Global vote for US President

[kazzi]

http://www.betavote.com/


'nuff said

[surfrider1]

Hahaha Bush gets 13% of the vote :D I wish it actually happened that way. I guess life isn't perfect :(

[GoonMan]

Well I do not think we will be seeing any kind of on line voting any time soon. ;) It would be worse than the Hanging Chad affair. :lol:

[Paranoid2000]

Hey! I want to put a vote in for Barney the Dinosaur and he's not listed! :D

Seriously, why isn't Nader included? He seems a better choice (in policy, integrity and past history) than either of the main candidates. Hmm - according to their FAQ they plan to add Nader and other alternatives in a week or so...

[Kai445]

The problem with adding nader in the domestic race, is a vote for nader, is a vote for bush.

Because although some of them may not have voted at all, more will be pulled from the kerry votes than from the bush votes. Nader screwed it up last year, and will do so again.

I'm all for a third party candidate, but its not the right time for one.

[larryms]

Cute exercise, but totally irrelevant. This election is about US interests and the concerns of its own citizens, not those of Congo, Bhutan, France, or any one else. I don't choose the leader of any other nation, so why should it matter to me who they'd rather we had chosen to lead us. That to me sounds like a certain amount of arrogance on their part, they're belief that they know better than us when it comes to choosing our own leadership. Let's take an internationaal vote on who should be leading France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, etc.
Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but how do you feel about those you see as butting into your business. I won't tell you haw to run your life if you won't tell me how to run mine.
Choose Bush/Cheney

[Paranoid2000]

...This election is about US interests and the concerns of its own citizens, not those of Congo, Bhutan, France, or any one else. I don't choose the leader of any other nation, so why should it matter to me who they'd rather we had chosen to lead us...True - but whoever leads the US will have a far greater impact on the rest of the world than whoever leads France, etc. so the views of others should have some relevance, even if only symbolic.That to me sounds like a certain amount of arrogance on their part, they're belief that they know better than us when it comes to choosing our own leadership.It would probably be fairer to say "a different perspective" with foreign policy and environmental affairs (the current US administration has really done itself no favours here) being given more weight than US internal issues like the economy or employment. As for being better at choosing, that really comes down to individuals' education and judgement - and most countries (the US included) would benefit from having more of this.

[larryms]

True - but whoever leads the US will have a far greater impact on the rest of the world than whoever leads France, etc. so the views of others should have some relevance, even if only symbolic.It would probably be fairer to say "a different perspective" with foreign policy and environmental affairs (the current US administration has really done itself no favours here) being given more weight than US internal issues like the economy or employment. As for being better at choosing, that really comes down to individuals' education and judgement - and most countries (the US included) would benefit from having more of this.

I don't totally disagree with some of your points. I would have less upset if it were phrased more as a discussion of a specific issue or issues, rather than as a general disparagement of our choices of leadership. I think that is a matter of the issues. I do not follow blindly. I try to understand the issue, and often disagree with the final decision. But nor do I make my choice on that alone, I look at the total package offered. I have never been totally partisan in my choices. I don't base my vote on the party, but the man. In thiis case, Sen. Kerry has really only given us one reason to say he is qualified to lead. That is that he served in the Vietnam War. Nothing since. I'm sorry, but that would be like one of us applying for a job and turning in a resume with a 30 year gap. Certainly the employer would want us to explain what we were doing in that period. Sen. Kerry has not explained it to my satisfaction.

[ittaskforce]

Cute exercise, but totally irrelevant. This election is about US interests and the concerns of its own citizens, not those of Congo, Bhutan, France, or any one else. I don't choose the leader of any other nation, so why should it matter to me who they'd rather we had chosen to lead us. That to me sounds like a certain amount of arrogance on their part, they're belief that they know better than us when it comes to choosing our own leadership. Let's take an internationaal vote on who should be leading France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, etc.
Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but how do you feel about those you see as butting into your business. I won't tell you haw to run your life if you won't tell me how to run mine.
Choose Bush/Cheney

Being an American is a state of mind. Ex-Soviet Union collapsed due to those who hated Communist dictatorship and liked American style democracy. As such I would vote for G.W.Bush and Chenney because I know they can practically deal with global terrorism. If given an other chance they will strike at the heart of anti global evil forces. How Democrats dealt with Iran in 1979? They believe evil will disappear simply because democrats will occupy White House.

[ittaskforce]

Being an American is a state of mind. Ex-Soviet Union collapsed due to those who hated Communist dictatorship and liked American style democracy. As such I would vote for G.W.Bush and Chenney because I know they can practically deal with global terrorism. If given an other chance they will strike at the heart of anti global evil forces. How Democrats dealt with Iran in 1979? They believe evil will disappear simply because democrats will occupy White House.
__________________

[ApeX]

As such I would vote for G.W.Bush and Chenney because I know they can practically deal with global terrorism.
Or so they would have you believe.
I mean come on, you honestly think that these martyring tactics really work? This administration has turned an entire people against you. You thought it was bad before, just wait until these kids who've seen their parents gunned down by "evil Americans" grow up...
They've kept you focused on the outside, living in fear with clichéd monotonous rants about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrists". You're all so scared ****less, your views so distorted by your sensationalist propaganda that you vote for the one who's on this offensive power trip. As I said before this is not a good thing, it is a panicked and paranoid thing, which will only serve to worsen the situation.
Try watching a third party neutral news-station (or newspaper). You might see it as anti-American but I put to you that it is truly unbiased. There is no black and white, good and evil. Your administration is as much to blame for similar if not worse atrocity.
I believe I am correct in saying that you are thousands of times more likely to be shot dead by one of your own than be killed in a "terrorist attack", granted this may be as a result of your (lets face it) ridicules gun laws. Merely another example of how the logic has been twisted for you. I saw no mention of the excessive American gunshot murders in the presidential debates thusfar. If you're so worried about your security it seems you might have your priorities twisted there a little IMO..
Yes fair enough you do have the absolute right to defend yourselves.. but IRAQ!? *** was with that! There are so many other countries that pose such a greater threat to you than this donkey-cart of a sanction-drained country! There is one reason and one reason only yis invaded this country. That black gooey gold.. Other than that it was a frivolous, hastened, unnecessary and despicable waste of human life, on both sides..

Criminally foreign policy aside, I seriously fail to understand how the average educated American can vote for this Anarcho/Capitalist regime who really only benefit the quite rich..? Now I consider myself to be of a fiscally conservative nature and so would the rest of the world. By your standards though I'm practically Karl Marx. What's going on here boys? What's with the outrageously inflated medical and pharmaceutical industries? I ask what would be so wrong with government interevention in such an important area? Are you that insular that you don't see how well it works for other countries? Are you seriously of the opinion that once a company does everything it possibly can to make profit it is inherently right?

Please.. tell me. Tell me and my brethren how you can possibly justify voting this tyranny upon yourselves and upon the world for another four years, as it truly baffles us..

[GoonMan]

Hello Apex, Welcome to the Forum.

Please watch what language you use in your posts.


This Thread is now Closed.