The US election

Well, let’s have a reality check, the Dow is on a month high; defence and pharma stocks are a no-brainer under Bush. When I looked earlier, oil was back up over $50/barrel probably as Bush has no intention of breaking this dependency and there’s no prospect in sight of supply stabilisation. As they stand, these Dow figures are as much use as a sticking plaster on a very weak dam. Tax rises, dollar devaluation, protectionist tariffs, and then US economists might have cause for cheer. I don’t think that the electorate will be so stoked.

OK but bush won and thats all that counts.

I fail to understand the misery. I hope you believe in democracy. Nearly 60 million good people voted for GWB. This should be a day of happiness instead of whinging.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The markets like the decision and what is good for the markets is generally good for us all.

---

No. The market isn't applauding Bush. The market fears change. It's responding to the fact that those things that analysts knew about the state of the world yesterday (dire or otherwise) still apply. Don't confuse comfort with happiness.

quote:

---

I fail to understand the misery.

---

Assuming that you've been on the planet for the last four years, you're not doing yourself any favours here. I know that you're going to call me condescending but have you not read any analytical articles, any commentary in printed and broadcast media on his various policies from the environment through Iraq, the Middle East, domestic fiscal, steel tariffs...? There have been some successes but massive failures and unilateral actions which have global consequences and potential repercussions on every aspect of our lives.

If you're going to say, "no I regard all analysis as whinging and rely solely on the Daily Mail for my information" then I think the mystery of your failure to understand many things can be solved. If you have have picked up and read a decent newspaper or periodical in the last 4 years and are asking that question then I have to assume that this is a wind-up. And it's really very funny.

Incidentally, I don't believe that you're thick, but I think that you blindly and aggressively refuse to countenance anything that challenges your preconceptions, regardless of the validity of those preconceptions or the challenge; I believe it's called "faith-based".

Enough of this cobblers, I'm off home to rip the kids some new arses....because I can apparently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
...That bin Laden and Islamic extremists worldwide are the prime beneficiaries of the Bush victory is beyond question and the timing of his video was perfect.

---

Ok, now we've established that we're not advocating that Mick should throw himself under a bus (although that quote from the thread was highly amusing and I will try to avoid the A420)...

I find your statement above very interesting. Are you sure it's right? I think that it's very difficult to read the intentions of Bin Laden regarding his latest video release. The happenings in Spain seemed to contribute to a reverse in the electoral position. Perhaps he thought that his intervention this time would benefit Kerry.

Just a thought.

Steve M

Steve,

With respect, I don't think it's complicated at all. In fact I think it's pretty clear that bin Laden was intent on a Bush victory, because he knows that his 'war on terror' will provoke whole new swathes of people in support of his own cause.

And all he needed to do was scare enough midwest Americans towards the 'Oh shit I'm scared but don't worry Bush will save me' camp and that, in my opinion, got the vote pretty much sown up for the Republicans.

jon

It's no big secret that Bush and his foreign policy are al Qaeda's most effective recruiting tools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
So who would like to bet on the candidates for the NEXT election?

Hilary Clinton vs Arnie?

---

My bet is Hilary Clinton vs Condoleezza Rice and a guaranteed female president of the USA.

Steve M

---

I think this is probably not the way it is going to go, even with respect to both candidates. Here are the reasons why:

First, In today's increasingly "christain fundamentalist" politic, the democrats can't win without a southern candidate. Hillary Clinton is not that candidate.

Secondly, I think the record turnout for Bush this election suggests that (ironically) the Bush base showed up to prevent the election of Kerry, NOT the other way around (ie, it was suspected that there would be an enormous Dem turnout to get rid of Bush). This means, I'm guessing, that a "hated" democratic candidate is better able to mobilize the Republican base than a "hated" republican candidate is able to mobilizes the democratic base. This works to Hillary's disadvantage. She is despised by the Right (particularly the Christian Right) and she caries this with her into the election (whereas, I'm guessing, most middle-American dudes and dudettes had never heard of Kerry before the democratic primaries.

Third, I think the GOP is going to try to run Jeb in 2008, and so it will not be a woman/woman race even if the dems were stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

I am extremely worried about the direction of our country at the moment. I'm sure I am hyperventilating at the moment, but I can't shake the feeling this this election represents a sort of turning-point for the US social and political climate - one headed to a profound and entrenched socially conservative agenda. Two trends worry me greatly: The first is that it seems to me that red lands (ie, whole red states and rural areas of blue states) will remain that way indefinitely because there is little incentive for liberal and/or educated people to move there. There is nothing attractive about the central counties of Pennsylvania to a college educated liberal. On the other hand, the turn-over of blue lands (ie, urban areas) to conservatives is both possible and probable, particularly if such movement is deemed a "political goal" for conservatives. There is plenty in NY to attract a evangelical Christain. Secondly, it is my impression that conservatives reproduce at a faster pace than do liberals - all else being equal. That does not bode well for blue America.

Finally, perhaps the most terrifying thing about this is the fact that on overwhelming evidence that Bush is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst, he manged to get the largest voter-turnout in GOP history. Just how awful does pres have to be to be thrown out? What does this say about the future of America?

Judd

Mick,

quote:

---

I fail to understand the misery.

---

Try flipping it around. Imagine how you would feel if you were, say, a hardcore conservative and election after election your guy lost. Then, after each election, you had to endure the consequences of policies you disagreed with to your core of your being.

That's how a lot of people feel today -- inside and outside the U.S. In all honesty, can't you understand why people are complaining? (I certainly wouldn't place my minor "misery" over that of people directly affected by Bush's policies -- the poor, the uninsured, the environment, the people of Iraq, etc. -- but if you're true to your beliefs their suffering should count for as much as your own.)

Joe

Judd,

Not only that, but incompetent and corrupt Bush now has the support of the majority in both congressional Houses. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't have to worry about being elected next time, there is no telling what he will do.

There really is no justice.

jon

Tom

Bush secured 3.6 million more votes than Kerry. He won fair and square and we should all respect that.

When I visited America (California) in June, I never met one single democrat.

On the cruise around Mexico, we were the only English couple at the dinner table and the other 5 couples were all staunch Republicans. When I say staunch, I mean stauch.

On this forum, it seems to be full of Democrats, am I the only normal person here who supports the majority vote of the American citizen.

I am with the majority....you lot are the defeated minority and please remember that you ***** ****.

God Bless America and George W Bush.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

Kerry took California. Easily. Please keep your god and your blessings to yourself. Your energy would be better spent praying for a clue.

A friend of mine in California sent me an e-mail earlier that contains an interesting theory:

"Hi Rod...

Well, I can tell you first hand that things seem to be going to hell in a hand-basket here.

So sorry (sick, actually) to see that knucklehead, Bush, won (for the first time) election to the White House. If you look at the map of the US, you will see the red states (Bush) are places where they don't sell wine. The blue states (Kerry) are the few enlightened regions in this country."


It was wine!

The people who voted for change drink wine.
The people who voted for chimp drink piss-flavoured rice beer.
The chimp himself has given up drinking altogether as he couldn't risk the brain cells.

So save yourselves - grab the corkscrew!

jayd

Bush took America. Easily. Please keep your god and your blessings to yourself. Your energy would be better spent praying for a clue.

Tonight in the UK we saw the final episode in a series of three documentaries detailing how the fear of 'terrorism' has been manufactured and manipulated by a small group of politicians and their advisers, all in the utter absence of any evidence that such an organised network even exists. I hope you citizens of the US of Eh get to see it.

There is a huge irony in the way the West, and the US in particular, frequently justifies foreign adventures in the name of "democracy", using the kind of thinking Mick subscribes to about "fair and square" first past the post wins. In effect, the proportion of Americans who have a meaningful vote (i.e. those who do not vote based on inherited allegiance, and who live in a state where their vote might make a difference to the outcome) represents just 0.5 per cent of the entire population.

I get a weird feeling that the last couple of US elections are actually making some in the US really consider whether they live in something which could properly be called a 'democracy'. Why is a 'good' political system one in which the electorate make a choice between candidates whose programmes and pronouncements, vague as they are, are based on what they think the electorate want to hear, based on the electorates misundestanding of something that was wrong in the first place? This might, in a kind of playground way be 'fair and aquare'. But you'd be hard pressed to defend it as a good example of democracy.

