. I think I like that he seems so honest in his answers more than anything, and is more open and willing to find compromising solutions.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani is very honest and very likeable too, but I don't think I could ever vote for him b/c of his stance on things, even though I admire him immensely after 9/11.

((((Hugz for Mikey))))

Semi, you certainly do, and i wouldn't try to take it away from you. I just wish you felt the same about my side.

Yellow, war of conquest? Who? Afghanistan just held free elections. Iraq is on the path to it. The people voted and choose in Afghanistan, and they will do so in Iraq. As far as i know, we don't rule Japan or Germany. Certainly not germany, whose government has a recent history alone of backing murderous dictators. So, what conquest?

As for clinton, he lied about improving education in a poorer state. This meant that millions of kids didn't get the education they were entitled to or deserved. Their lives will be much tougher, much less fulfilling, met with many different issues they may feel powerless to overcome. Death, or the death of hope? Who can say which is worse. He could sleep with a horse for all i care. It was his cavalier lying about the destruction he presided over that i refer to.

Ah, but how does Mayavale feel about McCain???

You guys were the ones that brought up Clinton. Nowhere in my posts do I claim any rabid hatred of the man. You guys called Bush a liar and claimed he had no grounds for morality. I pointed out the FACTS about the man you brought up as having the moral high ground. Clinton has his flaws too, just like any other human being.

Not me, said the little red hen.

I'm perfectly content to let Clinton lie, at least until Hillary makes her bid for the Oval Office. Then, I fear, the debate'll be nothing but.

I have to say that today Prime is making the most sense of any poster, me included.

I think a line in the sand was drawn. The silent majority has felt like it has been under assault, that it has been looked down on and denigrated for things it thinks important, like family and morals. True or not, this is how it felt, and it voted that way.

They have watched the slow chipping away of the foundations of their society and they finally decided that they have had enough.

Its not that they hate gays, its more that instead of just accepting the fact that they will ignore it or put up with it, it was being pushed on them. They were being told that they would accept and embrace it whether they wanted to or not.

Do that to people for too long, and they fight back. Even a cornered dog will fight for it's life, or in this case, a way of life.

Personally, i don't care. Really. Who you choose to spend your life with is your business. Who i spend mine with is mine. But trying to force someone for too long will backfire. And it did.

Perot's campaign sounded very similar to the conservative platform back in that election. Of the 19% that he took that year, I doubt very much of that would have wound up going to Clinton. Can I back that up... no.

In all objectivity, I wouldn't say that too much of the Nader vote from 2000 would have gone to Bush Jr. either. If Nader wouldn't have been in that election, it's quite possible that Gore would have won one more state and been President instead of W.

You claim to not have claimed a "mandate" for Clinton, but when you use Clinton's margin of victory to dispell the mandate for Bush, you are implying a mandate for Clinton. That's all just semantics though. If you want to say you don't think Clinton had a mandate, then I believe you.

<edit: man I have to proof read these things better>

Now you're killing me.

I'll second the other sentiments around here, Prime is doing some awesome posting today. Makes me glad I voted for you for Leader.

Tell me about it, Miner. I have to race through them to get all my thoughts down. Hence, many, many mistakes.

I don't feel that Clinton had a mandate in either of his wins. Reagan in 1984 (59% to 40% over Mondale with a 525 to 13 edge in the electoral college) and Nixon in 1972 (60% to 37% over McGovern and 520 to 17 in the EC). Now THOSE were mandates from the people in favor of a candidate - a clear majority vote in favor and a large margin of victory in both the popular vote and the electoral college. IMO one large electoral "swing state" doesn't determine victory when you have a mandate from the people.