Politics Election 2004: VOTE

If you were to vote in the United States presidential election, for whom would you vote (regardless

  • George Bush (Republican)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Kerry (Democrat)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader (Independent)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • David Cobb (Green)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah really
i was so stressed last night watchin all the electoral votes change i was like MUST HAVE CHOCOLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!


have the feeling (and many other europeans have this) that america has less freedom and less democratic since bush has become president.

I fail to see how we are less free or less democratic.
If anything i think we are more free
 
I really think that Bush doesn't even know what he's doing and personally I wouldn't trust someone who was alcohol addicted
You are an idiot if you believe that. That statement is completely baseless and false.

I'm so sad... I almost cried when I heard the elections results... here in europe everybody is against bush because he is such an idiot.
I'd vote for Kerry, I live in the Uk
Exactly. You don't live in America, so please stop making assumptions about our country and our president. People in the UK have one source of info about the US: the biased liberal media. Those who believe everything they hear without knowing the facts are simply naive. It's one thing to follow the news and keep up with what's going on here; it's another to tell us who we should vote for and why. We don't need your blessing on the person we elect as president. I make no comments about the UK's leadership whatsoever because 1) it's not my country, and 2) I'm not informed enough about it. You should do the same. The America that George Bush inherited was extremely weak defense-wise, thanks to all the intelligence spending cuts that had been made under Clinton's administration. That's how his "great economy" was funded. It is a proven FACT that Clinton knew the threat Osama bin Laden posed to our country, and that, when given the intelligence and opportunity to capture him, he completely ignored it. How dare you say that George Bush let thousands of Americans die on 9/11. I wouldn't say about about any man, save the world terrorist leaders that he's fighting to remove from power. The President's goal is not, and should not be, to win the UN's "Miss Congeniality" contest for popularity. He's more concerned about our country, and our safety and security, which is why we're fighting a war against terror to prevent more terrorist attacks. The only options to take after 9/11 were A) do nothing, essentially telling the terrorist world that there are no consequences to their actions; thus, inviting future attacks (though I'm sure if the UN had unanimously voted to allow us to ask nicely for them to leave us alone, that would have worked), B) declare war without funding it, by sending our troops overseas without proper armor, weapons, and ammunition - a service above and beyond what our military signed up for, or C) declare war and fund it by cutting other spending programs, such as education and social security. By valuing the safety of our troops over the approval of onlooking nations, our Congress went into 80 billion dollars' worth of debt. Freedom isn't free.
 
ashqua said:
I asked this question to all my friends, and no one knew the answer  :confused:  .
The same poll was done in France, and guess who would be president today whistle: ?
[post="1052495"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I think I every other country than america Kerry would have won.

I've watched an very interesting report last night and they said that the main problem is that the americans doesn't even know half of what Bush really did because many TV stations etc. are censored.

I have a friend from america and during the iraq war he visited me and he was a bush supporter before - but after he watched some "real" news in the TV - he's now a Kerry supporter :P

I found a Top list - reasons against George Bush and I think it's great (and one of many reasons why I think the USA is less democratic and has less freedom since Bush is head of state.

Honesty

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life. George Bush is applauded for overthrowing two governments (three, if you count Haiti) based on deception. He lied about the threat of Iraq, he lied about the cost, and he lied about the expected outcome. He lied about the purpose of his tax cuts, he lied about education, the environment, energy, and his own past. He lied about the cost of Medicare. Everything he says is choreographed to achieve political gain without consideration for the truth. In Bush's administration, truth takes a back seat to power every time.

War

History will not be kind to George Bush. In two years he overthrew two governments, and has his eyes on several others. He has ignored the UN, the US public, and 90% of the rest of the world, including millions who protested in the streets. He has violated the US Constitution and international law by attacking Iraq when it was not a threat to anyone. In his empire-building march across the Middle East, he has wasted the lives of thousands. History will wonder why no one stopped him.

Economy

As soon as people saw that Bush might get elected in 2000, the economy started to fall, helped by Bush's talk of recession. He, of course, tried to blame Clinton. Since then, the economy has dipped in and out of recession, a million jobs have evaporated, deficits are soaring, and Bush's only response is to cut taxes for the wealthy. Every few months he promises that jobs are just around the corner -- if Congress will only approve my tax cuts -- but month after month job statistics give substance to the lie. Bush seems bent on destroying the very institution he heads.

Liberties

Yes, we need to catch terrorists, but we don't need a police state to do it. John Ashcroft has shown no concern for personal liberties, only for catching the "bad guys." Is it really necessary for the government to know what books you read? Is it necessary to read your e-mail? Must librarians be gagged? This slide toward Fascism is as scary as anything else Bush does. And rather than scale back the most egregious aspects of the act, Bush wants to make it even more intrusive.

Taxes

No one likes taxes, but we all pay them in hopes that the government will provide the services we need and want: schools, highways, bridges, and security. Bush, like Reagan before him, intends to choke the government down to size. By cutting taxes, primarily for the wealthy, deficits soar and nothing is left for education, the environment, social programs (including Social Security) or necessary regulation of corporations. After spending $800 billion a year (by independent estimates) on a bloated military, there is no money for books, no money for highways, not even money for the soldiers who must fight his wars. There is no money. But schools must remain open, roads must be repaired, and the sick must find treatment; all this is left to the state and local governments, which are now raising taxes, firing teachers, and cutting services.

Environment

One of his first acts as president was to raise the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. Since then, we have seen a continuous assault on the forests, the air, the water, and the land. Global warming threatens to wreak havoc on our economy, our food supply, and our social fabric, but Bush only listens to the scientists on the political right, and they see no reason to panic. Don't worry, be happy.

