Search form

Kerry vs Bush: what's your vote?

Comments

Daniel Poeira's picture

I'd vote for Kerry for a very simple reason: he is not George W Bush.

That's the only reason I can think of right now, but it's good enough for me.

Boutros's picture
Submitted by Boutros on

I'm with Danny P on this one. I want Bush out but I'm not super-thrilled with Kerry either. But I'll probably vote for Kerry.

Reminds me of the Jim Hightower book title, "If God Wanted Us to Vote, He Would Have Given Us Candidates." (or something like that)

I can't even think of anyone I'd want to pencil in ala Mickey Mouse.

Ciao!

ScatteredLogical's picture

Don't beat me up but I can't pick from this list because it's incomplete.

However, I understand the meaning of it, "if you had to pick of the two," so I'll leave it at a vote for John Kerry is voting for a goober of mystery. And a vote for Bush is a knowing exactly the hijinks you'll get and choosing them anyhow. Which leads me to think (rather than vote for X Y or Z candidates who have isolated platforms that people categorize as just-off-mainstream)....well, it leads me to think that a write-in could be very tempting....I can't think of anything more American than picking what's not an option because it seems the best to the individual lol

I gotta say I don't like parties and not a huge platform cheerleader, if only because it's so...narrow. I'm not so naive as to think everyone can be pleased all the time, because it's impossible with a country of our (excellent) diversity).... But at the same time, it seems all too often we get Candidate A going "Hey, pick me, I'm for just this select group" and B says "I'm for everything he's not, and then I have my own stuff" but in my very short life I've yet to see a President who wants to be President of the United States of America..........all of us..........there are many things you can do that, while not everyone will agree with you, can be for the general benefit of the country, because we do have ideals that are ours....but all the choices say Hey you, jump in my pocket, and I'll treat you special.....not for America, for some in America.....Wish it were possible to be different...

Or that you could vote for the disembodied spirit of a dead guy...

Harvey Human's picture

Don't beat me up but I can't pick from this list because it's incomplete.

Sorry, I forgot David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Bill Van Auken, Michael Peroutka, Ralph Nader, Walt Brown, Diane Templin, Roger Calero, Leonard Peltier, Charles Jay, Gene Amondson, John Parker, and about 50 others including whomever you decided to write-in.

Wade K's picture
Submitted by Wade K on

I would have thought the answer to this to be rather personal to people. Here in Canada, we generally do not speak of who we intend to vote for, as it usually sparks arguement (or really deep, heated discussions). Maybe Americans are more open about their voting preferences?

Cheers

cybercyst's picture
Submitted by cybercyst on

I agree with Wade on this one. I feel a big fat heated discussion coming on on this topic. *sigh* *digs a hole, rolls up in fetal position, and sucks thumb*

ScatteredLogical's picture

I would have thought the answer to this to be rather personal to people. Here in Canada, we generally do not speak of who we intend to vote for, as it usually sparks arguement (or really deep, heated discussions). Maybe Americans are more open about their voting preferences?

Cheers

Of course it sparks argument; that's why Americans do it lol

I think for a large part it's a more private matter who we actually vote for in the end versus what we talk about...

By the way, thanks Harvey ;)

grega's picture
Submitted by grega on

Being a citizen of the UK I am not eligible to vote.

However seeing as the US seem intent on poking there noses into everyone else's business and the fact that globalization is just another word for Americanization I think that the whole world should be allowed to vote for who becomes president.

Can you imagine Bush campaigning for votes in say, Russia, China Afghanistan Iraq? Now that I'd like to see.

As to Kerry vs. Bush, I think this should answer your question. Something I made earlier.

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/john_kerry

ScatteredLogical's picture

One thing you'll have to be careful of to avoid arguments in a discussion such as this is pegging the actions of a few as representative of the whole. Over half the people I know completely abhor most of the administration's decisions, but when you're voting for just a name or for "your side," these are the president's you'll get. Ones that act on a particular slant instead of the best general interests of the entire country. So when you talk about the US being imperialistic, just know there's a very large section that's pretty much isolationist. Nothing's ever fully one sided.

I did think the idea about the world voting for the U.S. President was cool, as some recent behaviors have certainly affected those outside our normal domestic range, but then I realized the same voting rules would have to apply to every other nation in the world. You might not be fighting "terrorism" in the Middle East, but everyone makes decisions that impact everyone else because we share a planet. Plus, the media here is foreign-owned and chooses our President anyhow, so what's the change? Just breaking it down into the citizens of those countries? No thanks, our collective mind is indecisively split as it is.

Wade K's picture
Submitted by Wade K on

However seeing as the US seem intent on poking there noses into everyone else's business and the fact that globalization is just another word for Americanization I think that the whole world should be allowed to vote for who becomes president.

Can you imagine Bush campaigning for votes in say, Russia, China Afghanistan Iraq? Now that I'd like to see.

That is probably the smartest thing I have heard in months, if not years. I am ashamed that I did not think of it myself.

Cheers

motionmilitia's picture

Unfortunately there's never a candidate I'm excited about. Funny how we always have to SETTLE for something as important as the nations president.

