Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HeX on November 05, 2004, 12:42:52 am
-
Thorn posted this over on WS, figured it might interest some here.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/04/gonorth041104.html
OTTAWA - Canada is starting to look like a pretty good place to live for thousands of Americans who are unhappy about George W. Bush winning the presidential election.
Canada's official immigration website is receiving a record number of visits since Bush won a second term, and most of the hits are from the U.S.
Within hours of Bush's acceptance speech Wednesday, six times more Americans than usual surfed the site.
There were about 179,000 visitors to the site Wednesday, almost twice the previous one-day record set last year. About 64 per cent of those visitors were Americans.
Skilled workers
A spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration said Thursday that the most-visited pages were the ones that let people check if they would qualify to move to Canada as skilled workers.
But the spokesperson said it's too early to tell whether the record number of inquiries will translate into a large number of applications.
U.S. immigration to Canada ran at about 23,000 a year during the Vietnam War, but the number has slowly dwindled to about 5,000 a year.
-
Heh - I wonder if it was just Canada.
-
Well I sure hope they aren't coming for the weather....
I swear it's 2 months spring, 2 months summer, 2 months fall and 6 months ass-freeze-off winter around here.
-
HeX: I'd take that kind of weather above the constant drizzling we have over here.
-
I'm really not all that surprised about this...
-
yeah, I read about this in the paper yesterday. And what they don't realize is that they can't just "move to Canada"; its about a year long wait, plus another 4-5 years to becomes a citizen.
-
Yeah cold I can deal with. But moderate cold with pissin rain just sucks the life outta me.
Thats why we drink so much here.
-
i can sense that the resident american population in australia may rise in the next year or so.
-
Originally posted by Rand al'Thor
Yeah cold I can deal with. But moderate cold with pissin rain just sucks the life outta me.
Thats why we drink so much here.
[color=66ff00]This place rocks.
I'm straining to remember the last time we were subject to uncomfortable extremes of heat or cold, golf ball sized hail, torrential rain, massive snowfall, earthquakes, tornados or invasion from another world; all of which the US seems to fall victim to on a near yearly basis.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]This place rocks.
I'm straining to remember the last time we were subject to uncomfortable extremes of heat or cold, golf ball sized hail, torrential rain, massive snowfall, earthquakes, tornados or invasion from another world; all of which the US seems to fall victim to on a near yearly basis.
[/color]
sounds like tasmania.. 'cept we've had quite a lot of rain for this time of year.
-
Nothing beats Sardinia.
8 months of really beautiful weather, no torrential rains, no quakes, no tornadoes, no floods and great people.
-
I hope they realize that doing this will NOT help them (liberals/democrats) regain the senate/house/presidency. This is probably more a way to demonstrate their deppression and not an actual option.
-
We don't want any.
-
Good riddance. If they can't play nice now that the election is over, we don't want them.
-
Neither does anyone else...
-
While I'm not exactly surprised, I'm sort of with Lib here, but for different reasons. America needs those that will stay and fight for civil rights, not those that will run away from the problem :)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
i can sense that the resident american population in australia may rise in the next year or so.
As a general rule though, very few of them realize the country extends past sydney (or occasionally melbourne). I doubt most of them even realize we have Tasmania, so I doubt it'll affect you too much. Or me for that matter - I mean, there's a western half of the continent? WTF?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Good riddance. If they can't play nice now that the election is over, we don't want them.
:nod:
-
(http://swooh.com/peon/liberator/bush04.jpg)
As I knew it would be, the Democrats were strong only in the Urban areas. City folk tend to have a herd mentality and go with the flow. It's too bad they don't have a map of how it went by individual voting location.
Notice how Kerry won Michigan by taking Detroit almost quite literally by itself.
-
I had this debate on NW.
The electoral college is just an artificial way to give rural voters, tradtionally more conservative, a great voice per individual than the "city slickers".
But that to me seems quite undemocratic. The very concept of democracy is rule by the people. If the majority, regardless of how they are geographically dispersed, favour a more liberal stance, what right does anyone have to deny them that, especially in the name "upholding democracy". Its quite simple: majority rule.
Now aside from that, I personally believe that city dwellers, for a whole host of reasons, are more educated and informed, and thus better able to make decisions on governance, but I would still think the electoral college is corrupt even if it was reversed, and gave progressives an unfair advantage.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
As a general rule though, very few of them realize the country extends past sydney (or occasionally melbourne). I doubt most of them even realize we have Tasmania, so I doubt it'll affect you too much. Or me for that matter - I mean, there's a western half of the continent? WTF?
