DescentBB

For those of you out of the country, were you in the US, who would you vote for?

Just curious...

it'l probabaly be no different to how USA ex-patriots (? ex-citizens) living outside of USA vote.
that being: anyone but bush.

The world votes for kerry:
http://www.globalvote2004.org

Interesting result. What do you think this means?

It *could* mean several things:

1) Middle America is dumber than a door-post
2) Foreigners realise what a disgusting mess Bush has made since 2000, but at home they don't.
3) The election was stolen by Diebold Repuplicans who altered electronic votes.
4) Americans like having a dumb ass as a President
5) Dubya has some charm which escapes the rest of the world's population
6) After 8 years of having a smart president and exemplary statesmen as POTUS, Americans believe a dumb guy needs to balance things out.
7) Americans want to pay $5/gallon for gas
Americans actually want to invade Iran, and lose another 10,000 troops in Iraq.
9) Kerry's campaign faltered on Iraq when it should have been concentrating on domestic issues and the economy.

Hell, it could even be ALL those things.

You said that Clinton was smart, Mobius. I can never take you seriously from now on. I've already posted in another forum about this, but let me summarize: I did not vote for Bush because I was brainwashed, or because I am stupid. I voted for Bush because I agree with him on the issues that are important to me and because I consider him to be a good man. And, for the last time, we Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our voting habits. Keep your noses out of our elections, and we'll keep ours out of yours.

Note: This was not meant against all foreigners who wanted Kerry for president; it was against those who have a "holier-than-thou" attitude and "know for certain" that Bush is the scum of the Earth and that anyone who votes for him is deluded or stupid. (See Mobius's post.) To these people, I say, ever consider the fact that some of us who voted for Bush truly feel that he is the best candidate?

From the opposite side of the spectrum:

1) Most people voting in the poll don't know much about American politics
2) Foreigners would rather deal with terrorists than an active US president
3) Foreigners are plainly, purely, and simply dumb
4) The French are the ones who conducted that poll
5) Foreigners don't like superpowers that do things with their troops

etc. etc. etc....

MehYam wrote:Interesting result. What do you think this means?

I dont know. You tell me Mr. Pseudo Intellectual.

I agree with Mobius for once, and I'm a domestic!

Nitrofox125 wrote:I agree with Mobius for once, and I'm a domestic!

.... you sweep house and do the dishes?

Top Gun wrote:Keep your noses out of our elections, and we'll keep ours out of yours.

come now, that's nieve. USA policys have large ramifications for the rest of the world (even if only on the public relations front). and they do actively try to influence elections in other countrys that they have an interest in.

frankly we don't really care about usa's domestic policys. we care about how usa conducts it's foriegn affairs.

Look's like the internationals are losing 10-2.

Oh and that link isn't scientific?

Top Gun wrote:And, for the last time, we Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our voting habits. Keep your noses out of our elections, and we'll keep ours out of yours.

Replace "Americans" with "French." There is a fine line between patriotism and outright arrogance. Sometimes, I fear we've increasingly become like Le "Allies."

Sad thing about being an American in this thread ... If we dont vote, we never get to see the results.
[edit]
Oops! I am a U.S. resident ...

um.. there is that little option below the submit button "View results".

I'm sorry if that came across as arrogant; I'm just sick and tired of hearing news stories about people in Europe calling Bush supporters "crazy" or other such nonsense. Roid, I know that America's foreign policy affects most of the world. However, this doesn't change the fact that the only people who vote for the American president are American citizens. The rest of the world can have opinions about the election, of course, but when those opinions turn into blatant Bush-bashing, that's where I draw the line and say "Butt out."

roid wrote:USA policys have large ramifications for the rest of the world

It's a two way street:
The policys of France, China and Russia on the U.N. Security council voting for sanctions...officially telling Saddam he had to "disarm or else" yet secretly telling him they would vote to protect him in the Security Council while selling him the very weapons he was banned from attaining. For their help they were taking billions in bribe money from Saddam via the U.N.'s corrupt Oil for Food program!

How many american troops are dead because those three countrys were double crossing the U.S. and the process of sanctions to stop Saddam from gaining strength?

There are many examples of other countries policy affecting us.

