The US Presidential Elections.

[Frank]

I do not know much about the other person. He looks a bit too nice to get anywhere. Whereas Bush's background unquestionably has a barbarism worthy of the 21st century, therefore, my money is on him.

I have never voted at all, not ever. Nor am I likely too, unless someone stands for a governing formula that does not include spending billions of pounds/euros/USD on armaments, and that is just for starters.

The politics of sheer self-interest the government of the USA pursues is being questioned and criticised the world over. More and more people are realising that when America talks about defence and security, it is to defend and secure what other people see as an unjust and unsustainable American Way of Life: a way of life that would otherwise be indefensible.

The American Declaration of Independence in 1776 was fitting in its time and context. In times of slavery, colonialism and imperialism, it is right that the colonised stand up for their dignity and claim freedom from oppression.

Nowadays, however, a new consciousness is being born, and people the world over are questioning how come, for example, the USA represents a little under 5% of world population, yet spends on arms equal to 40% of worldwide arms spending as a whole? In fact, the amount spent is almost equal to the combined spending of the next 10 highest defence-spending nations! Other facts are amazing too, like; the US consumes just under 30% of the world's oil production and 30% of the world's gross product.

It is all very well the American people complaining about what they see as terrorism on their shores; but does not anyone in any authority in the USA actually ask what have you done to anger people SO much that they are prepared to kill themselves and thousands of others to be heard, and to express their grievances? Moreover, does not anyone in any authority in the USA realise that the questions of equity and justice are paramount in the minds of those who are oppressed, exploited and deprived by the worlds' wealthy nations, in particular the USA?

For too long these kinds of questions have been swept under the carpet, in the belief that dissent could be quashed either by military force, or by having people's dissatisfaction diverted by handouts of aid. Gosh, this "two-faced" argument coming from a US citizen, I see it again on this thread. Perhaps the people in question should inform themselves of the reality: collectively, the USA is doing nothing more than sweeping crumbs from its table and scattering them amongst the worlds' poor and oppressed.

The distant mirage of a consumer lifestyle for the underprivileged is no compensation for the present hardship, suffering and injustice faced by BILLIONS of people in the world today. One way or another, they are going to get angry and rebel. Little wonder that in the present day, conflict and strife dominate. Sadly, to many people in the world, including myself, the events of September 11th 2001 were not very special. It was all just yet another miserable example of a world at war with itself.

Of course, it is ever so easy to attach labels to people and condemn them as "terrorists". I would be one of the first to agree there is no justification for violence and/or killing: but not on both sides. Because in reality there are no sides. It is all too easy to preach peace to terrorists, but how can such preaching and/or condemnation possibly be justifiable and effective until the massively armed and wealthy nations, in particular the USA, begin practicing peace and non-violence themselves?

Fact is, if the USA can justify the killing of innocent people then any other nation, or faction, or whomsoever, will just stand in line and justify it in the same way. So the vicious circle continues.

To my mind, the USA missed a grand opportunity on that day of showing great compassion and restraint. Alas no, we have another war. As if there were not enough killing and misery in the world already.

Yours,
Frank

[Hannah b]

Frank,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Finally I'll be able to sleep a little bit better tonight..for the past week I've been bitting my tongue, trying not to get into a harsh discussion..(it would be impossible to hold my nerves on a tight rein)...Thankfully you've replied, and straightened out some things the way I wish I could. I absolutley agree with every single word you wrote, and.....I thank you once again;)

All the best

p.s. Jenadots...I'm just curious...I've checked your profile..and can't get a straight answer if the HS (teacher) by any chance stands for HISTORY teacher???

[coral1]

If bulls** were music, Bush and Kerry would be a symphony orchesta.

[Archnea]

This is why I will vote:

"Lest we forget..........


The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and with their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."



They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cell-mate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.



Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on November 15, 1917 (a mere 87 years ago), when the warden at  the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a  lesson to the  suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's  White House for the right to vote.



For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.



So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly?  We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?



Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I m ashamed to say I needed the reminder.



All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.



My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry.  She was--with herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't  use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn."  The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over again."



HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and DVD.  I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum.  we  are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock  therapy is in order.



It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse.  Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."



If you are moved by this, maybe you'll pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women." Author Unknown

I received this in an e-mail from a woman I correspond with named Malena http://www.malenateves.com

I will vote for Kerry because of where he stands on environmental issues. Our living earth will go through much abuse from Bush and his cronies. I have lung problems and every year the air I breath in this city gets more toxic. They don't know how to dispose of nuclear waste but they still promote its use. That is worse than flying a plane without a pilot. I lived off the grid for 8 year and hope to do it again.

I don't like Kerry but in my eyes he is the lessor of two evils.

[Makaveli]

I'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.

[WalkerInTheWoods]

I'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.

Do you have sources or any info on Kerry's detailed views on the gun issue? I am curious. This is all I found on his website.

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. Like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and John Kerry and John Edwards support mainstream measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists: enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole, and standing with law enforcement officers to extend the assault weapons ban.

He does not sound anti-gun but does support some gun control. What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?

[Makaveli]

Do you have sources or any info on Kerry's detailed views on the gun issue? I am curious. This is all I found on his website.

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. Like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and John Kerry and John Edwards support mainstream measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists: enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole, and standing with law enforcement officers to extend the assault weapons ban.

He does not sound anti-gun but does support some gun control. What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?

This link shows how he has voted against guns.  

http://www.nrapvf.org/kerry/default.aspx

What mostly bothers me about him is that he voted against semi-automatic weapons and his affiliation with anti-gun organizations and politicians.  I'm not for making full-auto weapons easier to get.  I think the assault weapon ban he supported was useless because it only applied to mostly cosmetic features on semi-automatic firearms which are rarely used in crimes.  

With his anti-gun voting record I doubt Kerry will really support gun rights but it's in his best interest to make it seem that way to get votes since so many Americans are gun owners.  If he becomes president I just hope he doesn't go after concealed weapons permits.

[Manix]

"What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?"


WAIT! Give me a minute, I'm sure there's a sane explanation for wanting one somewhere around here...perhaps in the gun cabinet.

[Archnea]

I'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.

I happen to be anti gun myself. Have you ever been threatened by one or known a loved one who had been shot?

I was like an aunt to a lad, who often lived with me when his parents were homeless. He nearly died when he was 16 because a 12-year-old got a hold of a gun and shot at him and some other boys (while they were playing basket ball). He was hit with shrapnel and nearly killed. He still has shrapnel next to his spine that the doctors couldn't remove. I also knew a 5-year-old who got her hands on her father's gun and shot herself in the face and died.

I don't want our Constitutional rights taken away but it's not like Bush hasn't chipped away at them himself.  So I wouldn't cry if anyone initiates some kind of gun control.

[Makaveli]

I happen to be anti gun myself. Have you ever been threatened by one or known a loved one who had been shot?

I was like an aunt to a lad, who often lived with me when his parents were homeless. He nearly died when he was 16 because a 12-year-old got a hold of a gun and shot at him and some other boys (while they were playing basket ball). He was hit with shrapnel and nearly killed. He still has shrapnel next to his spine that the doctors couldn't remove. I also knew a 5-year-old who got her hands on her father's gun and shot herself in the face and died.

I don't want our Constitutional rights taken away but it's not like Bush hasn't chipped away at them himself.  So I wouldn't cry if anyone initiates some kind of gun control.

I don't know anyone that has been shot but that wouldn't change my stance because guns aren't the problem.  It would probably make me more pro-gun because people should be able to defend themselves against criminals who will always have them regardless of the law.  If I were threatened by a gun or someone close to me was I would want to have one for protection instead of becoming a defenseless victim.  The main concerns with guns should be gun safety which has improved and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.  