International Relations

When you're the strongest nation by a factor of ten, you don't need to play nice. You can be a bully, and if other countries don't like it, too bad. Under Bush, we've seen this arrogant attitude regularly. He walked away from Kyoto, from the land mine treaty, from the international women's rights treaty, and the international criminal court. He ignored the pleas of long-time allies to avoid war, insulting them childishly. It will be decades before we can regain the respect of the world.
Secrecy
This is the most secret administration in memory. Decisions are clearly being made by corporations and far-right interest groups, but Bush refuses to admit it or to say who is behind such important policies as energy. Government can only be trusted in the sunlight, and this government hides at undisclosed locations.

Military

We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. While most of us appreciate the sense of security a strong military brings, we also question the wisdom of such spending when we have no clear enemy. Iraq was overthrown for about $100 billion. We spend four times that every year on the military. And now Bush wants to build a magical missile shield that no one believes will actually work. Oh, it will cost many billions, and a few select corporations will get rich, but meanwhile we have other needs, desperate needs, that are not being met. We don't even have health care for all our children. We can't even provide breakfast for all our children, or books, or decent schools. But we can kill bad guys better than anyone. And if Bush has his way, we will soon be dropping tactical nuclear bombs on them.

Corruption

The line between corporations and the government has disappeared during the Bush administration. Corporations give money to elect Bush, then Bush forms policies and rules that favor those same corporations. This is nowhere more evident than in the energy industry, which has sent millions to Bush in the form of campaign contributions, then received billions in return. Think Bush, Cheney, Bechtel, Halliburton, Schultz.

I'm scared, I'm really scared...and I think 90 % of the world outside america is scared, too.

[EDIT]
Oh and,

It's one thing to follow the news and keep up with what's going on here; it's another to tell us who we should vote for and why. We don't need your blessing on the person we elect as president. I make no comments about the UK's leadership whatsoever because 1) it's not my country, and 2) I'm not informed enough about it. You should do the same.

It's our problem, too. Cause if Bush attacts the world IT IS our problem.

Not so long time ago in Germany we had an head of state who was first loved by everyone. He would have won every population vote.

But then he killed 1 700000 jews. Everything ended up in world war 2.

I just don't want something like this happen again.
 
In case you've forgotten, Britian's with us in Iraq. You are so narrow-minded. It's like you close your eyes and pretend that 9/11 never happened. We attacked Afganistan and Iraq to defend our country from being anhialiated by terrorists. It's like you close your eyes and pretend that not only did we attack on the defense, but in doing so, we liberated thousands of people from horrible opression, especially women.

But then he killed 1 700000 jews. Everything ended up in world war 2.
You know, you're digging your own grave. Everything did end up in World War II. We went to war because Pearl Harbor was bombed, killing thousands of our troops. Did President Roosevelt end up killing 700000 people? No, we're the ones that liberated the Jews that were still alive. Or did you forget that?
 
Firithlaith said:
[EDIT]
Oh and,
It's our problem, too. Cause if Bush attacts the world IT IS our problem.

Not so long time ago in Germany we had an head of state who was first loved by everyone. He would have won every population vote.

But then he killed 1 700000 jews. Everything ended up in world war 2.

I just don't want something like this happen again.
[post="1052536"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

you are seriously comparing president bush to hitler?
they are not even CLOSE to being alike
President Bush does not want to wipe out an entire race of people
 
Stop fighting or the thread goes bye-bye.

Debating is one thing, attacking is another thing entirely. And I'm talking to both sides. Chill. Now.
 
Sally said:
In case you've forgotten, Britian's with us in Iraq. You are so narrow-minded. It's like you close your eyes and pretend that 9/11 never happened. We attacked Afganistan and Iraq to defend our country from being anhialiated by terrorists. It's like you close your eyes and pretend that not only did we attack on the defense, but in doing so, we liberated thousands of people from horrible opression, especially women.
[post="1052543"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Well, I'm not from Britain, I'm from Germany and Germany was against this war from the beginning.

I don't remember at what time EVER the iraq did attack america????? :blink:
Saddam was a dangerous person but he DID nothing against Europe or against the USA.

America spends billions of dollars for a country who doesn't even want to be rescued by the americans. The Iraq will NEVER be democratic because they don't WANT to be democratic.

And I don't see where your country is attacked by terrorists?? It was attacked only one time, that was a cruel thing and I'm very sad for all the people who had to die in this horrible attack 9/11. Don't get me wrong - I don't want to play this down.

BUT the whole islam world hates america NOW for what they have done to many innocent people in the iraq (that war was NOT necessary!) and I think that is much more dangerous! I'm afraid they will strike back some day and that's WHY I AM SCARED!

I don't say anything against afganistan, but the iraq war was a huge mistake.America has to do something against terrorists, but the way they do it is just so wrong.

I am studying foreign politics, I know what I'm talking about.

So don't YOU close your eyes.

@ jinnie: hey, sorry, saw your post to late - I was writing this one when you were posting yours ;)
 
anyway....
i was wondering, was the score thingy
274-bush
242-kerry or wat??
because i'm in england and i'm not sure if it's right or wrong!!
 
obsessetion said:
anyway....
i was wondering, was the score thingy
274-bush
242-kerry or wat??
because i'm in england and i'm not sure if it's right or wrong!!
[post="1052561"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


well currently its
bush 245
kerry 252


they arent done counting 3 of the states
but it doesnt matter because Kerry conseded to Bush
so its over
 
No worries, Firithlaith, I'm aware. ;)

However, Thread-In-General, that discussion? Is now over.

Move on, please.
 
AliasHombre said:
Did everyone eligible to vote vote?
[post="1052571"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

no only 60% of the eligible voters voted
but thats the highest percentage in like 20 years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top