Syria poisoning the planet with multiple strains of terrorists spinning off at least a few different foriegn policy dilemas for us. Ultimately we can't avoid pissing off someone...

Afghanastan harbouring bin Ladin/al Queda
who attack us because we help the wrong people and do dastardly things like promote womens rights, bikini's, banking, pork products, allow the freedom of religious choice....

OPEC

The USSR crumbling giving us Milosevic and the Serb/Croate war (Kosovo)

We're rushing medicine and food around the globe to care for refugee's running from thugs and warlords in more than a few countries....

So basically your complaint is recieved and filed away...with little concern and marked SPAM.

IMO, we're in the 21st century, wake up! What one nation does with their own foreign policy is not only the concerns of itself, but the rest of the world. The world is, although not albeit a world government, a world economy, and people all over the world are connected in so many ways. The Chineese, by at least BC, had developed fireworks, paper, gunpowder, and more before many had even dreamed of it. Yet in so many wars in 1000+AD, they had their asses handed to them! Why? Because they were too arrogant to say, "Look, theirs is better than ours, let's upgrade" or to even open their front door and look around them! As a human, you can learn everything you need to know, but all that knowledge is *useless* unless you do something with it! It is a sign of ignorance to say that nobody else should give about what goes on. (last sentence not directed at anyone in particular, I know the word ignorance was being thrown around in this thread earlier). OPEN YOUR EYES
Bush, as a leader, determines this nation's foreign policy. Because of that, other nations should be as interested in Bush being in power as we were interested in Hitler being in power! OMG DID I JUST COMPARE BUSH TO HITLER? I didn't mean to in that way, don't flame me. But again, you say "All those other nations are getting all fired up because the US is finally Getting involved!.
Let me see, we started a war.
Who else started a war? Who else was "involved in the world"?
Germany in WWI and WWII. Hitler. Stalin. Mussolini.
If a country came up to us and said "You CAN'T be Christian! Christianity is fine, but the way you practice it is wrong! if you don't stop, we'll attack you." We'd have a pretty low opinion of them!
Wait, we attacked Iraq because of terrorists???
I'm sorry Afghanistan has terrorists, Iraq has Oil!

That was a bunch of random thoughts, sorry if they didn't make sense.

Nitrofox125 wrote:Wait, we attacked Iraq because of terrorists???
I'm sorry Afghanistan has terrorists, Iraq has Oil!

I'm so sick of this weak argument!

Iraq was run by a very powerful terrorist who financed and sheltered terrorists both in his country and in other countries. The sanctions that were never very effective at keeping his immense wealth from financing more terror were falling apart. He was soon to be free of them and so he's gone now.

Get over it.
If you think can do a better job then launch your own war on terror.
Maybe you could start "The War on Some Terrorists Who are Mean and Nasty but Don't Have Oil".

I'm tempted to pull out my retard award just for you Nitro. Awesome flamebait thread

first use of the "rolleyes" icon in this thread tyranny. you get an award too.

So basically your complaint is recieved and filed away...with little concern and marked SPAM.

yeah, whatever.

According to a poll on the site of the most reputable newspaper in Belgium, Bush gets a little over 9% here. All the rest goes to Kerry

never mind

Heh... whoa, I'm damned tired, I don't even remember writing that thing.

but it just seems that we shifted our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq without even remembering the name of the first country we invaded. The news, at least, never covered any closure in Afghanistan. Are we just going to go to every Middle Eastern country, invading? Mebbe so.

But I mean, what ever happened in Afghanistan? New government? Back to the old Taliban?

Nitrofox125 wrote:But I mean, what ever happened in Afghanistan? New government? Back to the old Taliban?

You just weren't paying attention. The first vote cast in the free elections they just held was cast by a woman. Like the rest of the women in her country she *now* has the right to vote, to attend school, to walk around without keeping her body covered from head to toe....

Is it a perfect place...no.
Is it centuries of improvement in under a year...yes.

If you want to find something wrong with america you will find it. That doesn't mean you have found the source of what's wrong with the world nor have you come close to defining america.

There's still some news coverage about Afghanistan. If you'd been following it, you'd realize that Hamid Karazi was elected as Afghanistan's first president, with about 55% of the electoral vote. We're still in Afghanistan, trying to track down the rest of the Taliban. Don't confuse any potential lack of attention by the media with a lack of attention by the administration.