I think statistics show that gun control isn't effective at all and doesn't reduce crime.  Guns are used something like 2.5 million times a year in self defense so why take away peoples ability defend themselves?  More guns and concealed weapons permits are strongly correlated to less crime.  If guns are taken away from citizens cops and criminals will be the only ones with firearms and that is going to make it easier for criminals to operate.  According to the statistics in this link firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.  
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

A couple of quotes from the link I just mentioned to show part of why I'm pro-gun:

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day20. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.21

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.23

Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;29 and

If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.30

This is the only political issue I feel strongly about so I would pick Bush.  I'm undecided on and don't pay much attention to most political issues because I can see them from both sides and can't make up my mind.

[Archnea]

The man with the 5 year old felt the same way as you Makaveli. The gun you use to protect yourself can be used against you.

I lived in a bad neighborhood for many years in an inner city and had to walk home at night from work after the buses stopped running. I got out of many tight situations which could have cost me my life and not once did I need a weapon to protect myself. I used fearlessness and words but also one time a cat spooked two men who threatened to rape me away.

[Makaveli]

The man with the 5 year old felt the same way as you Makaveli. The gun you use to protect yourself can be used against you.

I lived in a bad neighborhood for many years in an inner city and had to walk home at night from work after the buses stopped running. I got out of many tight situations which could have cost me my life and not once did I need a weapon to protect myself. I used fearlessness and words but also one time a cat spooked two men who threatened to rape me away.

I wouldn't agree with the man with the 5 year old if a 5 year old was able to access a loaded gun that easily.  That is horrible gun safety.  Just because one pro-gun man practiced bad gun safety which allowed this to happen doesn't mean everyone that is pro-gun is like this.  

It's true that it's possible that a gun for protection may be used against its owner.  Guns are used more often to save lives.  As shown by the statistics I referenced it's much more likely that my gun would be used in self defense rather than to kill me it's 80 to 1 or 50 to 1 according to the Clinton anti-gun administrations statistics.  Allowing concealed firearms permits which most states do is a great way to reduce crime.  

Carrying a concealed weapon can in some situations be a good way of avoiding a bad situation without any violence.  Just by pulling a concealed firearm out or flashing it should be enough to scare off most criminals without violence if there is enough time to react.  Actually firing a gun at a criminal in self defense should be a last resort if your life is in danger.  I'll probably never have to use a gun in self defense.  But you never know if it will be necessary and it's nice to have just in case given the amount of crime and the 2.5 million people a year who have needed a gun to defend themselves.  Just because many people haven't needed a gun for self defense doesn't mean that they won't need it in the future and that others won't need it.  I would be for more gun control if it actually reduced crime but it looks like it does the opposite.

[Novice]

Frank -
I'm not sure I have much else to add to the excellent post regarding Bush, the US 'way of life' and the way in which we are perceived worldwide.

I simply can't take another 4 years of Bush. I couldn't stand the way he pushed through with the war on Iraq. And then all kinds of fingers when flying every direction when no weapons could be found. And when I watched on live television, as he basically told the UN that we don't need your permission to do anything, we'll do it anyways. I was horrified. The sheer arrogance is immeasurable. What kind of statement did he think he was making?

As a one of the most powerful nations in the world, the majority of our people live more barbaric than the rest of the world. I'm not talking about material goods, look at any statistics and you'll know we consume far more than our fair share of goods. I'm speaking of the way in which we deal with ourselves and others as well as our earth.  There's nothing wrong with growing strong and powerful, However, its how that power is used that defines a country and a people. And I believe we have failed miserably on most fronts.

A two party system will never get us out of the mess we are in. Both parties have serious financial backing by corporations that have no interest in changing the norm. We need a total re-haul in the way in which are government operates. But that in itself is such a monumental task. I'm not even sure how one would approach it.

I like neither Bush nor Kerry. I'm looking at the other candidates to see if the smaller parties look any better. But as for the main two, you are basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

And one after thought. I think I'd vote for any candidate that would stick to issues instead of joining in on candidate bashing incessantly. My kids bicker less than this....and trust me, that's not a compliment!!

[pmlonline]

Personally I think that Bush has done an okay job.

I live in the U.S. and personally can barely force myself to look or hear at both parties.  Although I could never vote for someone who pushed so hard for preemptive strike to kill 1000's of people.  Some may think it is wise to attack before letting someone else attack you.  But I say it is far better to focus 100% on defense.  When attacked, then all bets are off and the enemy better be prepared.

