Title: Us Presidential Election
Description: Who will win?
Anastar - November 2, 2004 01:21 AM (GMT)
People from other countries, feel free to join in! :)
I can't say that I really like either candidate. Kerry just wants to yank the US Army out of Iraq without having any real plan how to do it. He wants to bring other nations in, yes... but Bush already tried to bring them in. I don't think Kerry's going to have an easy time pulling them out. He wants to raise Government spending to get things done, yet he claims he can lower the deficit without new taxes... go figure. Most of Kerry's ideas seem too idealistic to me without having a definite plan of action.
Bush's ideas seem more concrete than Kerry's, but how well do they work? We've already seen a lot of jobs lost. We're in a mess in Iraq. There's no real timetable for the troops to come home. I'm glad he took Hussein down, but how necessary was it?
I could go into more depth, but the main idea is that there's big problems with both candidates, and I can't really endorse either one. How do the rest of you feel?
Andina - November 2, 2004 01:56 AM (GMT)
By all things that are hole (and unholy!) I truly hope that Kerry wins. Even though I'm not American just do not want to see Bush leading the US for 4 more years...that would be unbearable. He and his politics are against almost everything I stand for. Now I'm not going to list all those things here, but let's just say that politicians like Bush are one reason why this world isn't a better place.
Maybe that was bit harsh, but that's the way I feel. I've never really cared about foreign elections and politics, but this year I've been paying close attention to things I normally wouldn't.
Don't get me wrong though, Kerry is far from that ideal politician I have in my mind, but at least he would appear to be much more open minded and...well I hate to say this, but more intelligent than Bush.
But as I cant even vote in your elections, dont take what I say too seriously. ^_^
Cloudsgirl - November 2, 2004 03:29 AM (GMT)
If a potted plant was running against George W, I'd vote for the potted plant, I'm sure it'd make a much better president. I really hate him for not going after bin laden, and the whole war in Iraq. Things are going great how? Because he SAYS so. How many more americans and others have to die because of oil? What a disgrace...
PinkRibbon - November 2, 2004 04:28 AM (GMT)
I don't like either of candidates either and I trust neither. But if I could vote, I would vote against Bush. I don't trust Nader anymore than I trust Bush, so he's a no. So that leaves Kerry, but he isn't better either.
One of my biggest pet peeves is how politicians mangle facts, and just lies (see debate transcript and www.factcheck.org--an HONEST site which I can trust) straight through irritates me. If the government keep on lying, and more of the people know this--then what kind of relationship is this between the government and the people? Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Edwards are liars. *sighs*
And another thing I don't like about politics is how everything is represented black and white--politicians and politics in general try to hide the fact that the world and each human are different shades of grey. Yes, we had a discussion about this week ago in English :P.
Both of Kerry and Bush are pretty general in their issues. Kerry's is a bit too idealistic, as you said, but Bush isn't any better even if they're more "concrete". I didn't like Bush's action of sending troops to Iraq in the first place. I mean, what about Osama Bin Laden? Our intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with wepons of mass destruction* and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet, Bush wanted to "check again". He says that our intelligence is pretty good, but if he believes they are well, why doesn't he trust them? And what about issues like Stem Cell Research or the Education progrmas and other domesitc and economic issues?
And one of the things that make me mad about Bush is that he says, "Thank you Veterans for fighting in war in Iraq," and yadda-yadda--but yet, he and his adminstration backslashes their health care benefits, especially the disabled veterans who bravely fought for their country. The Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care! And here Bush's claiming about how it's been increased by 5.4% or whatever other numbers he claims. HOW--UGGH!!!
*=Now that this has been found out, Bush's reason for war in Iraq has turned from hunting Saddam Hussein/destroying all of mass destruction weapons/Iraq is dangerous to 'I want to fight for a free Iraq,'-- I don't ever recall about him saying anything about a free Iraq after 9/11--unless my memory serves me poorly. Does he even know that majority of the people (not the government) of Iraq want to have democracy as their form of government???
Okay, I'm sorry if I offended anyone--please don't be.
