QuoteKerry 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.
Bush
Kerry
Here's the big Question!
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.
The SFAI are the governing body for grassroots football in Ireland, not the FAI. Its success or the lack of is all down to them.
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?
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.
in a word? "yes"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?"
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
the left?!!! There's no such thing as the left in US politics.
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
Cork City: Making 'Dream Team' seem realistic since 2007.
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.
Last edited by Metrostars; 12/10/2004 at 7:56 PM.
"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
???
I really hope you're not being serious.
"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
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.
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.
"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
hence me saying that those who voted for him deserved what they got......Know what you mean......however with their 'First-Past-The-Post'electoral college,you can hardly tarnish the 48% min.who'll vote anti- Bush,or those who are allegedly,ineligible to vote,due to the US's highly tarnished 'democratic' system........most of them are highly preferable to Al-Qaeda......& hardly deserve to be taken out!
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks