So... who would you vote for?

[Tualatin]

http://www.betavote.com

(dunno if it's posted already tho)

 

[Loxleyhood]

I actually had to do a presentation for government this week about the general US election process, Kerry and Bush's policies and sum up who we would vote for if we were American and why, which was actually a bit tricky.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do not like George Bush one little bit, to have him lead the west I see as somewhat of an embarrasment, and I think the Republicans are a joke of a political party; if you want something done instead of a load of rich men giving themselves tax breaks and slapping each other on the back, vote Democrat. And I would, except for one thing. Ol' Bush has these real juicy tax breaks for college students. Thus my dilemma. I think however in the end I would vote for Kerry. No doubt if I were an American having a Democrat in charge would impove my position much more than a few irresponsible and short lived, although tempting, tax breaks from Bush.

www.bushgame.com for some information and fun.

 

[Archeon]

I'd say neither, John Kerry strikes me as an aristocratic and arrogant moron. Bush is an idiot. Neither is a viable choice in my books.

Still thats democracy for you isn't it? Was it Two the Rant-Griffon who said democracy isn't so much about chosing the right leader as chosing the moron who'll do the least ammount of damage?


Oh well, here's a bit of humour anyway, I will say this about America. I love that they can make spoof sites without breaking copyright law

 

[Loxleyhood]

What's wrong with being led by an aristrocrat? I know who I would choose between an aristrocrat and John Prescott. Having said that I would choose John Prescott over that **** of a Churchill who makes a tit of himself in Parliament. It's all about the person.

Also keep in mind that American politics is very personality based, much more than in Europe. The Americans will be voting for a man, whereas we may be more looking at his policies and party.

 

[Morchaoron]

hehe iraq and afghanistan both 50% bush

(ofc no one knows if these numbers are real.........)

 

[Fafnir]

Well i would go for Kerry, lesser of two evil's..

 

[fionnel]

Ofc they are real, it's the american soldiers there voting, the only ones in the country having internet access obviously. Or we have to believe that really 1000 Afghanis (sp?) have voted, making them one of the top 10 countries in the world at internet access.

And i don't care what's the american criteria for voting, i judge by policy and policy exclusively so i don't really care if the one's an aristocrat or the other is an idiot. I find that both have unacceptable policies so none is my answer.

 

[Loxleyhood]

Actually internet cafes are very popular in Baghdad amoung the local population, and even lan parties are a regular occurance. They're not troglodytes.

 

[Dillinja]

Apparently, many Americans are voting for Bush over Kerry just because they think that he 'looks better'. Kerry does look like he might die of a heart attack at any given moment but that's no reason not to vote for him. It just shows you how shallow some of these Americans are. Almost everything is based on looks over there. Intelligence tends to take a back seat.

 

[Driwen]

And i don't care what's the american criteria for voting, i judge by policy and policy exclusively so i don't really care if the one's an aristocrat or the other is an idiot. I find that both have unacceptable policies so none is my answer.

so you wouldnt mind voting for a puppet who might seem to have good policies?
Where a person comes from isnt that important to me, but his character is (atleast for presidency). It isnt as important as his policy, but the person will represent your country and at times might have to console the public when some disaster happened.
I havent seen really enough of Kerry to know wether his character is any good, but imo I doubt he can be as bad as Bush is.

 

[Tom]

Personally, I prefer this vote:

http://www.collegehumor.com/election (NSFW)


The only way to become a politician in the USA is to have money. Its all wrong from the outset.

 

[Dillinja]

In America they have the same problem that we have here with Labour and the Conservatives. It's a 2-horse race on both sides of the atlantic. This usually results in the voter being forced into picking the lesser of the two evils rather than actually voting for someone who they think can get the job done well. To my knowledge, the majority of Bush's votes come from the southern, 'redneck' states. Hardly surprising considering his war on terror and Iraq. I have no idea where Kerry is getting his support from. I'm guessing it's just more generally spread out across the states from people who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's other policies.