BTW, does anyone know what the Redskins losing and winning affects the Presidential Election? I've heard something like that...or was it a joke?
Cloudsgirl - November 3, 2004 02:45 PM (GMT)
Bush pulled it out again! :angry: :angry: :angry: Well, there we have it, the four horsemen of the apocolpyse rolled into one lawn-gnome looking man. God help us all.
Andina - November 3, 2004 09:37 PM (GMT)
Truly...the world has to suffer for 4 more years. It's been obvious for so long that the world wanted Kerry to be eleceted, but unfortunately the citizens of the US didn't agree with the world. *whine*
I never thought I would care about it this much, but I am very disappointed to see Bush get re-elected. I bet it was because of that video of Bin Laden that appeared just days before the elections that made some people vote for Bush. You would think that it would have harmed Bush and not Kerry, but apparently not.
Gah! I'm so frustrated!
Oh well, maybe in 4 years the US will have it's first female president if Hillary decides to go for it. :)
Anastar - November 3, 2004 10:22 PM (GMT)
Very honestly, I think for most Americans it came down to the devil you do know being less dangerous than the devil you don't know. For most of us, it was picking the lesser of two evils. Kerry simply hadn't outlined a solid way of dealing with things for the next four years. He made too many idealistic promises without saying how he planned to accomplish it in a realistic way, so it made people doubt his ability to carry through on his promises.
It's not that I'm endorsing Bush, because he's made many mistakes. It's just that people wanted stable and firm leadership, and Bush was able to provide that even though many disagreed with his policies. Kerry made too many promises that we didn't think he could fulfill and it created too much uncertainty... and uncertainty is something people want to avoid right now along with a transition in leadership. So we went for the one whose performance we're already familiar with.
At least, that's how I see what happened. We'll just have to see what becomes of it.
Andina - November 4, 2004 01:36 AM (GMT)
Well...you can vote who you want. But I've just grown to dislike Bush so much over these years that I change the channel whenever he is on. :rolleyes:
But here's something amusing, election related, of course. ^_^
http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Latest-N...goVotingMachine
Tifa Lockheart - November 4, 2004 06:51 AM (GMT)
I'm not an American girl but just by watching CNN and reading the newspapers... well, I came to the conclusion that I don't like either candidates...
I don't know who Kerry is... and Bush, for me, just seems to be a megalomaniac.
I used to look up to the Americans, but when Bush comes into the picture, it's another story. It's like he's degrading the image of his fellow Americans just by doing those things he does... *uuurgh*
Raist - November 4, 2004 08:06 AM (GMT)
Personally i can't stand Bush and i don't want him on office for another four years, he's lied and cheated his way into office through friends relatives money and his dad which annoys me purely on an ethical level.
I'm not happy about the reasons he went into Iraq let alone the mess it's in now. Bush wanted Iraq for seizure of a sizeable amount of oil (didn't that work well now oil is sky rocketing) but more importantly to maintain a military presence in the Middle East. He never went in their for WMD's if that were the case why not go into NOrth Korea now?
That being said Kerry is terrible as well. His policies aren't particularly satisfying and seem illogical. And more than that he does not convey the image of a leader in any way. I see Kerry but i sure as hell don't want to vote for him.
That being said Bush has run the country into the ground in more than one way and a man that has sent more than one funded company bankrupt should never become president.
All in all i don't like either of them and i'd rather John Edwards or Bill Clinton back again.
And i'm still seething over the Australian elections.
Andina - November 4, 2004 10:07 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| I'm not happy about the reasons he went into Iraq let alone the mess it's in now. |
Not only that it's the way he started this war that is just plain wrong. The US wasn't directly provoked by the Iraq or Hussein. Bush kept talking about weapons of mass destruction and how the Hussein was supplying terrorists with all manner of weaponry. Who knows, but there was never any proof of this, so the the public it sounded more like speculation if anything. It's terrible what happened on 9/11, but that hardly gives you the reason to act like a terrorist yourself.
And on top of that he attacked Iraq without international approval and that really irritated the world. Hussein wasn't going anywhere so Bush could have waited for at least bit longer to wait and see if the Untited Nations would back him up, but noooo, he acted like some over eager child.
