I Cant quite believe it myself...that bigoted ignoramus has got in again. i feel so sorry for all my american sisters having to put up with this egotistical maniac for another four years.we have our own maniac on this side of the pond ,he goes by the name tony blair.....or bush`s lapdog.what with bush and that equally brainless bigot arnie in power then things really do NOT look good at all!!,,,love maria xxxxxxxxxx

I can't believe it, Dubya did it again! After a long night at work watching the poll results and violently projectile vomiting into a wastebasket, I just want to go to bed, turn the electric blanket up to high and assume the fetal position for the next four years.

-Joni, in shock and disbelief from Oregon

This is a terrible day for the United States and the world. Bush is a dangerous, irrational psychopath; I hate to imagine the damage he will do in the next four years.

The cultural divisions in this country are still strong, and the divisions run mostly along religious lines. It is only a matter of time before this leads to large-scale violence. Irreconcilable religious differences inevitably lead that direction. I am now asking myself the following question: when will it be time to flee this country? I don't want to leave, but if Bush and his nutty base get all of what they want, then this country will be intolerable for transgendered people. Luckily, I have strong, in-demand professional skills, so I probably wouldn't have to flee as a political refugee.

The only hope is that he will go too far, too fast, and people will wake up and protest strongly. I think some of the people who voted for this fool don't really know what they are getting themselves into, and when they find out, they will be angry.

The thought of four more years of listening to that idiot makes me sick, and I am truly sorry that we have subjected the world to him. I hope we all survive.

My opinion of the American public has reached an all-time low. All I want is to live my life in peace, with the freedoms that our Constitution supposedly guarantees, and not in any kind of "second class" status. Is this too much to ask? Apparently to those who voted for the jerk, it is.

Heather H.

Hi Joni and Heather,
i have to agree with you both on this as a sister over the pond, I am not up to speed on the state of your economical problem's in the US but what was half your country men and women and TG's thinking.

I.m affraid Bushy number 2 is a dangerous man and i hate to think what will come out of huis re-oppointment to office. I hope thing's improve for all of you over there......love JJ xx

There's an old dusty truism that in a democracy you always end up with the goverment you deserve. So you didn't like the result but what a turn out. Over here hardly anyone bothers to get up and vote anymore. At least the democratic process, as flawed as it is, managed to capture the imagination of a large proportion of the US population, that has to be a good thing.

Over here, where presentation and style are valued over content we were always going to end up with the New Labour Experiment.

[/rant]

C xx
(Lifelong member of the Labour party, and yes I'll probably vote for them next time as well, sigh)

Well, Cerys, I'm certainly sure I don't deserve another four years of the Shrub, I didn't vote for the bastard either time, but yes, I know what you mean and I'm familiar with the saying.

It just amazes me how people can overlook things like the fact that Dubya has presided over the greatest net loss of jobs of any recent president, of taking us from a comfortable budget surplus to the greatest national debt in our history, of embroiling us in a war with no forseeable end of lives lost and money squandered, of alienating us from the vast majority of the world's governments, of...oh hell, I could go on and on.

All it takes is the tried and true political trick of waving the bloody shirt and wrapping yourself in the flag. Never fails. Well, as the old Chinese curse has it, "May you live in interesting times." and I'm sure they will be.

Hugs, Joni

Well, you have to admit, when you run ultra-left wing radical communists (such as Gore and Kerry) against Bush, of course they're going to have an uphill battle. Granted, many Americans did vote against Bush, and Kerry got most of their votes by default, but you just can't expect American voters, on a large scale, to support someone like Kerry. He's just too far to the left.

Bush isn't my choice, either. I supported Badnarik. However, I wasn't about to vote for someone like Kerry, who wants to eliminate the Bill of Rights, tax me into the ground, and allow other nations to make our foreign policy decisions. I'm all for civil rights, including the recognition of gay and trans rights, but I'm not willing to become a hippie anarchist in the process. LOL

In short, America has disgraced itself and I'm embarrassed to be an American at the moment. I still don't buy that this election was any more legitimate than the last especially with no paper trails available for recount in many cases.

Looks like the republicans are getting slicker at it.

I've heard people make comments over and over that they think bush is a "man of God". Well people thought Jim Jones and David Karesh were men of God too. Bush fits right into this mold of being insanely delusional with little or no impulse control.

Betty

Oh my poor American sisters - my heart goes out to you. I did not want this result either. I'm sure the inquest will go on for a long time.

America is such a powerful and important nation. It could be a tremendous force for good in the world. I'm not saying it would have been under Kerry, but it certainly won't be under Bush.

It means you will all have to be that little bit more careful about expressing yourselves in public. It's a real shame. I'd like to think however that love and compassion will win through in the end. And this community provides some solidarity.