Daniel Poeira's picture

Ralph Nader is running again? I think this time he should return the favor and indicate Jello Biafra on his place. Now THAT'S a vote I'd like to give!

swankaman's picture
Submitted by swankaman on

So america is always poking their noses in everybodys business but you'd like to vote in OUR president?Ironic. :eek:
Swankaman

Wade K's picture
Submitted by Wade K on

Nobody else sees the sense in this point of the whole world being able to vote for the US president? The U.S. RULES the world! You have to admit, that the U.S. does tell everyone else how to go about life and how to run their countries. I would prefer someone with some sense in that position of supreme power, rather than a mad-man, and I am sure I am not alone.

Anyways... I know this is not a popular statement (amongst the American members of the forum), and it will never happen this way, but I have to admit, it is a nice idea.

Cheers

swankaman's picture
Submitted by swankaman on

I'd be fine with it as long as the Americans get to vote on all the leaders of other countries as well.Its only fair right?That we'd have a vote on leaders such as Chirac, Shroeder, Paul Martin, Vincente Fox, Asad and not to mention Kim Jong Il AND the Mullahs in Iran.Boy could you imagine the whining and accusations then!
swankaman

grega's picture
Submitted by grega on

It seems that some forum members got the 'irony' in my suggestion about a world vote and some... didn't.

swankaman's picture
Submitted by swankaman on

No, i think I got it; arrogant and hypocritical, but the message was well recieved.
swankaman

grega's picture
Submitted by grega on

I'd like to point out that my comment above was not targeted at anyone in particular, however, if the cap fits...

Arrogant - most definitely, I battle with my ego daily

Hypocritical - never

ScatteredLogical's picture

First time I ever saw Kerry have a substantial lead in a poll....

My name is Vincent Florio and I approved this message (Yah it's a tired gag but I had to do it =)

Wade K's picture
Submitted by Wade K on

Other leaders don't matter though. They have pretty much no say on anything that goes on throughout the world anyways, unlike the U.S. The leaders of other countries are more or less appointed by the U.S. anyways (some countries more than others , i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chile, etc., etc.). Why would anyone in the U.S. want to vote for them?

Not only that, but most Americans have no idea where any other country in the world is anyways, so why should they be concerned about what shmuck is going to "lead" their respective countries? They are not bothered by anything outside their borders, remember?

Again, I generalize to make a point. I know there are a few Americans who do know there is a world outside of their own. But... these smart people are probably smart enough to also realize that Tony Blair or Paul Martin or Jean-Pierre Raffarin is not going to make any freaking difference to the world OUTSIDE their countries (or very little, rather), whereas the President of the U.S.A. DOES have that power and uses it freely.

Cheers

Harvey Human's picture

The idea of a world vote for American candidates is inconsequential. Here in America our Supreme Court chooses the president, sorta the same way they choose the Pope.

As Wade pointed out, America already gets to decide who the leaders are of other countries. Look at all the world leaders we've ousted through the decades and replaced with our own choices.

Daniel Poeira's picture

As far as I recall, the president of the US is not elected really. In a rather odd political system, what really matters is not the vote of the population, but the vote that each delegate gives in the end. Quite weird for a country that sells democracy as the power of the people, and freedom of the individual.

Not to mention that, after the last election, it's going to be a long time before I can actually trust on american elections again. I don't even think that, even with most people voting for Kerry, he will win. I won't count on that.

And don't forget that the next president can be Arnold Schwarznegger. Most people think it's impossible for an action movies actor to become president of the US. One who died a few weeks ago proves that wrong.

Just because in american democracy any idiot can become president it doesn't mean they should. Even so, it keeps happening over and over again.

Can't blame the people for that.

ScatteredLogical's picture

And don't forget that the next president can be Arnold Schwarznegger. Most people think it's impossible for an action movies actor to become president of the US. One who died a few weeks ago proves that wrong.

And don't forget Reagan was allowed to be president because he was born in the United States. Arnold is Austrian-born and got his citizenship here; he is prohibited from being elected.

Sure, he's governor, but if there's one thing to know about the democratic republic that is the United States of America, much like the official language we just adore inconsistency in rules...

United States Constitution - Article II, Secton I
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Daniel Poeira's picture

Yeah, but I heard some people are trying to approve a law to change that and allow non-american citizens to be eligible too. I can't find any links on that right now, I'll look over later.

ScatteredLogical's picture

216 years and only just a few of our 27 amendments are policy changes... I don't think anyone's gonna float for that kinda reform... America is about equality, but living here you know it's more about equality for Americans =)

I guess it'd depend on why they decided natural-borns were the best idea in the first place...maybe because if your family has been situated here for a while, they must be in tune with (or living with hehe) American ideals? Versus an Arnold that might be retaining all sorts of Austrian mentality that could conflict with our own?

I'm no expert and I only pulled the quote because I'm a perfectionist when it comes to word clarity... But I think changing the origin of the President would do ever worse than an Instant Runoff Voting amendment...

Daniel Poeira's picture

Back then they probably did it to avoid english people to participate in the government of the ex-colony. Today, it doesn't make much sense, but yet most countries have this restriction. Actually I can't recall any countries where a foreigner can actually assume the higher position in the government. Can anyone recall any examples?