US Presidential Election

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Brian Bowen, Nov 2, 2004.


Who do you vote for?

  1. Bush

    8 vote(s)
  2. Kerry

    30 vote(s)
  3. Nader

    2 vote(s)
  4. Don't care

    10 vote(s)
  1. Brian Bowen

    Brian Bowen Active Member

    The USA has enormous power to affect the lives of people around the world. Yet, if some of the letters written to the British Guardian newspaper are anything to go by, many Americans hotly resent the opinions or influence of non-Americans on today’s presidential election.

    Do you fancy voting here?
  2. Red Elvis

    Red Elvis Active Member

    And there are a good few Iraqis , Afghans, Cubans, Palestinians ( need I go on ?) that resent American influence in their politics as well!

    Hope our U.S friends choose wisely today.
  3. jpbray

    jpbray Member

    From a British point of view we need do need the US as close allies, but we don't need GWB. He his an astute man given his success in business, and I would suspect he has despatched his business rivals in a similar cool manner has he did with Saddam. However he is not a diplomat and his feudal style is destabalising. British history is a catalogue of conflict, we have been there done it, got the T shirt, read the book, seen the video etc. Consequently Kerry is seen as the man with a cool head and a steady hand and possible more of a statesman.
  4. johnmartin

    johnmartin Active Member

    I hope Kerry wins today for all our sakes. Not just George W, but the current administration are genuinely scary people. The whole New American Century lot are to the right what the soviets were to the left. I actually believe that they have considered the possibility of using battlefield nukes because a) they're miles from home and b) it's only a small one let off in a sparsely populated area. I bet this has actively been discussed at a high level. I believe that Kerry, in keeping with most Presidents from a military background, will use his experience of war to try and build a genuine peace. It is nonsense to try and force a democratic culture upon Iraq where none has existed for years, even prior to Saddam. What the US fails to see is that there are other cultures in the world that do not conform to their own noble ideals. To try and change these cultures by force is wrong; they have existed for centuries before US democracy. I believe that with Kerry we will initially see a robust stance toward the mess he has inherited in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there will be no more overseas adventures e.g. Sudan or N. Korea. The US must see that its unstinting support of Israel, regardless of what the Israelis do, does not win them many friends in the middle east. Perhaps a more robust policy toward and a cutting of arms sales to Israel would see the new President start off on the right foot as regards foreign policy.

    Also, I do not believe that we need the US as close allies. As world trading partners, undoubtedly, but not as military allies. This countries defence needs are not the same as they were during the cold war. If we stopped going on foreign adventures then we could quite happily live with our current level of forces. The US does not need us to tag along; the only reason we do is that it adds an air of international co-operation and respectability to the operation and, it keeps us thinking that we are a world power.
  5. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    I really can see why anybody outside the U.S. would not want Bush.

    However, international issues are not 100% of what the election is about and how the values of the nation change (or don't change) internally is more of the reason why I don't like Kerry.

    So I voted for Bush (oh yeah, and my vote actually counts ;))
  6. lynchie

    lynchie Active Member

    I think any of them could send the world down the pan, so I'm not bothered...
  7. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    Kerry is taller and he has better hair. He's a shoo-in...
  8. drummerboy

    drummerboy Member

    If I was able to vote, I would vote for Kerry. Personally, from where I'm sitting, I think GWB is a very dangerous and stupid man, who is trying, like Blair, to show he is able to do something big in his time in power.
    And yes, I do think Michael Moore's documentaries are good...
  9. Heather

    Heather Member

    Kerry for me...for the same reasons as Drummerboy.
    I think Bush is a very ill advised , dangerous man who is slowly getting Usa (and Britain) into big trouble.
  10. I can't believe you even care :shock:
  11. Straightmute

    Straightmute Active Member

    Count me in too, although Kerry seems to be 'second worst' rather than a good first choice! The electoral process seems extremely suspect, with lost voting slips etc. etc. although many of the counting procedures seem to have been tightened up since the last time... If this election was in Central Africa we'd probably be demanding that the UN stepped in to ensure good practice.

    I predict that we'll see both parties in court before the end of the week.

  12. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    You are correct. Both parties have thousands of election "challengers" who are visiting individual polling places in order to gather evidence for the lawsuits. Also, several of the states (including mine) have adopted electronic voting machines. These machines have not yet been challenged in court.