Catherine

Catherine said, "It means you will all have to be that little bit more careful about expressing yourselves in public." I disagree. There's nothing Kerry would've done to make our situation as trannies any better, safer, or more acceptable.

As for any election trickery, the majority of the voters (myself NOT included) chose George W. Bush. What does that say about John F. Kerry? The fact is that the people of this country chose Bush, and it's the first time a President has received a majority since his father in 1988 (Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote). Democrats made a big deal about what the popular vote told us about Bush in 2000, so one can only assume that the same applies to Bush in 2004. The people have spoken, and most Americans want Bush in office instead of Kerry.

While my candidate didn't win, I'm glad that Kerry didn't win, either. However, I do commend Kerry for not resorting to the shenanigans that Gore resorted to in 2000. At least Kerry knows when he's been beaten. So does Daschle.


We can debate other political issues all day long and get nowhere, but I'm interested in what you girls think the various political parties really offer individual trannies and the trans community, at large (mainly in the USA & UK, but don't hesitate to mention parties in other nations). I'm talking about specifics, as in direct quotes from party platforms or actual proposals introduced in legislatures, etc., and which individual candidates embrace those policies.

Stevie-

I like and respect both you and Gloria too much to engage in a slanging match with you, but "communists"? C'mon, somebody's channeling Ann Coulter here.<lol>

My personal opinion is that Bush has been an umitigated disaster for our country, but I also realize that others may see him in a different light and that ideology changes the interpration of circumstances and actions. Like it or not he is still the President, hopefully, now that this is his last term and he doesn't have to look at running for office again he may alter his stance on some things and try for unity rather than division. We shall see.

Best wishes to us all.

-Joni

Joni - point taken. Just because I don’t always like your politics, that doesn’t mean I don’t like you girls.


However, "universal healthcare & welfare" are hardly capitalist ventures. When others start talking about taking my money away because they think they know how to spend it better than I, and when they talk about taking my weapons away, ignoring my Constitutional rights and leaving me defenseless, and when they want to tell me which vehicles I'm allowed to drive, which doctors I must see, which medical procedures I'm allowed, how much money I am allowed for retirement, etc., it's very easy for me to see the red flag waving.

I'm always a capitalist, always a hawk, sometimes a conservative and, sometimes a liberal. I don't mind those labels being applied to me when they are accurate. By contrast, many socialists and communists don't like being referred to as such, even when the labels fit. In my experience, it's often because they want to think of themselves as centrists or moderates, which they aren't. Universal healthcare is socialism, at best, but once you combine it with all of the other policies that most supporters of universal healthcare want, you're getting into communism.

Ann Coulter... Yummmmm! I wonder if she's into trannies...

Sent to me by a friend from Seattle ..



Well it made me chuckle, but I'm just a simple girl.
Cerys x

That is funny, and perhaps true. The Christian fundamentalists who control large parts of the country will not rest until they have forced their beliefs on everyone else. Perhaps we should abandon part of the country to them, and allow them to descend to third-world status as rapidly as they want. (Sometimes, I wish the South had won the Civil War so that many of the fundamentalists would be in a backward, third-world country, rather than holding us all back.)

Heather H.

Heather

Maybe the south could be annexed by Mexico, wasn't part of it once theirs anyway?

Cx

I didn't vote for him either time myself. We sisters over here
know that he will likely do some harm to us in the next week
or so.
Even the guys on the local level go beat real bad by person's
wanting to take care of abortion and the same-sex marriage
issue. Here in the state of Indiana we had some our finest
guys get beat by a pizza tosser and a truck driver. When I walked into Dem headquarters the other night I almost starting
crying because I saw haow bad that we were getting beat.
But I guess you can't beat the people that have the minds of
bible-thumpers.
RandiP

You have to remember that elections focus on many issues, and you can just assume that the people will support a candidate who might take a favorable stance on one issue without any consideration for other issues. That what hurts the Democrats in the USA.

Take me, for example. I'm not a member of any organized religion, and I'm a supporter of equal rights for homosexuals and trans persons, and I'm also a tranny myself. I'm very much a liberal when it comes to civil rights. So, why don't I support Kerry and other Democrats? There are many non-trans, non-civil rights issues on which I disagree with the Democrats, and that holds true for many Americans.

I'm pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-capitalism, anti-socialism, I'm for small government and low taxes, I'm for promoting personal responsibility rather than dependence on government, I support maintaining a strong all-volunteer military (offensive and defensive capabilities), and I support the USA in the recent wars against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq and our current presence there to stabilize both nations.

There are many Americans who agree with me on many of those issues, and most of them are not backward, uneducated rednecks or religious zealots. I'm certainly neither. Just because someone doesn't agree with your politics doesn't mean that they are evil or insane. It's true in a few cases, on both the left and right, but for the most part, the 59,000,000+ who voted for Bush and the 55,000,000+ who voted for Kerry are, for the most part, sane, rational citizens who don't promote hatred and who simply disagree on various policies. It’s not only about religious differences.

