George W. Bush or John Kerry?
My vote would be for Kerry.
Printable View
George W. Bush or John Kerry?
My vote would be for Kerry.
Kerry hands down .... If Bush gets in again then the Americans are to blame, and it will be very hard to deflect all the shít a second time around.
poll added.
Kerry is just a slightly more intelligent right-wing ****. I have no time for either of them honestly, but at least Kerry appears to have a brain. If they vote for Bush again I hope Al Qaeda sends them a bomb for every single vote he gets
Voted Kerry, but both are gobsh1tes to be fair. Bush will win it though, and i predict more of his mindless comments and wisdom over the next few years.
The American economy has got pretty bad of late though, but many Americans don't want a new president!Very strange country...
Are Americans so stupid that they will re-elect a president who wasnt even elected in the first place?
in a word? "yes"Quote:
Originally Posted by GWA
Was the question...who would you vote for or who do you think will win?
Obviously vast majority gonna vote Kerry even if it just an Anyone But Bush vote.
Dubya winning could actually be a good thing as another 4 years of him would lead to severe backlash against his policies at home at next election...
Americans can say they didn't know what voting for in 2000 but no excuses in this years election.
Lawyers on both sides limber up for poll disaster
LAWYERS for President Bush and John Kerry will clash in courts across America this week amid rising fears of another disputed election to rival the voting chaos in Florida four years ago.
With a flurry of lawsuits issued over vote-counting methods in several critical swing states, vast swathes of America still using the discredited punch-card machines, and more than 20,000 lawyers hired by both sides, Democrats and Republicans say that a court challenge is inevitable after the November 2 election.
Analysts and lawyers for both camps, however, fear that things could be far worse than the 2000 fiasco.
They say that instead of one "Florida", America could wake up on November 3 to major court challenges and disputed, prolonged recounts in at least four battleground states - including Florida.
A new law enacted by Congress after the disputed 2000 election that was intended to bring uniformity to America's voting system has instead spawned a tangle of voting rules, new and old machines and controversial regulations, even within individual states.
Experts agree that Ohio, the most fiercely contested swing state in this this year's knife-edge election, holds the greatest potential for trouble.
Under the Help America to Vote Act, $3.8bn was set aside to provide electronic voting machines in time for this election. But many states objected to the imposition of untested technology. Many cited the experience of Maryland, where hackers broke into voting software and disrupted a local election.
In Ohio, objections to the new machines were more partisan. Democrats blocked the move when it emerged that the company given the contract by the Republican state house had contributed more than dollars 400,000 to Republican causes in the past three years, and the company chairman vowed in a 2003 fundraising letter to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the President".
As a result, five million Ohio voters, or 70pc of its electorate, will use the punch card voting machines that produced Florida's infamous 'hanging chads' in 2000. Another 17m voters in 20 other states, including the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania and Missouri, will use the same system.
More than 22m voters in 16 states, again including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri, will use the antiquated lever-pulling machines shown to be the least reliable.
At the other end of the technology scale, a record 45m voters, including Floridians, will use new electronic voting machines whose ability to cope with a national election is untested and which are already the subject of several lawsuits. (© The Times, London)
What about "None of the above" or Nader ?
does it matter? they both come accross as idiots to me
Im suprised so many people (22/25) think Kerry will win. I think it will be close but Bush will get in again, for the reasons others have already said (Americans generally give their Presidents 2 terms (notable recent exception being Bush mk1), not wanting to change leader while "at war" etc), also I think Nader's running again, isnt he ? He'll probably split the left vote a bit, which wont help Kerry.
If I was American I'd probably vote Nader or Kerry, but I cant say im convinced by either. Also I dont think too much will change regarding US foreign policy irrespective of who wins. The US will still be in Iraq, if he gets in Kerry wont be able to pull out of Iraq without a big loss of face for the US Military, and I doubt the other big players in the UN will want to get involved in it anytime soon. Their views on Israel - Palestine are similar, and I think both Kerry and Bush will/would act in a similar way over Iran.
