Wednesday, 3 November 2004
|0244 - I knew it.|
We won't know the outcome for a couple of weeks. Ohio looks like it'll decide the election, and Bush has a 125K vote lead there - with 250K absentee and provisional ballots that won't be counted for 11 more days, by law.
I'd been telling everyone who asked me about the election that I didn't think we'd know the results on Wednesday morning. I'm not going to claim any special insight. That was just too easy a call to make.
I decided not to post this in howardtayler's journal, but bluerain, in this comment, said that "I refuse to live in a country that would even consider what presently looks like the likely outcome." All I can say to that left-wing fruitcake is: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. I stayed through eight years of Clinton's incompetence, and if I could put up with that, you can damned well stick it out.
current mood: exhausted
Ever see someone from the right "threaten" to leave the country if an election didn't go their way? I think that says a lot about how emotionally based a lot of left leaning thinkers are.
Indeed. For that matter, I actually worked, for a short time, with a guy who moved to New Zealand after Bush the elder won in 1988. (It took him two more years to finally get the hell out of the country.)
Well, at least you have to give some respect to your coworker for actually following through on one of those pledges. If more people actually followed through on their threats to leave a country when things don't go their way, they would seem a lot less childish and easily dismissed.
True, right-wingers don't threaten to leave the country. That would go against their whole "My country, love it or leave it" schtick.
Instead, they threaten to do violent things, like ass-kicking, stabbing, shooting, punching in the face, etc.
|Date:|| - 0000|| |
No, that's not the only explanation. It happens that bluerain
and I have a history of violent disagreement; I left the O&M mailing list when he barred anyone but himself from commenting on Iraq, even if he made the subject germane by commenting on it in his strip. His reaction as to speak of champagne corks popping. In short, I called him a fruitcake because I know he qualifies.
has a very defensible point. See, it's not just the presidential bit that has him upset. It's the fact that 11 states passed bans on homosexual marriages.
The Pilgrims left England, and the Mormons left the U.S. over legislation not much different in its impact. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage bans, you have to grant that the people to whom they apply will likely lead happier lives outside of the US. Or at least outside of the states in question.
I'm not as unhappy over the bans on gay marriages as he is...because I believe that reason will prevail in the end, and, just as the Supreme Court overturned bans on interracial marriages, so they will do with these. Human freedoms will increase in the US over time, but the trend has never been monotonic.
Reason tends not to prevail when the vast majority of people, regardless of how right they are, continue to call for something. Tyranny of the majority, a very reasonable thing to want to move away from...
This is especially given the two-fold attack on the Supreme Court, with the Congress now trying to impose legislation that would let them review Supreme Court decisions (causing a constitutional crisis), and Bush being very likely to get to appoint new justices in the next few years, before such a case could be heard. Not to mention the right-wing pundits who're continually criticizing the judicial system and its "activist judges", which is helping to make the GOP's base even stronger in its determination to force its stance on America, justice or the justices be damned...
Faith in gay rights being normalized in the near future with the GOP controlling all three branches seems delusional at this point.
Neither my husband nor myself thought that we would know the results Wednesday morning.
I figure not only are we in for another week or so of the absentee ballots and such being counted, but then after that, we'll get to endure weeks of lawyers suing for recounts and the like.
Oh, and depending on who wins will determine how long we will endure it. Let's just say I don't see Kerry's lawyers giving up the topic for a long while.
Given how often you would tell "leftists" who you disagreed with that "if they don't like it, they're welcome to leave", it seems... boldly hypocritical, to say the least, that you would tell someone off because they would actually dare to heed this advice.
If by "Clinton's incompetence" you mean "America's best time of prosperity and surplus of the federal budget that Bush destoryed in 4 years", then I agree.
Bush didn't destroy it. The economy was tanking before Bush came to power, and the 9/11 attacks greatly worsened and prolonged the decline.
Funny, even the most unbiased (according to whoever's opinion at the time) experts never mention that 9/11 or the "inherited" resession was responsible for draining the reserves. I'm sure that would've been front page news if that were true. But I have yet to hear the Bush administration refute the claims other than the reasons you stated. It's never their fault, always someone else's.