If I could choose between the two of them, I'd say Kerry in the blink of an eye. Simply because he would cause less trouble and instability around the world. Living in Britain, I'd rather our tax money be spent on something other than the Iraq war or any wars that might come after it if Bush stays in power.

 

[Loxleyhood]

Apparently, many Americans are voting for Bush over Kerry just because they think that he 'looks better'. Kerry does look like he might die of a heart attack at any given moment but that's no reason not to vote for him. It just shows you how shallow some of these Americans are. Almost everything is based on looks over there. Intelligence tends to take a back seat.

An interesting fact; with only one exception, the tallest candidate has always won the US presidential election. One of the most effect pieces of propaganda I've seen targetting Kerry was one pointing out that he looked like Lurch from the Adamms Family, and it was sad to realise just how damaging that would be.

 

[Ballade.]

Bush getting pwned xD

 

[Lumikki]

There really isn't any good choices....

Bring Bill back

 

[Loxleyhood]

Clinton will come back. Only next time President Clinton will have breasts...

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Apparently, many Americans are voting for Bush over Kerry just because they think that he 'looks better'. Kerry does look like he might die of a heart attack at any given moment but that's no reason not to vote for him. It just shows you how shallow some of these Americans are. Almost everything is based on looks over there. Intelligence tends to take a back seat.

We know, they elected bush once didn't they!

 

[fionnel]

so you wouldnt mind voting for a puppet who might seem to have good policies?
Where a person comes from isnt that important to me, but his character is (atleast for presidency). It isnt as important as his policy, but the person will represent your country and at times might have to console the public when some disaster happened.
I havent seen really enough of Kerry to know wether his character is any good, but imo I doubt he can be as bad as Bush is.

No, i don't really care because i realise a policy is not implemented by the president or any person individually but there's a whole mechanism of power behind each president and he simply represents the ideals and interests of the party/people that helped him get elected.

I just hate the argument that Bush is stupid because it's so misleading. I do not think that the failure of his policy is owed to hiw own stupidity. Most people admit Clinton was smarter but his basic foreign policy remained the same, only with the cover of 'human rights' instead of the 'war against terrorism'. One bombarded Yugoslavia, the other one Iraq, sorry that i can't really feel the difference because Clinton is supposed to be smarter.

 

[Job]

Bush will win.

His family go back, way back.
He's not actually as stupid as everyone makes out, he just doesn't have good verbal skills, but Americans aren't arsed, he's just a figurehead, better one that's unlikely to make any decisions himself.

Of course the war in Iraq was a bag of shite, but at the end of the day it let the world know who's in charge.

Dead troops/hostages/bombs going off.....just small time stuff.

America invaded (yes) 2 countries and didn't even break a tailight.

The war was all about..'anyone else wanna piece of it?'

 

[Loxleyhood]

We know, they elected bush once didn't they!

No they didn't. He lost the popular vote. But the electoral college voted for him anyway. You see the Americans don't actually have real freedom. They don't even have the vote. Someone from their state votes 'on their behalf' because America doesn't trust peasants. The representatives are supposed to vote according to their state's result, but as illustrated by Bush II, they don't have to....

 

[Loxleyhood]

No, i don't really care because i realise a policy is not implemented by the president or any person individually but there's a whole mechanism of power behind each president and he simply represents the ideals and interests of the party/people that helped him get elected.

I just hate the argument that Bush is stupid because it's so misleading. I do not think that the failure of his policy is owed to hiw own stupidity. Most people admit Clinton was smarter but his basic foreign policy remained the same, only with the cover of 'human rights' instead of the 'war against terrorism'. One bombarded Yugoslavia, the other one Iraq, sorry that i can't really feel the difference because Clinton is supposed to be smarter.

Yugoslavia was in response to familes being blocked up in their houses and burned alive. You could quote the Kurds in Iraq, but that was ten years ago, and was not the cause of the Iraq War.

 

[fionnel]

Of course the war in Iraq was a bag of shite, but at the end of the day it let the world know who's in charge.

Dead troops/hostages/bombs going off.....just small time stuff.

America invaded (yes) 2 countries and didn't even break a tailight.