Shh. Don't tell them there's a Melbourne! I wanna go there before it goes downhill. ;)
-
I was rading in the paper some of the dirty tricks employed by both parties. You know, racial minorites being told they don't "haved to" vote if they don't want to, Democrat voters being urged to wait till tomorrow to vote (when it's too late) by Republican press etc.
The whole thing stinks. How can the champions of Democracy have such a ****ty system ?
-
That's more of a rhetorical question, I suppose. :p
-
Cause they're 200 years behind the times. Back then, the US really was the best system, but many advancements have been made since then, however, many Americans remain infelxible on the issue. My guess is that this is because there are those who would stand to lose a lot if the status quo were upset, such as giving third parties a fighting chance.
-
What I really want to know, is how many Americans actually qualified as being skilled workers? And how many weren't... :p
-
I think it's fair to say Florida was in the bag, before anyone even started, this year.
-
Funny timing that is. As I was reading this topic I got this from my pal:
(http://www.muken.net/1104_usofcanada_320x277.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Its quite simple: majority rule.
It's quite simple: We are a Repulic, not a Democracy.
Besides, majority rule doesn't mean it's the right way, more often than not it's Mob Rule.(Mob as in Mob Mentality, not the Mafia)
Originally posted by Rictor
Now aside from that, I personally believe that city dwellers, for a whole host of reasons, are more educated and informed, and thus better able to make decisions on governance, but I would still think the electoral college is corrupt even if it was reversed, and gave progressives an unfair advantage.
You realize that originally voting was reserved for Landowners with city dwellers being largely left out.
Example of city folk ignorance: There is a well-known NY-based radio talk show that has a segment called "Man On The Street Thrusdays" where the program director goes down onto the street and lets the people walking by talk to the host. The host, granted it was mostly as a joke, was able to convince 7 out of 10 that the Democratic candidate was named "Stu Ped" and they were enthusiastic about voting for him. They too couldn't actually give a reason why the would vote for "Stu Ped", just that he wasn't Bush.
Now tell me again who is fit to decide governance?
-
Alright, so you're a republic. However, can you give me one reason why the US shouldn't move towards democracy? As I've said, the Republican system was the best one around, at the time it was invented. However, that was several hundred years ago.
And tell me what the concept of democracy if not "mob rule", in all matters where the public rule applies. What I mean by this is that in matters of government, the majority rules. Thats what democracy means. Now in perfect world, self-determination would be down to the individual, so that no one would be forced to be ruled by the majority, but since we live in the era of the nation state, thats how it is.
Within that context, majority rule is the fairest way. One person, one vote, anything else is an artificial way to subvert democratic values. If you have valid reasons why you think a republican system is superior, by all means share the,, but the way I see it, the electoral college is an unfair way to rig the system in favour of conservativism.
(and for the record, you are from now on prohibited from talking about "spreading democracy" or any such nonsese, or using it to justify war)
edit: as for the radio show, thats completely meaningless. Its anecdotal evidence. A Canadian TV show host was able to go to America and convince most people that the Canadian prime minister was Tim Horton (so you know, Tim Horton was a famous hockey player, now dead, and Tim Hortons is a famous coffee store franchise). I think he even convinced Bush's office to send a letter to Prime Minister Horton wishing him a happy birthday. You can fool most people like that, it doesn't really prove anything.
edit2: oops, it wasn't Tim Horton, it was Prime Minster Poutine (a food, consisting of french fries, gravy and cheese)
http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/rickmercer/poutine.html
-
(http://mena.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/canada20.gif)
http://mena.typepad.com/dollarshort/2004/11/canada_20.html
-
Liberator, Mongoose
**** both of you anticonstitution hicks
-
rictor majority rule can be a VERY BAD hting, as evidenced by bush's re-election
there was suppose to be this thing called the constitution to protect us from the bad things of majority rule - but alas it's treated as toilet paper now
-
Originally posted by Liberator
They too couldn't actually give a reason why the would vote for "Stu Ped", just that he wasn't Bush.
that's enough for alot of people....
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Liberator, Mongoose
**** both of you anticonstitution hicks
Be nicer to the fundies, they have feelings too. :)
-
Since Bush actually did get a majority, I may not like his presidency, but I am forced to acknowledge that it is legitimiate within a democratic system. It may not be easy, but you have to face the fact that a majority of Americans either support Bush or don't care either way. Even if he commited fraud, its unlikely that he gained 3 million votes.