I took it to mean "Who would you vote for?" / "Who do you want to win?"Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
the left?!!! There's no such thing as the left in US politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
I voted for Kerry.
But that's because I would vote for him, not because I think he'll win.
I still think (cynical as I am) that Osama Bin Laden will be produced in front of the TV cameras about two weeks before the election ;)
I'm with ya there tiktok, wouldn't surprise me at all
I'm voting for Ralph Nader because I live in Connecticut where Kerry will have an easy win. I believe that US politics needs a third party on the scene and if Nader gets more votes, the third party will be entitled to more federal funding etc. If I live in Ohio or Florida or wherever the vote is going to be close, I'd vote for Kerry.
Really it's a case of voting for whoever you think will not f-up as much. We all seen now how badly Bush has done so now it's Kerry's turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
???
I really hope you're not being serious.
The question I meant was if you could vote who would you vote for?
And why shouldn't I be? Bush has led the US into being a target for these people, if the electorate are stupid enough to vote for them clown who's got them into this mess then I certainly won't have any sympathy for them. A vote for Bush is a vote for the "War on Terror" and if you vote for war, prepare to get hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Bush has led the US into being a target? While I really do hate Bush, who was president when the US was attacked before 2001? While he has f-ed up with Iraq and didnt really finish the job in Iraq, problems existed with US foreign policy before he came into office and problems will also exist if Kerry is elected.
So is a vote for Kerry a vote against the War on Terror? I don't think so because it's not as if Kerry will suddenly pull troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and wherever US has bases.
Overall US foreign policy will not change no matter who wins the election. As I said before its a choice between who can f-up the least.
hence me saying that those who voted for him deserved what they got......Quote:
Originally Posted by davros
Bush didn't start it, I accept that, you have to go and look at war criminals like Kissinger to find the real responsibility, but my point is, the world was on the US's side after Sept 11th and Bush has managed to reverse that situation. If he had handled things properly, the vast majority of people would have accepted the US had a right to self-defence. And while Kerry won't do things much differently, I think he would do them better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
MetroStars, given the piece I posted about the methods of voting to be used during the election, the very many other articles exposing the same difficulties, and the fact that at the last election the guy with the most votes did NOT win, can I ask you
1. What type of system will they be using in Conneticut and
2. Do you think most Americans still have faith in their electoral system?
You cant have a proper opinion as an out-sider. If your American things are seen differently.
If I was American Id vote Bush, hes all about the USA and nothing or nobody else, domestic affairs come before foreign affairs. Now would you not want that. Id also not vote Democrat as they are too liberal for my liking.
From the outside though I think Bush is off his game !!
While it is true that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush in 2000, the US uses the Electoral College system, not a straight overall vote count to determine the winner. In Ireland, it is possible for one party to get the majority of votes in a general election and still have less TDs than another party, right? In regards to Florida, the problem was that there was different rules for different areas and the democrats wanted to change the rules in come countys and not in others. A few months after the election an independant group counted the votes the way the democrats wanted them counted and Bush would still have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
As for Connecticut, at least where I live we have a mechanical/electronic machine where you flip switches for your candidate of choice and pull a lever when you're done. Your vote is automatically recorded and there really cant be any skrew ups unlike in Florida where you had the hanging chads, bulging chads, pregnant chads and dimpled chads. My first time was in 2000 shortly after I became a citizen and it's the same system they use here for the local and state elections.
With the Electoral College, I think most people still view it as being the best way. Originally when the first president was elected, there were only 13 states, some large, some small. The concept was that each state would nominate or elect a group of electors to the electoral college and each elector was required to cast 3 votes at least 1 of which had to be for a candidate from outside their state. The number of electors for each state was made up from the number of senators and number of members of congress the state had (which is the same as today).