If everyone would be like Bush and his administration we would have World War 3 in our hands. And that thought is more than scary.
| QUOTE |
| All in all i don't like either of them and i'd rather John Edwards or Bill Clinton back again. |
Sometimes you just have to choose the lesser evil if you wish to make a difference. Even though that doesn't sound very nice at all. <_<
But I do agree with you that Bill Clinton would be just the right person to lead the US at the moment. As if you really begin to think about it he was a darn good president if you just manage to see through that one silly scandal. He did much good to the US and much good all over the world...at least much more than most other presidents. And as far as I know he was generally well liked by the public pretty much everywhere.
If not Clinton, the perhaps Colin Powell. For some reason I have always liked him as he genuinely seems more reasonable than any other in Bush's administration at the moment. Unlike everyone else there, he wasn't very eager to attack Iraq. He actually seems *gasp* like a good minister and someone who should be in power there instead of our little oil cowboy.
Cloudsgirl - November 4, 2004 04:05 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Anastar @ Nov 3 2004, 10:22 PM) |
Very honestly, I think for most Americans it came down to the devil you do know being less dangerous than the devil you don't know. For most of us, it was picking the lesser of two evils. Kerry simply hadn't outlined a solid way of dealing with things for the next four years. He made too many idealistic promises without saying how he planned to accomplish it in a realistic way, so it made people doubt his ability to carry through on his promises.
It's not that I'm endorsing Bush, because he's made many mistakes. It's just that people wanted stable and firm leadership, and Bush was able to provide that even though many disagreed with his policies. Kerry made too many promises that we didn't think he could fulfill and it created too much uncertainty... and uncertainty is something people want to avoid right now along with a transition in leadership. So we went for the one whose performance we're already familiar with.
At least, that's how I see what happened. We'll just have to see what becomes of it. |
You make a good point. However, I wouldn't call Bush's reign solid leadership, he's changed his stance on the war on terrorism so many times that I lost count. I believe he should have been impeached for going to war under false pretenses, and had his whole administration in jail. While we should be hunting down a real terrorist, (Osama Bin Laden) we are at war for what? Oil. Bush wants complete control over the oil in Iraq. That is the ONLY reason we are there. It's not about Hussein, it's not about freeing Iraq, it's not about WMD, it's not about terrorism.
How someone could vote for that pig-headed idiot is something I will never understand. Bush is a master brainwasher. He has convinced the majority of the American people that if we stand behind him, we'll be safer.
But look at the facts, folks.
Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. He didn't know the exact details, but he knew terrorists were planning on hijacking air crafts around 9/11. He KNEW IT, and he did nothing. He told his rich Saudi friends to flee the country before this happened.
He believes that things are going great in Iraq because he says so, and whatever he wants to believe MUST be true. The sad fact is people, Iraqis do not want us there. People are still being be-headed. Sad, but true.
Coral - November 5, 2004 11:14 AM (GMT)
In France of course medias wanted Kerry to be elected. At least they didn't want Bush to be back again.
It's not that we don't like America, on the contrary. I love this country I went there twice (New York and Detroit).
But medias...*sighs* are stupid
That's why I'm glad to be here :):) there's a dialogue.
I agree with Cloudsgirl, Bush seems to be alone on earth. But he isn't. And the world is not only bad neither good.
How many civils and soldiers dead in Iraq for weapons that army didn't find yet?
Iraqis are not all like Ben Laden, as americans are not all like Bush.
Raist - November 5, 2004 01:07 PM (GMT)
I would just like to quickly point out that Iraq is in no way involved in any terrorist group or general movement. Iraq under Hussein was very much westernised (even though he hated the west) which goes against every Arabic terrorist organisation. Their entire plan is to stop the spread of western culture throughout the world and because of that they also hated Saddam and Iraq.
Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organisation never had anything to do with Iraq or Hussein.