As I said, in a better world, anyone would be free to disasscociate themselves from any governement, but thats not realistic at present. However, what I can and do disagree with Bush on is that now, once elected, how much power should he have over both the people at home and the people of the world. Needless to say, I think that American power should be drastically decreased abroad, but Bush is also overstepping his authority at home (PATRIOT, ban on gay marriage etc).
My opinion is that whoever rules, government power should be decreased significantly.
And Lib, I'm still interested to hear your arguements in support of the electoral college.
-
As far as the radio show is concerned thats not a very objective source. Thats Hanity.
:rolleyes:
Politics are stu ped.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rictor majority rule can be a VERY BAD hting, as evidenced by bush's re-election
there was suppose to be this thing called the constitution to protect us from the bad things of majority rule - but alas it's treated as toilet paper now
Oh, so the beast shows his true colors. Yes, majority rule is terrible. Poor, poor Kazan. America spoke, and they didn't agree with you. And as much as you say to the contrary, this election has not violated the Constitution. You blame Bush for lying, yet you lie in every post you make. Keep spewing your uber-leftist venom; you're not going to convince anyone of anything.
P.S. I'm no fundie. :p
-
Interesting thing these days...
Political propaganda reshaped the use of some words:
Liberal
Communist
Leftist
Pacifist (at least here in Italy)
They are now treated as insults...
I will point that now you miss the other half of the sphere so that these words should be insults as well:
Conservative
Liberist
Democracy "exporter"
Theologist.
It's getting to the neolanguage writtent by Orwell...
-
In Canada, Conservative and Liberal ARE pretty much insults. :p
-
You don't get it Kazan, YOU LOST.
You're guy showed a great deal of class in the way he conceded, he consciously chose not to drag this out and while I don't have a lot of good things to say about John F. Kerry, I do applaud him for the way he handled the loss.
You on the other hand are acting like a petulant, spoiled-rotten brat who is throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way.
The "main stream" of your party is composed of nutjobs who are increasingly living in their own little dreamworlds, and call everyone who contradicts them liars, fools, ect. Don't be like them Kaz, I'm begging you, be better than them.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The "main stream" of your party is composed of nutjobs who are increasingly living in their own little dreamworlds, and call everyone who contradicts them liars, fools, ect.
Same with your side too :p But oh wait... no one is supposed to realize that... oopsy! :rolleyes:
-
And the mainstream of yours isn't composed by religious nutjob who are increasingly living in their own little world where they are the good one and everybody else is simply evil ? Yeah, riiiiiggggghhhhhttttt...... :p
-
Don't worry, Bush is calling his friend Putin to help him redesign the US constitution in a more democratic way...
-
You're right Liberator, the Democratic party is growing increasingly out of touch with its base. It is now trying to cater to wannabe Republicans and those who would have otherwise voted for Bush were it not for Iraq. They have abandoned the heart and soul of the Democratic party: the antiwar movement, progressives and the middle and lower classes. They have become a tool for the interests of the ruling elite, just like the Republicans, and promise endless war, just like the Republicans.
And for the record, the United States has also grown increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world. You question Kerry's ability to rule because he is out of touch, but what about America; they're out of touch but I don't hear you complaining about their rule.
Why is it that in your world view, anyone with a conscience is a radical socialist nutjob? If I give a **** about the welfare people in Iraq, or Palestine, or in the Third World, why am I branded a Commie and ignored out of hand? I don't go around saying that about you, that you're all greedy imperialisr jinogs, even though I would be more justified in doing so, given both present circumstances and historical precedent. But I don't.
-
Okay, let's get things parsed out here.
When I say the Democrats are nutjobs, I mean the Micheal Moore and those like him who want to play social experiments with my future and the futures of everyone else. The Political Democrats, those that are supposedly public servants, are nothing but sycophants who do what ever it takes so they don't have to face the realities of real life outside The Beltway. There are very few real public servants in politics any more, which is one of the few things the Founding Fathers didn't forsee when they wrote the Constitution, Career Politicians.
If I thought it would pass, I would push for global Term Limits for all public office holders, retroactive to their initial office held, with the remainder of their current term to maintain some continuity in service. It would put the power back into the hands of the people as they would actually have to think some about who they send to represent them when their supposed servant runs out of terms. There are too many offices that go uncontested in this country, and I for one and sick of it. No public office should ever go uncontested, even if it's just for show.
-
Keep your problems in America:)
Not our problem you cant run elections without 50% of your country crying over the results.