I myself think because it has strayed from the original idea, it should be done away with. But supporters of the electoral college support it because it still allows the individual states have more of a say in who is elected. Also, if the winner was determined by an overall vote as opposed to the electoral college, then parties could ignore areas of the country that are less populated and put all their resources in the densely populated urban areas. But I think that in a place where I live, an individual vote doesnt really matter that much, while in close states they do matter.
Regarding your piece about the problems, I really think that both sides are already gearing up for complaining about how their voters were unfairly treated. The real problem is that a lot of voters are just plain stupid and don't know how to use their voting system. And it's just politics.
It's not really possible for a party to get the majority of votes and get less seats than another party. Proportional representation pretty much ensures that can't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
As regards Florida, I'm pretty sure that the "count" where Bush "won", did not take any account of the number of black voters who were deprieved of the chance to even cast a vote, and also included some areas where a lot of votes were missing.
he's been quite active on the foreign front, sorry for the phraseQuote:
Originally Posted by dortie
and i thought you were a pinko?
edit: sorry, mixed you up with brendy_eire ;)
Should be one person one vote. how can the say they are a democracy....
http://www.wc3sear.ch/misc/Voting_Machine.wmv for the US Elections
Need sound!!
Good old Al-Queda Éanna strikes again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Sure all the Germans deserve to be shot too, sure didnt they vote for Hitler.
Ever here of controlling the media? Try here www.foxnews.com
Propaganda plays a huge role.
People in America dont understand what Bush is about. Bush's cleverest ever tatic was to make people think he's stupid. Whilst the man himself might be as think as the walls of Babylon he's surrounded by a lot of people who know how to twist and mutate stories and facts. They have mastered the politics of fear, people in America are so afraid of everything they have been lead to believe that if Kerry is elected the UN in conjuction with Bin Laden will invade the US burning flags, giving abortions, taking away their guns, and banning all things to do with the Christian and Jewish faiths. The more fear Bush & Co generate the more they feed of it.
Thats without going into the whole cheating his way to an election thing.
Thank God that we have lawyers to sort out the last part at least:D
Bush will win, but I'd rather Kerry to.
anyone who believes fox news doesn't deserve a vote anyway, its so obviously propaganda a fool could see otherwise :rolleyes:
Of course we all see it as a load of ****e. We have something to compare it with, in Ireland the media is generally critical of the Government of the day, it plays an important role even if they do lean in certain directions (Irish Press for FF, Indo for West Brits/FG, Star for campgaining groups). In the US the Repulic Party have moulded a situation where if you give out about the government you're anti-Americian, you hate the country etc. Free media doesnt exist over there. Remember the shock of Dubya when the RTÉ reporter asked him real questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
We're outsiders looking in, its easy and obvious to us. A hefty percentage (those who are not fundamentalist Christians/Jews, gun nuts, big corporations) of the Bush voters are scared by the spin Bush & Co have managed to put in the media (not just Fox) and see him as the only man who can save them from Al-Queda & Co.
We all know its different, we know the reality but only becuase we are told, we can source the information with out being accused of being some kind of anti-patriot
Yeah, even the few US channels which are critical of Bush run into problems. A lot of them have their shares owned by big businesses, who threaten to sell if the channel reports news in a way they dont like. A lot of these businesses are tied to the Republican Party, so if a channel is deemed as being pro-democrat then these companies kick up a fuss.
Give it 10 years and the News over their will look like something from the DDR, except instead of Hoenecker pulling the strings "for socialism" it will be a whole load of CEOs in Manhatten pulling strings to line their wallets.
You can scrub off one of the 5 votes "for Bush" - I thought the poll was "who do you [i]think will[i] (not want to) get in" and I imagine Bush will win again. The winner will be the guy with the best lawyer, more than who got the most votes. Personally I think both are poor candidates, I've a marginal preference for Kerry but have a feeling, where he to get in, he'd end up going down the same roads as Bush.
PS - You do know that Kerry's walk-on music for rallies/conventions etc is "No Surrender". :eek:
Thanks for all the posts guys, but Bush won,dam it,I hate him