I used to be very critical of some (like Ludwig) who seemed to criticise Bush and his supporters for being cretins. I still don't think they're cretins. But they are extremely dangerous.

Tim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
jayd

Bush took America. Easily. Please keep your god and your blessings to yourself. Your energy would be better spent praying for a clue.

---

Mick,

Sober up. Get some sleep. Then get a social function.

Mick, you do realize that for the last 4 years up until sometime today, you were in fact with the minority in the US. You came out with the same flannel then so what's changed? Try not to forget that you're well and truly, for the foreseeable future, in a laughable, dying minority on this old sod, whre it really matters, you ******* ****** ****!!!

You never met a single Democrat in one of the most solid Democrat states in the US? Who're you trying to kid? Did you query everyone you met? Were you by any chance attending a Klan or evangelican convention?

I think AlexG was spot on with his observation that:

quote:

---

you like to just back the winner, regardless of any morals or principles at stake?

---

Bush took 51% of America, more seriously divided than ever before. At least bin Laden put Bush over. As a man of renowned inaction, you had frig all to do with it so spare us the amateur dramatics; it's quite the unseemly spectacle.

Bigmick

I have never claimed any credit for anything but I have been pushing for Bush since day one.

You are in a foul mood because Kerry lost and telling Ayre to eat shit and die is unacceptable. You could at least apologise to him.

Regards

Mick

Regards

Mick said "On this forum, it seems to be full of Democrats, am I the only normal person here who supports the majority vote of the American citizen"

In UK terms, the Democrats in the US are centre-right and broadly equivalent to the mainstream of the UK Conservative Party. This forum is therefore "full of Democrats" becuase supporting the Bush adminstration would make one about as right wing as it gets in mainstream UK politics -- say John Redwood, UK Independence Party, etc.

Which is why if given a choice between Kerry and Bush the vast majority of British people would support Kerry. So, Mick, you might be "normal" in supporting the majority view of America, but in Britain you would be distictly abnormal. Even before we consider your wallpaper.

Matthew

Pushing? Pushing what? So what is that want, a biscuit, a medal? What?

Mick, inside your head, who do you think you are? You really are consumed with the illusion of your own grandeur. You are simply a forum member like the everyone else, certainly no more and possibly no less. Let's be honest, what you deem to be acceptable opinions, statements and behaviour routinely disgusts and offends just about everyone on this forum, so you'll understand if I ask you to get bent. I have no reason to apologize to Arye as his post is clearly inflammatory and designed to be antagonistic to the majority of forum members.

FWIW I feel sad for my friends in the US as the Bush future is decidedly bleak as Judd clearly spelt out, but otherwise I'm in top form, bit tired now but looking forward to seeing how Bush extricates himself from his various binds.

An anagram equals A KERRY IMP the donor MIRA PERKY (the initials are correct)a well known "lefty" around here.

Howard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
By the way why did the US let all of ObL's family leave the States immediately after 9/11 without questioning them?

---

I don't know but I'd hazard a guess that anyone obviously connected with ObL would have been investigated long before 9/11...

Well, in addition to those short sighted enough (or totally blind) to support Bush, this is great news to all mindless fans of reality-tv. The most bizarre, incomprehensive, sickening and violent show gets 4 more seasons...

Johan

- - - - -

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There is
another theory which states that this has already happened."

- Douglas Adams, 1952-2001 -

[This message was edited by JBoulder on Thu 04 November 2004 at 8:13.]

Joe Petrik: 'Imagine how you would feel if you were, say, a hardcore conservative and election after election your guy lost. '

A good analysis of British politics since 1997.

We had some east-coasters staying over the weekend (he's organising a concert tour of US choirs), and his prognosis is that most Americans between the two ends of the continent are, um, dumb. I liked the guy from an Ohio bar quoted on BBC Newsnight: 'Only religious people can run things - there aren't enough religious people around' or somesuch. Obviously that explains 9/11.

I'd like to think most Brits of whatever background have a higher basic level of savvy, and all the ones I spoke to yesterday, from shop workers to management, groaned quietly.