As way of example, I have never heard of the Angel & Archangel kingdom preemptive striking the fallen angels.  It is not of God and the Light.

I am saddened to say that my country will be judged for this like no other in late 2005 / early 2006.  Weather changes will affect the world and especially the U.S.  ... Terrorists have now switched their prime focus to America.  Most of the world did not care for the U.S. but now the world in totality hates my country and would rather go broke than give this country a penny.  The U.S. can expect another great depression in late 2005 / early 2006.  

When the dust settles I hope those who did not truly believe in Karma will have learned their lessons.  You know the old saying?  In order for the new to come forth, the old must be destroyed.  Yes, America will be the shining new capital of the world in the upcoming 1000 year Peace Period.  You can expect the Peace Period to slowly begin at around ~2023.

Peace & Love,
Paul

[Nagual]

Personally, after all the oil/reconstruction/etc scandals, the acknowledged WMD/terrorism lies, the horrible healthcare/social-security/environment/education, the pathetic foreign policy...  I REALLY don't understand how Bush still gets more than 50% of the votes...        

I don't like Kerry but, there's no way he could be as bad as Bush!!!

Personally, I would have voted for Nader if he had a chance...

We had almost the same problem in France's last elections...  We had to choose between Chirac (that nobody wanted to re-elect) and a "right-wing"? racist guy (Le Pen).  So we chose the least lame of them...

[wisp]

Nagual,

Personally, I would have voted for Nader if he had a chance...

I agree. And it wouldn't make sense to waste a vote.

[atalanta]

In Australia, Bush is seen as a very bad joke by the media.  Kerry is seen as a more honest, peaceful and caring choice.  Our embarrassing joke John Howard is seen as Bush's puppy.  That didn't stop us from voting for John Howard.  The problem is that once someone is threatened we have a tendency to freeze up and protect ourselves.  I think in an 'unconscious collective' way the world is doing that right now.  That is why Howard came into power yet again, despite the fact that the poor and middle-lower classes are struggling and people are paying record taxes with nothing to show for it.

Its the same with Bush, there have been several documentaries here in Australia showing how Bush has clear links to the Saudi Arabian Royal family.  That the very day of 9/11 Bin Ladens family members were in a meeting with major banking officials and investors in NY and that the only plane allowed to leave that day was the one that got the Bin Ladens out of New York.  That many of the major buildings in NY and others have been built by the Bin Ladens and all thanks to Bush and his father.  There are connections that clearly indicate that the Saudi Arabians finance Bush and his family and basically have bought their souls.

Apart from this, there are documentaries here also showing that Bush has involvement in cheating the ballot box.  For example, in Florida in the last election, a list had been made up of thousands of names of people who are supposedly criminals or ex-criminals, stopping them from voting.  However, a large proportion of those names belongs to people who are not criminals or have ever committed a crime.  'Somehow' their name ended on the list and they were not allowed to vote.  These names belonged to blacks in Florida who overall tend to vote for Democrats.  Not only this, but now they have introduced electronic voting which has been shown to be easy to hack.  Hackers and computer experts said that the box containing the computer only requires a pen lid to open it and once inside it needs no password to enter the computer system and change the votes.  Anyone can do it.  The other fault with the system is if you accidentally press two numbers, ie, 1 and 3, then nominee 2 is selected.  It doesn't read it as an error.  When the creator or administrator of the system, who is Republican was asked about this, she said that there was no problem eventhough she was directly shown the problem and then turned around and said that the nominee who lost the last election was basically just being a sore loser and his friends didn't really vote for him but they don't to tell him the truth because they don't want to hurt his feelings.  

As late as last night, I was watching a show where the host was saying that even if you put all of the war issue aside, Bush has taken an economy which was strong and stable and brought it into deficit, so for economic reasons alone he should not be voted for.  