Mexicans invading the us.. us invading canada.. lol.... screw this i"m going to the artic
-
this is turning into a WWE royal rumble match...
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]This place rocks.
I'm straining to remember the last time we were subject to uncomfortable extremes of heat or cold, golf ball sized hail, torrential rain, massive snowfall, earthquakes, tornados or invasion from another world; all of which the US seems to fall victim to on a near yearly basis.
[/color]
Don't forget hurricanes and volcanic eruptions.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, let's get things parsed out here.
When I say the Democrats are nutjobs, I mean the Micheal Moore and those like him who want to play social experiments with my future and the futures of everyone else. The Political Democrats, those that are supposedly public servants, are nothing but sycophants who do what ever it takes so they don't have to face the realities of real life outside The Beltway. There are very few real public servants in politics any more, which is one of the few things the Founding Fathers didn't forsee when they wrote the Constitution, Career Politicians.
If I thought it would pass, I would push for global Term Limits for all public office holders, retroactive to their initial office held, with the remainder of their current term to maintain some continuity in service. It would put the power back into the hands of the people as they would actually have to think some about who they send to represent them when their supposed servant runs out of terms. There are too many offices that go uncontested in this country, and I for one and sick of it. No public office should ever go uncontested, even if it's just for show.
So basically, what you're saying is that you don't really think all Democrats are nutjobs, only those who actually represent their beliefs instead the grey-faced beaurocrats who are closer to the Republican mindset than they are to their base (Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman...pretty much all of the DLC, including our boy Kerry)
So what is it that the lefty nutjobs stand for thats so terrible? The basic principles of the "Michael Moore liberal", as far as I have been able to discern, are:
1. Opposition to war. War is bad, lots of people die, and they are almost never, ever waged to a just reason. War always bring devastation to some foreign peoples who have done nothing to deserve it, and is matched by a loss of freedoms at home. Hence, war is bad.
2. The belief that anyone is free to do anything, so long as it does not infringe upon someone else's freedom. The mindset that is opposed to gay marriage now is the same mindset that supported segregation back in the day. The simple fact is, the federal government does not have any jurisdiction over your private life. You can marry a dog for all I care, its none of my business. Same goes for drugs. Though I will concede that abortion is sort of iffy, and is not a straight-cut case of personal freedoms.
3. The belief that in a nation as prosperous as America, no one should die for lack of food, shelter or readily available medicine. This is not a case of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, this is a case of stealing (taxing) equally from both the rich and poor. I don't know how you can call Bush a moral man, while he's busy making sure that when it comes down to the life of some old person, or the profit of a drug company, profit wins every time. Thats the basic jist of it, people are more important than profit.
4. Belief that we should preservew our environment, cause its the only one we have. Nothing takes priority over the environment, not business, not the military, nothing. Once its gone, thats it. The damage can not be repaired, except by natural processes that last millions of years. And you may think that the environmentalists are being too alarmist, but so what? Better to err on te side of caution, in something as important as this.
5. Belief that society should be ruled by everyone, not just the obscenely wealthy. You know as well as I do that power is concentrated at the top: a handful of people make all the decisions. These include elected officials, senators and congressmen, media moguls, special interests and big business. And let me ask you, is this democratic?
And this last point is something that some, though not nearly enough, people believe.
6. The the US has no authority to dictate life for people in foreign countries. Essenially, that the US should not be an empire, lording over the world. You can deny a lot of thing, but you can't deny that the US has tremendous influence, and that is has not hesitated to use that influence to benefit itself, usually to the detrement of foreign people. No more wars, no more military bases, no more coups, no more puppet regimes, no more support for tyrants, no more economic interventions, no more subverting democracy and national sovereignty. Keep within your own damn borders, just like everyone else. You are not special, not the world's police, not the guardians of freedom. Stay within your own borders.
--Now point out with which of those beliefs you have a problem?
-
Rictor, what are you talking about???
(http://www.maddox.xmission.com/blow6.gif)
-
Well, you do make a pretty persuasive arguement.
-
Rictor, I don't mind some of their positions. It's just when they stoop to lying on the scale MM has to try and prove their point that I begin to have problems. MM himself is one of the biggest hypocrites in history. He preaches and proclaims the greatness of communism/socialism and then procedes to make millions using capitalism thus neutralizing his arguments. And I apologize about the part about the politicians, I didn't finish my thought. What I meant was that the Democratic leadership has been increasingly pandering to the far, far, wacko left. And their the ones that are telling US that WE have to compromise our principles because we won, when it should be the other way 'round.