I’ve noticed some less than positive statements in this topic from those on the left, or at least those who did not support Bush. Here are a few samples:

“The Horror”

“violently projectile vomiting into a wastebasket”

“Bush is a dangerous, irrational psychopath”

“Bush and his nutty base”

“political refugee”

“appaling result for the USA and the world”

“Bushy number 2 is a dangerous man”

“America has disgraced itself”

“my poor American sisters”

“bigoted ignoramus”

“egotistical maniac”

“umitigated disaster”

“I wish the South had won the Civil War”

“nutcases”

“We sisters over here know that he will likely do some harm to us in the next week or so.”


Do any of you think those statements might sound a bit extreme? Do they sound reasonable, tolerant, peaceful, rational, or respectful? By contrast, am I so wrong for referring to socialist and communists as such? Am I the only one who’s labeling?

I hear a lot about intolerance on the part of the right, but I also see a lot of intolerance on the part of the left. I know that there are some individuals out there who hate gays and trannies, for whatever reasons, but they don’t represent the majority of right-wingers in the USA. To speak so harshly about 51% of the country seems counter-productive, to put it mildly.

I understand about being frustrated and disappointed after losing an election. I disagree with many of Bush’s policies, and I think some of them are taking us in the wrong direction. He’s a big government socialist, which is the main reason I didn’t vote for him. He’s also against gay marriage, and he has a weak immigration policy, which are two more issues on which Bush and I don’t see eye-to-eye. I disagree with Kerry’s policies to an even greater degree, so I didn’t vote for him, either. However, I can disagree with their policies, and even think they are completely dead wrong, and still tolerate them.

Some people like socialism or communism, but I prefer capitalism. Some people like anarchy or dictatorships, but I prefer living in a democratic republic. Some people like vanilla, but I prefer chocolate. I can disagree with them, debate them, vote against them, campaign against them, but I don’t have to spit fire at them. We can playfully tease each other about our disagreements and still remain respectful, but I don’t think there’s any need to get nasty. I didn’t get my way, but the 2004 election is not the end of the world. We survived eight years of Bill J. B. Clinton, and we’ll survive eight years of George W. Bush.

The elections do not dictate the social climate. The elections reflect the social climate. If we want the election results to change, we need to change the social climate first. As trannies (and whatever else we are in our lives), the best thing we can do is put forth positive images that convinces the majority that we should have equal rights and protection under the law. We have to work the system from within and be positive, not constantly bash the majority and threaten to leave the country.

Ziggy: "Kerry wasn’t a commie Stevie he was barely a liberal."

Wrong. Take a look at his voting record.


Ziggy: "Maybe before you go sticking labels on people who should find out what they really mean!" "Basically the 10th amendment is about to be flushed down the toilet because we know how Republican friendly the Supreme Court are! Gloria your extremely naïve you really are."

U. S. Constitution: "Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

For the most part, the Republicans (and the Libertarians) have been the ones who've defended states' rights against the Democrats. Again, look at the voting records, as well as the party platforms.


Ziggy: “Stevie your a member of the Libertarian Party yet you're anti-abortion? Tell me you read anything on Libertarianism?”

Ziggy, many Libertarians are anti-abortion, personally, but the party platform expresses the desire to keep government out of the issue and allow individuals to decide for themselves. However, when we use the phrase “anti-abortion,” we’re typically talking about legalization, and I do disagree with my party on that issue.

Are you suggesting that I must agree with 100% of the platform in order to support the Libertarian Party, or that I must agree 100% with any candidate for whom I vote? If that’s a requirement, I could never support any person or any group. Libertarians, like most members of other parties, do have internal disagreements. Parties have conventions and vote on their platforms and candidates, just as the general population votes on election day. The majority of Libertarians want that in the platform, but I’m not in that majority. I’m still a Libertarian, though.

You’re British and Tony Blair is British. Does that mean you two agree on every issue?

Ziggy, you mention that I'm still in the closet, implying that I don't personally have as much at stake as those who are out, and I must admit that a very good point to raise. Actually, I'm half-way out, but your point is still valid. However (I always say that - LOL), one could argue that my desire to come completely out, and my reluctance to do so under the current social climate, would make me want political change even more.

Must one be in a given situation to believe in something and fully support it? Must I be a member of a racial minority to support racial equality? Must I be female to support a woman's right to vote? Must I be completely out of the closet to be considered trans and/or to fight for civil rights for TG citizens?

Ziggy: "I'm not British I just live here."

My mistake, please forgive me. If I may ask, of what nation are you a citizen?