The war was all about..'anyone else wanna piece of it?'

Mate, duhl ? Yeah, they won easily vs two armies that were propably in the next stage of evolution after using arrows as your main weapons but that doesn't really say much.

Small time stuff? Those small time stuff are causing a lot of reactions across Europe and perhaps it doesn't affect Bush directly but from the governments that supported him in the war i don't see many doing too well in elections/polls.

If you didn't notice, a bomb exploding in Madrid changed the local election result 100%. But that's propably small stuff.

And as for not 'breaking a tailight' i don't see them maintaning order in Iraq or Afghanistan or anything, in fact those countries seem to be in total chaos and disorder.

Controlling power is not about claiming a geographic land and placing your troops inside it but actually it's about imposing your political will on it and forcing your law with violence or consent and americans don't seem able to force their political will 2 km outside Baghdad. Why else do they constantly increase the number of soldiers there if they aren't facing problems?

I can hardly believe that having problems maintaining order throughout 2 thirld world countries is an indication that people should actually fear the US power. They seem like they have reached or are close at reaching their limit at best.

 

[fionnel]

Yugoslavia was in response to familes being blocked up in their houses and burned alive.

The claims of massive violations of human rights in former Yugoslavia are as true as the existence of WMD in Iraq was. And Harry Potter is more real than that.

 

[Tootz]

Pfft get Arnie in there I say!

 

[Loxleyhood]

The claims of massive violations of human rights in former Yugoslavia are as true as the existence of WMD in Iraq was. And Harry Potter is more real than that.

There were BBC news reports of charred children's hands.

 

[fionnel]

BBC isn't the one and only source of ultimate truth and even if it's willing to tell the truth perhaps its sources are incorrect.

And i didn't say it was a peaceful area with no problems but the west media gave a description of mass genocide that was quite inaccurate and disproportional. In 1991 they showed a nurse that claimed Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in a Kuwait hospital, it only took 10 years to find out there was no hospital, the girl wasn't a nurse and no babies had been killed but the lie served its purpose at the time, much as the lies for mass refugee graveyards at yugoslavia served their purpose, despite the fact it was later discovered they the bones were from people who had died in the second world war. The american intervention hasn't stopped the racial violence anyway, just reversed the roles in the area. I can hardly think of a place in the world that has shown any signs of improvement after an american intervention.

 

[Morchaoron]

I can hardly think of a place in the world that has shown any signs of improvement after an american intervention.

so you're saying that my country (the netherlands) would have been better off with the nazi regime?

 

[Loxleyhood]

Look, don't be so stupid. There's taking what you see in the media and judging it's credibility but your views seem to boil down to some manner of crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Think of it this way, America is ONE of the biggest nations on earth, filled with self opinionated assholes and gun totting loons. If Bush gets back in, it will be more of the same, with another conflict along the way (Probobly). If Kerry gets in, it will be more home defence and peace-keeping. The fact that these seem to be the only topics on discusion (and not only here, but elsewhere) is a bit obsurd. What about the other issues involved? More humanitarian aid abroad instead of troops? Combating the homeless problems? (Joke: Maybe Bush could deploy troops against them.) And other such isues?

Everyone is making the U.S. elections about WAR! when it should be about the people of the United States. Neither is charismatic or corrupt (im talking about being REALY nasty type of corruption) so it's all about the issues, and so far, one issue is all there talking about. People have even made this about service records of all things! Who cares if Kerry has been shot 3 times? Or if Bush ducked Vietnam? I mean, would you give Bush a gun? The man who almost choked to death on a pretzel? And as for Kerry, who cares, he can hardly be any worse than Bush.

Either way, be calm, chill, have pie!
Armageddon is scheduled for August - 30 - 2012, whoever ends up in the white house. Concentrate on the Important things. Have you payed the papers? Walked the dog? Or made love to another human being recently? Like our minds, it's the small things that count.

 

[Morchaoron]

Either way, be calm, chill, have pie!
Armageddon is scheduled for August - 30 - 2012

thats my bloody birthday!!!