-
As far as I'm concerned, being Canadian rocks.
We have free healthcare! :D Small population, so come on over, weather's not as bad as everyone thinks...
-
Yeah, in the summer.
The only place that winters dont suck in Canada is Vancouver. And they're still not that pleasant there. All it does is rain.
-
Originally posted by Marauder
As far as I'm concerned, being Canadian rocks.
We have free healthcare! :D
So do we! And the weather is as good as everyone thinks :D (Well, except in Melbourne)
But, err... meh. Go to Canada.
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Yeah, in the summer.
The only place that winters dont suck in Canada is Vancouver. And they're still not that pleasant there. All it does is rain.
Oh summers in Southern Ontario are as good as they get...at least normally. This last summer sucked but the rest of the ones that I can remember were great.
We get the best of all worlds here. Just enough snow to close schools and businesses sometimes. Just enough heat to make it practical to go to the beach. A beach! (Lake Ontario baby - take your bio-hardzard suit tho :))
The only thing I don't like about living in the Golden Horseshoe is the pollution that we create and the pollution that floats in across the border and sits in the valley. I'm getting out of the valley when I own a home.
-
Been to Canada, it was pretty cool. I even met Thorn...
-
Poor dear, it must have been so terrible.
I don't know where you're living Ice, but summers around Toronto are unbearably humid. There's always a week or two of temperatures around 40 degrees, and the humidity is a killer. Especially near Lake Ontario, its like being in a rainforest.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
When I say the Democrats are nutjobs, I mean the Micheal Moore and those like him who want to play social experiments with my future and the futures of everyone else.
Michael Moore is as much a representative of the Democratic Party as Michael Savage is of the Republican Party.
Originally posted by Rictor
Poor dear, it must have been so terrible.
I don't know where you're living Ice, but summers around Toronto are unbearably humid. There's always a week or two of temperatures around 40 degrees, and the humidity is a killer. Especially near Lake Ontario, its like being in a rainforest.
And the thunder storms.... :nervous:
99 degrees in the middle of Hamilton and I could see lightning dancing around the city.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Poor dear, it must have been so terrible.
I don't know where you're living Ice, but summers around Toronto are unbearably humid. There's always a week or two of temperatures around 40 degrees, and the humidity is a killer. Especially near Lake Ontario, its like being in a rainforest.
That doesn't bother me one bit. We go from rainforest to artic paradise in the course of 4 months :)
But I'll take the 30-40 degress more often...less clothes on the ladies ;7
-
Originally posted by IceFire
But I'll take the 30-40 degress more often...less clothes on the ladies ;7
.... with sticky-sweaty skin. I guess that's kind of hot.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, I don't mind some of their positions. It's just when they stoop to lying on the scale MM has to try and prove their point that I begin to have problems. MM himself is one of the biggest hypocrites in history. He preaches and proclaims the greatness of communism/socialism and then procedes to make millions using capitalism thus neutralizing his arguments. And I apologize about the part about the politicians, I didn't finish my thought. What I meant was that the Democratic leadership has been increasingly pandering to the far, far, wacko left. And their the ones that are telling US that WE have to compromise our principles because we won, when it should be the other way 'round.
1. Look, I'm tired of hearing this. Go look up the words socialism and communism in a dictionary. No one, not even Nader, no one is preaching support for socialism, much less communism. Those words mean very specific things, and trust me, Michael Moore is so far from socialism that he might as well be on a different planet. You act like anyone who is one millionth of a degree left of Bush is a commie. On the left/right scale, the Dems are either in the centre of slightly to the right, while Michael Moore is a moderate leftist. Every time you call someone a socialist (or Kazan calls someone a faschist) I cringe, because this is exactly what Orwell was talking about, the bastardization of language to suit a political goal. You label someone a "socialst" which means you can neatly disregard everything the have to say, and all their opinions become instantly worthless. Please try not to do that, its very frustrating.
2. The Democratic party leadership has moved to the right, not the left. The right wing of Democratic party, those who were in charge in recent times (though this may change in the wake of Kerry's defeat) have been 1 degree left of the Republicans. If you think that the Dems have recentlly been catering to the far left, you have no compass by which to judge. Everything said and done by the Dems recently could plausibly have have come from a moderate Republican like John McCain.
Do you remember Bush's speech at the RNC, about how Kerry is not the candidate of conservative values? Lets do one for the Dems.