Having said all this, that they lied about the war, that Bush and his family are in bed with the very people that attacked on 9/11, that they put the USA and the world in greater peril by terrorists, that they have the blood of their own young soldiers on their hands, that the economy of the country is going backwards, that they are censoring people and on the verge of turning the USA into a dictatorship, etc, will it make any difference.  I don't think so.  I think they will vote Bush back in again, irrespective if whether the people voted for him or not.  They will cheat their way back in, the way they did with the war.  Even if they don't cheat, so much fear has been created that people are too scared to vote for someone who is for peace.   Afterall, if you have been convinced that you are under threat, who do you vote for, Arnie types or Brad Pitt types.  Personally, I'd rather be in bed with Brad Pitt.  

[Berserk_Exodus]

America is now a single party system posing as a two party one.  The current politics now date all the way back to the civil war.  The Federalists were booted out and power was consolidated to one party, which also split.  Or supposedly did.  

We can see from history that both sides are equally willing to make bad decisions for their people.  Democrats support peace?  Bullshet, JFK gave us all a taste(Big Bite more like it) of Vietnam.  Nixon took advantage of the situation and did some Cambodian campaigns.  This era in politics is completely different than anything seen beforehand, it's amazing to me.  In the social scope of things, people are becoming much more critical, which is definitely not a bad thing.

[Legend]

Greetings.

As the US Presidential Elections draw near I find myself more and more confused about who to vote for.  Personally I think that Bush has done an okay job.  There are a few things that I don't like about him or the way in which he has handle a couple of things.  But the more I hear about Kerry the less I like him as well.

In discussions here and else where it has become very apparent to me that people outside of the US seem to have a better grasp of our politics than the people who live here.  Myself included sadly.

So getting down to my question.

For all of you outside the US, Who would you vote for and why?  

Naturally every one is welcome to respond but I would really like to hear from all of you who live outside the US.

It's funny and am surprised that it took this much time for such a question to appear on here.  I read a lot of "predictions" about the subject today and the reality is that everyone seems to be split (such as the American nation is).  My personal opinion is that both man run under the same agenda (maybe not microscopically) but in a global sense yes.  I feel like most people that both candidates are "unworthy" or perhaps a better way to put this is that "there must be a better choice out there", but the agenda needs to be fulfilled.  Instinctively (no meta involved besides instinct), I would vote for Bush and guess that he will win the elections.  Without the terrorism fiasco, I would go for Kerry but am concerned that should he be put into power, that he would screw-up the Iraq/Iran issue and lose control over it.  As much as I hate Bush and wouldn't/didn't want him in in the first place, I would put him forward to clean up his mess .

[snic]

I find it interesting that we have elections at all. the government no longer represents the people, The government is there to pass laws to protect big business. take a look at the laws that have been passed in the last 10 to 20 years. Is free trade "free". Why do they privatize government assets and utilities.

[Novice]

I simply can NOT believe we're getting 4 more years of Bush. The results aren't final yet, but that's what is being indicated right now. Its not looking very likely that Kerry can pull out the votes he needs to take the lead.

I am thoroughly surprised and disappointed with the results of the votes. People actually believe Bush is doing a great job, according to the popular vote.

[Nagual]

Quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  

[Novice]

On the contrary. I advocate democracy. I think people voicing their opinions freely about election results actually supports democracy.

My comments were not meant to bash democracy. Rather, I'm disappointed that the majority of people in the US support Bush's policies.

[astralspinner]

Bush won.

Big surprise.

[Gandalf]

suprise suprise, bush has won..

I know almost everyone here in the UK and most of Europe wanted Kerry (in fact most of the world!).

You may wonder why the rest of the world is so intertested; its not just that we in the UK are America's lap dog, it is also to do with the fact that since the US is currently the most powerful country in the world, it matters to everyone who is in charge, this won't change until the next nation comes along, China most likely, although not for a while yet.

However, i don't condone the idiotic move by some UK newspapers (like the Guardian) who encouraged readers to write to US home addresses urging people to vote Kerry, that was just wrong.... other nations have no business interfering with others election processes

I suppose now we'll just have to see what happens next, can't say I'm too excited by Bush's victory though...

Douglas