Coral - November 5, 2004 03:39 PM (GMT)
I didn't know that. Thanks a lot
Seii Monogatari - November 8, 2004 04:10 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| If not Clinton, the perhaps Colin Powell. For some reason I have always liked him as he genuinely seems more reasonable than any other in Bush's administration at the moment. Unlike everyone else there, he wasn't very eager to attack Iraq. He actually seems *gasp* like a good minister and someone who should be in power there instead of our little oil cowboy. |
Yeah, but I've heard that Powell, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft might be leaving.
- Ashcroft for his health
- Rumsfeld because everyone thinks/knows he's the one who screwed things up
- Powell because he justs wants out
I've always kind of liked him myself, I thought he was a bit dim for not leaving earlier though. It's about time he wisened up, but then who knows if it's for sure. Even if he does leave, Dubya is sure to fill the void with another ultra right-wing war-hungry loser like the rest of his team.
People also say that there's not going to be a draft, but there were generals discussing it just a few days ago, they were saying how there just aren't enough volunteers to fit "The Bush Agenda," and the only way to fix that is to reinstate the draft.
I'm so very sad, and I really wish Bush would just die. Although I better be careful where I say that or *gasp* some army sneak-and-peak team is going to invade my home thinking I'm a terrorist. Sigh. <_<
Paksenarrion - December 8, 2004 12:02 AM (GMT)
Yes, sadly, Powell has left, but he made the right choice. Would you want to be involved in this government?
I voted for Kerry on Nov. 2. Do I regret my vote? No. Its true that Kerry didn't facilitate his stance on everything. He was a little wishy washy, but you know what? Bush is the ultimate flip-flopper. When he was elected in 2000, he promised that he would not put the U.S. into a deficit. I remember the days of Clinton well. The huge deficit from Reagan and Bush Sr., that Clinton inherited was beyond enormous. Clinton had the ability to improve our economy so much, that we were put into a budget surplus. What has Dubya done? Created a deficit larger than his father and Reagen COMBINED.
there are so many reasons why this war is wrong, and I only want to draw upon one point. Bush is trying to impose OUR ideals and morals on a heabily Muslim and Islam nation. Do they want a democracy? No. These people live by their religion, not by silly politics. They don't want a democracy over there. Iraq was pretty much the most free and open nation of the Muslim nations over there, under Hussein's rule. Women had more rights than any over there. I'm not saying Hussein was a good man, he was evil, the word "genocide" comes to mind, but this should not have happened the way it has.
North Korea, China, Iran, and Pakistan are the nations who are outwardly threatening us. Huseein never had any WMDs.
This country will be in worse shape in 4 years. I can see it all now.
[/end rant]
Andina - December 8, 2004 12:24 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| I've always kind of liked him myself, I thought he was a bit dim for not leaving earlier though. It's about time he wisened up, but then who knows if it's for sure. |
Perhaps he thought he could make a difference by staying? Obviously he couldn't do much alone as we saw. But despite all that he was the only one there that I actually liked (to some extent), in many cases Powell at least appeared to be anti-war while everyone else in Bush's administration just kissed his smelly behind.
But once again, that is only how I see things. :rolleyes:
| QUOTE |
| This country will be in worse shape in 4 years. I can see it all now. |
I do agree with Bush that Hussein was a real bastard, there's no denying that. But I can barely imagine how long will it take for Iraq to heals the wounds this war will leave. Yes, despite what some say this war is still far from over as we can clearly see by just watching the news. It must be terrible for all those innocent civilians to live in that war torn country.
Enima - December 8, 2004 01:15 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| I do agree with Bush that Hussein was a real bastard, there's no denying that. But I can barely imagine how long will it take for Iraq to heals the wounds this war will leave. Yes, despite what some say this war is still far from over as we can clearly see by just watching the news. It must be terrible for all those innocent civilians to live in that war torn country. |
Saddam Hussein may have been a bastard but in the news I saw last year, I saw children smiling while holding his picture. So maybe he has a different side, but who knows for sure.
It's very heartbreaking to see all those innocent people live in such a country as they hardly have any food and on top of that by the looks of things live in fear. When will this war stop? Even during last year's war, all the muslim students and teachers in the boarding school I went to cried as we prayed for them nearly everyday, including myself. :(