American elections 2004

So, does anyone reckon that Kerry & his new running-mate will beat Bush?
:???:

 

I fear they won't because of Bush, and I fear they will because Kerry's just trying too hard. And in any case, neither party really speaks to me. But I'd rather have Kerry running international relations for the US than Bush, for sure.

 

I think Bush will be reelected.
Don't really know why, but I have that feeling.

 

Might be, indeed.
But I heard of a movie (something with 0911 in the title, I believe(?)) Which was speaking against Bush and was quite a blockbuster in the USA. Don't know whether that will influence the elections?

 

The movie is "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore. While it is a stinging attack aganist Bush, it's too late. Everyone knows whether they hate Bush and will just vote aganist him, or that they love his warmongering and will vote for him.

 

I asked my girlfriend her view on this (she is really into American History/politics).
She reckons that Bush will win, unless Kerry latches onto & really really hypes the "Iraq = Vietnam" idea.

 

It's sad to realise that only such foul play can win Kerry the election even though it is obvious to the world that Bush can't be allowed to stay.

 

I think that UN peace keepers show monitor the elections so that they are fair and the the person who wins is really the pe=resident and not the one with the best lawyers.

 

UN peacekeepers are NOT required to monitor our elections! Bush won because he had more votes in the Electoral College, despite Gore's getting more popular votes. This is not the first time something like this has happened; the only difference between those times and the 2000 election is that the runners-up accepted their defeat with dignity and got on with their lives, unlike Mr. Gore and his followers. The Electoral College, BTW, exists as a means of making certain that large population states like California, Texas, and New York don't totally dominate our elections through sheer weight of numbers. It's not a perfect solution, but it usually works quite well.

 

Roel, how do you know that it is "obvious to the world that Bush can't be allowed to stay"? And why would you make such a statement? Mr. Bush is hardly another Hitler or Stalin or Mao. You may disagree with his policies, but please try to keep a little perspective on this subject, okay?

 

Because his foreign policy is just that (foreign to him). He hasn't got clue about the outside world just about making money from oil.

 

So more people voted for Gore and Bush wins and that is fair in a democracy, is it?

 

Kerry was offered intelligence reports last week from the Bush administration. Do you know what he did? He rejected them, saying that they couldn't be right. Oh, and he said that he had his own sources. What sources would that be? He has no reliable ones. Bush on the other hand has several meetings a day with his staff about any new intelligence. The point of the matter is that if he doesn't care now, he won't care when he's president. I know most of you don't agree with Bush, but Kerry would run our country into the ground diplomatically and militarily.

 

Would that be a bad thing?

Maybe American foreign polic might improve.

 

Please, try keeping a little perspective as an American. Outside your country there is no place where I've heard President Bush cheered, even supported. That is why I said 'the world'; because everyone except the majority of the American population thinks they are better off without Bush.
Of course he's no murderous dictator, but exactly what good did he do for the country? On the other hand, he did start several wars, and completely destroyed America's credibility in international diplomacy by ignoring the UN. If he stays, he might do a lot more damage to the US and to the countries he's going to invade next. Or maybe it's all Rice's fault, get rid of her first thing next morning.

 

The electoral college exists because the founding fathers did not want uneducated Americans (i.e. pretty much everyone in the rural areas) to control the elections. The fathers gave the power to he educated elitist's.
And, the college gives states with more people in it more power in elections. Today, the college should be eliminated.

 

Roel, I believe you are too young to remember how vilified Reagan was in the 1980's. His refusal to kiss the Soviet's butts (ala Carter) had much of World, especially Europe, in an uproar. And when he decided to put the Pershing II missiles in Europe and turned down the deal in Iceland, it got even worse. He was dismissed as a stupid cowboy/actor who was going to get everyone killed. So what actually happened? He accelerated the collapse of a rotten regime and made Europe safer, not more dangerous.

I won't rank Bush with Reagan because he's a mediocre communicator at best. But he has core beliefs, unlike Kerry, and seems to have a basically honest center (again unlike Kerry). These were Reagan's true strengths. Will Bush win? Still hard to say but leftist anti-capitalists like Michael Moore will, in the end, only serve to hurt Kerry. They have their hard-core following who will believe the grass is red if told so by their leadership, and Farhenheit 911 is full of red grass.

 

Hail Ceasar, Hail New Rome.

 

Ummm...yeah. except that unlike Rome, the U.S. helps other countries and gets nothing back, and doesn't conquer countries like rome did.

 

So what would you call the invasions and bombardments on Afghanistan and Iraq? Liberation?