For those who are out (and sane), yes, I believe that. I'm not out 24/7/365 to everyone I know, but I have come out to some of my friends and family members, I've joined a local TG group, and I am all over the Internet. Even in my relatively limited "out" capacity, I can still have an influence, and I'm gradually becoming more out each year.

If nothing else, I've helped to show visitors to Trannyweb that all trannies don't share the same political views. LOL

Stevie
I agree with your views 100%.Thre are many things I disagreed with Bush on but there was far more of Kerry's views that I did not care for. When all the options are laid out, we should be glad that Bush won the election.

Ziggy: "Yeah real intellegent trannies voting for Bush next turkeys will be voting for Xmas."

Now, now... no tranny bashing, Ziggy. LOL


Sandi - agreed. Given only two choices, I would've voted for Bush, but I'm glad I had other choices. We could've done much worse.


Gloiria - If Bush convinces Congrss to simplify the tax code, that alone will be worth his re-election! I'd love to see a flat income tax with no deductions, or better yet, a national sales tax replacing the income tax. It's my understanding that, either way, his initial intention is to exempt those below the poverty level, so he might actually get some support. Of course, tax accountants might have some strong objections. LOL

LOL

You don't give up, do you?

A national sales tax would be a great improvement over the current fiasco. This would be a fair and equatable solution for everyone. If you take into account the 28 million illegals in the US, forgein visitors, the base from which you tax takes on a substanial increase lessening the burden on the middle class.
Not to mention eliminating all the loopholes where the like of Mrs Kerry ended up paying only a 12% tax rate. This along with changing social security so it is more like a private 401K account would be tremendous for my kids.

Ziggy
Why are people who disagree with you "really naive"?
When did you become the high holy priest that knows absolute right from wrong?

Ziggy Lets try this again
Why are people who disagree with you "really naive"?
When did you become the high holy priest that knows absolute right from wrong?
You're last answer "I'm the one who will take take a stand against US imperialism as well as the Isalamic variety."
didn't even come close!

TRUE- enough - -ziggy- so are You -upset when people might dissagree with Your- cold- contrarian crapp?? oh- just a Qwestion?? hmm the WORLD according TO- its beeen done-- sadly-"K"

How interesting that no one really responded to Joni's and Heather's initial comments - about the direction the country will be taking.

They made some very incisive remarks about the quality of the electorate and the future of America.

Having vowed to myself on another political/election thread to refrain from commenting about the state of the world, I don't want to voice any strong opinions here, since my focus on this site is on other things, and I deal with politics elsewhere.

But, Stevie you do seem to stradle the fence a bit. I was heavily involved in Libertarian politics a while back. I understand where you are coming from. There are many former Republicans who have moved over to the Libertarian Party (Not that you are one). Personally, I find the move somewhat contradictory, but understandable considering current Republican politics.

I was a Goldwater conservative before moving to the Libertarian Party, which at its core believes in Classic American Liberalism, the politics that brought about the American revolution during the age of enlightenment. I find supporting the War in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) to be very ironic for a Libertarian. Again,I understand it. But I still find it ironic.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Ammendment, which leads me to support a citizen, and not a volunteer army, which is really a mercenary force - which is exactly what the Second Ammendment was supposed to protect us from - a standing army - so that little wars like the invasion of Iraq would be much more difficult to embark upon. The Second Ammendment was specifically framed to prevent the rise of a standing army - no more no less, but a very strong colonial concern, considering our experience with England.

I am not being flippant nor sarcastic when I suggest that you do some research before you claim your political beliefs to be classic Americanism, which is what the LP stands for. There is some interesting reading in Max Farrand's notes on the federal Convention, the actual beadtes on the constitution in the various states, The Anti-Federalist papers by Richard Henry Lee, the debates on the Bill of Rights in The Annotated Record of Congress, and even that PR collection for the Constitution, the Federalist Papers.

I doubt that Patrick enry, RH Lee, Elbridge Gerry, T. Jefferson, et al would agree with many of your positions.

The above group opposed the Constitution, undertsanding that it ended the progress towards Liberty that had been made by the Revolution.

Anyway - for the first time in many years, despite the personal advice of Harry Browne, I didn't vote Libertarian. I cast my vote aginst Bush by voting for Kerry. I didn't like doing it, but this was not a time for absolute principal. Did I enjoy giving any power to Kerry via my vote? - no. But I sure as hell didn't want George Bush in the White house again, not so much because of Bush (Kerry was not really that different from him on many important issues, especially the war, but I needed to take a stand against his religous base. That is where my concerns lay.

Anyway,

Joe P

Maryanne--

Better late than never.

You want the original 13 colonies back? What on earth for?

**sighs**

Still, if you want them that, badly, you'll have to come up with an excuse to invade us. Maybe we have weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, wait...we tried that lame little excuse on the rest of the world, and they didn't buy it.

Silly me.

Mina