If you are in the wallets of multinational corporations, you are not supporting progressive values. If you have routinely voted for every war and act of agression that has passed your desk, you are not supporting progressive values. If you voted for the PATRIOT act, you are not supporting progressive values. If you favour drug prohibition, especially for very mild drugs like marijuana, you are not supporting progressive values. If you believe that the government has the right to tell someone they can or can not get married, you are not supporting progressive values. If you believe that the US should dominate as much of the world as possible, you are not supporting progressive values. If you believe in profits before people, you are not supporting progressive values. If you favour a military/industrial complex that stuffs the coffers of military tech companies and is far, far larger and more powerful than necessary, you are not supporting progressive values.
Got that? Michael Moore is a far better representation of the Democratic base than the stooges in charge of the Democratic Party. He and many other progressive chose to vote for Kerry not because he represents their beliefs, but because at least he's not Bush. Now that he's been defeated, maybe some actual work will get done to reform the Democrats and kick out the wannabe Republicans.
3. As for Bush's victory, stop acting like its a historic landslide. He won about 52% of the vote, and that does not count all those people who didn't vote. Which means, about 35% of the country actually voted for him. Thats not "a historic mandate". In most other democratic countries, that would be considered insuffienct to form a governemt, and a re-election would be held. And even this was becasue Kerry is a complete moron, who stands for nothing and shows it. Bush handed the victory to him, and Kerry, through his complete ineptitude kindly handed it back. Reagan and Nixon, they cleaned house. Look at the map, there was literally one state that went to the Democrats. Bush may look good on the map, but thats because the red regions are less densely populated. The popular vote shows a much more realistic picture.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
3. As for Bush's victory, stop acting like its a historic landslide. He won about 52% of the vote, and that does not count all those people who didn't vote. Which means, about 35% of the country actually voted for him. Thats not "a historic mandate". In most other democratic countries, that would be considered insuffienct to form a governemt, and a re-election would be held. And even this was becasue Kerry is a complete moron, who stands for nothing and shows it. Bush handed the victory to him, and Kerry, through his complete ineptitude kindly handed it back. Reagan and Nixon, they cleaned house. Look at the map, there was literally one state that went to the Democrats. Bush may look good on the map, but thats because the red regions are less densely populated. The popular vote shows a much more realistic picture.
Let's understand something, Bush got more votes than any other American President in history. He got more votes than Reagan ever did and more votes than Nixon ever did. That why it constitutes a landside, he beat his opponent by something like 3 million votes. Granted taken as part of the whole of the election, that isn't much since fully 115 million+ voted. But in the history of American Politics, it can be considered a landslide.
-
*gasp* he got 3 million more votes than his political adversary! *gasp*
What would Reagan that got 17 million more votes than his main adversary say? Or Nixon that got 18 million more votes?
Oh, before you go all "he got more votes than any american president in history" note that in previous elections, such as the ones I mentioned above (1972 and 1984) there were about 78 million and 93 million votes against the 116 million votes of the 2004 election.
Also note that technically, Kerry also got more votes than any president in past american history. If that's a landslide... meh...
EDIT:
Washington was unanimously elected, so there goes any greater election victory possible.
-
Lib: the fact that he got more votes than any President in history is because of the population increase. Every next President is going to get the most votes, unless he completely botches up.
but that was the least important of my points. Read the rest. I actually don't care if Bush won by 1 vote or a million, he won. Read the rest of what I said.
-
guys, guys, calm down. if you feel so strongly about this, why don't you get off your butts and do something about it? seriously, what's the point of arguing so passionately about something if you can't be bothered to get out there and change things for the better? that's the only reason for discussion: to decide what's better before you do it. otherwise we're all just dreamers sitting around fantasising.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Let's understand something, Bush got more votes than any other American President in history. He got more votes than Reagan ever did and more votes than Nixon ever did. That why it constitutes a landside, he beat his opponent by something like 3 million votes. Granted taken as part of the whole of the election, that isn't much since fully 115 million+ voted. But in the history of American Politics, it can be considered a landslide.
Thats probably got more to do with the polarization of the issues in this election (wars, rights, etc.) and the increase in population over the last 30 years than it has to do with democratic mandate.
Percentage wise...Bush won by a small margin. Bigger than the previous election but not huge.
If he got 65% of the vote...then you have a landslide victory. All I see, as an outside observer, is a fairly slim margin with a number of deeply divisive issues still present. I worry because of the level of polarization between sides...it seems worse than ever before...but then I wasn't around during Vietnam.
-
It's pretty self-evident 4% (IIRC) isn't a landslide, regardless of how much you may want it to be.