Stryker wrote:
3) Foreigners are plainly, purely, and simply dumb

just stop posting.

More on-topic post...

I don't like Bush much, obviously... most foreigners don't. But I don't know enough about Kerry to say whether I'd vote for him either.

Seems some Limey newspaper did a front page article on Bush winning the vote and wound up saying the 59 mil. who voted for Bush are "Dumb". I bet these same "Dumb"Americans also voted a while back to boot the Brits out. I guess the liberal Brits just can't get over these little slights.

By "What Ever Happened in Afghanistan", I didn't mean it as an argument, I meant it as a question.

The "First voter was a woman", wasn't that in Iraq? or both countries?

Crap, g2g, post more later.

Beowulf wrote:

Stryker wrote:
3) Foreigners are plainly, purely, and simply dumb

just stop posting.

Why, cuz you don't like me?

At any rate, I don't think Iraqi elections have been held yet. The news media pulled out of Afghanistan as soon as positive things started happening. Good things don't make good news stories.

woodchip wrote:Seems some Limey newspaper did a front page article on Bush winning the vote and wound up saying the 59 mil. who voted for Bush are "Dumb"..

Was it the same newspaper that named Homer Simpson the most influential American of the last century?

Nitrofox125 wrote:The "First voter was a woman", wasn't that in Iraq? or both countries?

Uh, no. You're really abreast of current events, aren't you.

Kyouryuu: It was the Daily Mirror.

Will Robinson wrote:

Nitrofox125 wrote:But I mean, what ever happened in Afghanistan? New government? Back to the old Taliban?

You just weren't paying attention. The first vote cast in the free elections they just held was cast by a woman. Like the rest of the women in her country she *now* has the right to vote, to attend school, to walk around without keeping her body covered from head to toe....

Is it a perfect place...no.
Is it centuries of improvement in under a year...yes.
...

the Taliban wern't in control for centuries.
so either you made a mistake/typo...

Or you are suggesting that the middleeast has and will always be better off with america locally calling the shots. yes?

roid wrote:the Taliban wern't in control for centuries.
so either you made a mistake/typo...

Or you are suggesting that the middleeast has and will always be better off with america locally calling the shots. yes?

I was suggesting that in approximately one years time the people of Afghanastan were freed of the deadly stranglehold of the Taliban who forced their 12th century style culture on them and are now quickly re-joining the rest of the planet in this century.

And it's not america who will call the shots, we just stopped over to put a boot up the ass of some bad guys and then we're outta there.

yes but CENTURIES Will, CENTURIES!

why did you say CENTURIES

(oh wait i think i just got it. you mean to suggest that america's contribution to afghanistan has shortcutted it's political and social evolution centuries ahead of where it was, and this shortcut took only approx 1 year. ok.

so you know the previous confusion: i was thinking that you were suggesting that america's incursion into afghanistan corrected CENTURIES of it's past screwups. as if suggesting that afghanistan has majorly sucked for centuries.)

Sirius wrote:More on-topic post...

I don't like Bush much, obviously... most foreigners don't. But I don't know enough about Kerry to say whether I'd vote for him either.

i wish more foreigners were like you.

just because you dont like bush you automatically think that kerry is better? thats how most foreigners come off. and of course we find that absurd. all foreigners care about is our foreign policy. they think president b would be a better president than president a becuase he has a more friendly foreign policy, like none of the domestic things president a is better at than president b makes any impact or has any importance to OUR country on the decision of who will be the president of OUR country. then they go and criticize us for not caring about what they think about our election.

bush may not be that great, but he's the best we have right now, and he's got the popular vote and the electoral college backing him on that.

wait... does bush have good home policys?
(yeah i know a dumb question, your opinion on it will probably be ENTIRELY dependant on your political affiliation).

okok. Most foreigners think Bush's Foreign policys are craptacular, this seems pretty aparent.

so here's THE question ..... *drum roll*


which is Bush's better area: Domestic, or Foreign?

a few million more people thought bush had better domestic qualities than they did kerry. personally, i think they both suck and we should have secretly pushed McCain into the democratic party and gotten him elected

OMG! I agree with K on a political issue!