    The biggest issue in the electoral process in the USA is that the presidential election is not a direct election - our Constitution makes it possible for someone to lose the overall vote and still win the election based on the state voting. My personal opinion is that this needs to be changed, as it represents an outdated view of the electorate.
  13. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Difficult to disagree with that. Bush is a semi-literate unreformed alcoholic and a national service dodger, (Along with half of america's ruling elite.) and his defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is such a dangerous clown he almost got the US expeditionary force in iraq wiped out by imposing his strategy on the generals in command, rather than vice versa. As for Bush's his so-called business acumen, see brother Jeb about that. He's the sharp one, whereas George W probably doesn't even tie his own shoes.

    The big problem any US president has there is if you go up against israel, it's very easy to lose the jewish vote in america, and they are a very powerful lobby. Clinton only tried it when he was a lame duck, because he knew he'd never get re-elected if he tried it first term. Plus these days, if you stand against israel, wheter directly or indirectly, your public face is one that stands FOR the muslim palestinians. And that's not a popular thing with islamic terrorism high on the political agenda.

    I honestly believe our own PM so sompletely misjudged the public opinion in this country that he genuinely believed the war would be popular and make him look strong and decisive. In steard, it's made him look weak, taking orders from the president of a country 3000 miles away, and dishonest, with all the rubbish about wepons of mass dissapearance.

    The american people, in my experience generally a nice bunch, have been utterly betrayed by this man, and yet somehow I've got this nagging worry that he's going to take this one.

    Whatever you say about politics is controversial, so I'll refrain from the full michael moore. But the american constitution enshrines basic freedoms every citizen of the US has, some of which have stood for over 220 years. The only president ever to rescind those freedoms is george W bush, and if he's re-elected, it only goes to show how far people will compromise the freedom their forefathers bled and died for, just to have a false sense of security.

    I hope I haven't offended anyone's sensibilities. This does only reflect my opinon, based on three years studying politics at Uni. Please feel free to disagree and criticise my arguments, that's what politics is all about isn't it?
  14. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Our own 'first past the post' system in the UK allows a very similar thing. The seats in the house of commons are won very much the same way as electoral college votes in the US. Hence why a party who won 42% of the vote at the last election has over 60% of the seats in the house.

    But then, it was only the proportional representation system that got Adolf Htler his seat in the reichstag in 1930. He'd never have got near it under the US or UK system.

    It's difficult to know which is worse, having a misrepresented electorate, or allowing (Occasionally extremist) minority parties to gain a toe-hold in national politics. Like so much in politics, there never is an easy answer.
  15. craigster

    craigster Member

    From a Canadian point of view, I hope Bush stays in. The US is the last bastion of traditional values and that will change if Kerry gets his hand on the US supreme court (especially with a sick Renquist).

    If the US goes that far left, then North America will be a place where anything goes - you will be able to marry a horse because no one can infringe on our personal rights.

    Having said all that, with all the hatred for Bush in the US, how bad does Kerry have to be that it is even a close race?
  16. ScrapingtheBottom

    ScrapingtheBottom Active Member

    It's looking like a win for Bush. Better the devil you know....

    The re-election of Bush provides a rallying point for the socialist leaders of Europe to form a closer bond - I can expect to see the same strengthening of the EU in the next 4 years as we have seen in the last.
  17. Pythagoras

    Pythagoras Active Member

    4 more years of only giving to aids charities that preach abstinance rather than contraceptives

    4 more years of sticking 2 fingers up to the world environmentally

    4 more years of homophobia

    Every Supreme court judge appointed for the next 4 years will be a religious conservative and they carry on serving for life.

    4 more years of anti-science.

    4 more years of tax breaks for the rich.

    4 more years of ignoring the UN

    A bad day for the World.

    On the plus side the voter turn out was encouraging. Wish we got that here. Actually heard pupils at school talking about politics (at break time!). Hope this means they will be turned on when it gets to our elections.

    Have to say that it must be the stupidest way to elect a President ever. Why not 1 person 1 vote. The way it is now it was only worth voting if you lived in about 6 or 7 of the states.
  18. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Active Member

    Indeed, I still find it hard to believe that the citizens of america have (most likely) failed to get rid of one of the world's most dangerous leaders! It was soo easy to do!!

    Cheers y'all! My money's on a USA invasion of France or Canada before the end of his next term. It will later turn out that Bush meant N. Korea but pointed to the wrong place on the map...

    Never before tho have I seen such unity between "foreigners" over a presidential candidate. I've yet to speak to a UK citizen who would have voted for Bush.
  19. ScrapingtheBottom

    ScrapingtheBottom Active Member

    There are plenty, trust me, they just don't like saying so.
  20. Dan

    Dan Member

    I can't believe you don't