Alrighty folks, here we go. This is your chance! Yeah, it doesn't mean dittly squat, but hell, it's fun, and we'll do it every four years.

POLLS OPEN AT 12:00AM EST TUESDAY TILL 12:00AM WED!
All votes are cast ANONYMOUS!

[ 11-02-2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

hmmm, am i the only one to reply? or is some glitch not allowing me to see everyone else's replies? In any case, go Kerr/Edwards! Joy!

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">No people just aren't posting in the thread. Interesting note that Bushis getting the majority of American based votes while Kerry has a demanding lead with the foreigners [img]smile.gif[/img] He should go to Europe and run for office :D </font>

.

Very interesting post. Am I guessing right that that wasn't all that you wanted to say? Or may it be that that was Choc manifesting himself? :D

[ 11-02-2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

[img]smile.gif[/img] Just bumped it.

How can you tell, from the questions on that poll, that Bush is getting the majority of American based votes?

I voted for Nader here. But if I really had to vote in the US elections, I'd probably vote for Kerry, since it's basically just about him and Bush. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Uh, and I don't know much about any of the other candidates...

Then he would probably get no votes at all. My guess is that everyone likes him as long as he's overthere. :D

How can you tell, from the questions on that poll, that Bush is getting the majority of American based votes? </font>[/QUOTE]I was going to ask the same thing!

Please vote that maniac out of office

I'll lose faith in mankind if Kerry doesn't win. Honestly.

But he won't, though he should, just like Gore before him.

I'm not being facetious here but how can a man in this day and age win a presidential election, if the majority of the people who voted in the said election, picked someone else?

He didn't win, he didn't prove himself, time for him to bow out and let Kerry have a go.

Want more info about the mistakes Bush made? Play Bushgame if you're in any doubt.

what is "Bushgame"?

I'll second that? What is it?

Would someone more knowledgable about the electoral system than I please explain this:

How can a democrat campaign for a republican? Don't candidates have to show party loyalty? Or is it just a typo? If not, does that mean that the Republican must be campaigning for Kerry, which it surely would have to be to have a two-horse race?!

I'm all confused!

Edit: Just google Bushgame

Edit2: It's not exactly subtle. But Imperial Walker in the UN building is pure class :D

Edit3: Play far enough to get to the part about money and the budget. Very well presented

[ 11-02-2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Zell Miller has been voting republican for the last 10 years. He's a conservative - just read his book and try to argue otherwise.

What kind of democrat campaigns for Bush? The kind that Georgia produces [img]smile.gif[/img]

And there are some "Republicans for Kerry", just as there are some real democrats for Bush. Not many on either side.

Wasn't New Jersey one of the "swing states" ? Well, they just sided with Kerry, he's definitely in the lead now.

Jersey was a swing state for about a week.

One horrifying week.

First: Quesiton three brings up a few questions of its own.
1) Does it refer to any time, or just this election?
2) If the answer to (1) is just this election, wouldn't an answer along the lines of "I haven't been exposed to any of the attack ads" have been useful?

Well, as Gore didn’t have a majority of the popular vote one has to ask, who are you are referring to?

How can you tell, from the questions on that poll, that Bush is getting the majority of American based votes? </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
At the time I made the post, there were only a few voters and the numbers had to lineup that way [img]smile.gif[/img] Now of course with a larger number of respondents it's not possible to break it down as easily.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
And I will loose faith in the idea that there is intelligent life on this continent if Kerry wins...one of us is going to be disappointed [img]smile.gif[/img] Forgive me for hoping it is you [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the last election only kooks and cranks (and people who just haven't paid attention to the issue closely enough) believe there is anything indicating that Bush lost that election. Popular vote has NEVER been the rulein the US, it has always been the electoral college that has decided....need to get over the loss and move on dude.

</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Damn, if I hear one more person whine about a campaign that their party lost, I'm going to scream. I'm going to have to whip out my old bumpersticker (ahh, who am I kidding, I love showing this thing off!):

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outl...reLoserman.jpg

Nearly every person I talk to, in person, can NOT name a reason that they want Kerry to win, besides not wanting Bush anymore. these same people can't tell me where Kerry stands on most issues. It's really sad that people who don't do any research at all have the same power as those who actually care about the issues at hand.

Nice little thing where you can zoom in on states and see results easily etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm

<font color = lightgreen>What I find interesting was that (when I saw the results) there were more votes for Kerry but more respondents thought Bush would win. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Ok, ok...there are plenty of Florida 2000 jokes there. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

They must be EXTREMELY confident in their belief that George W. Bush is an incompetent failure eh?

Polls are closed! Results are in! [img]smile.gif[/img]

No, Djinn, they're just uneducated people who take everything they see on CNN as an absolute truth.

:rolleyes:

First things first, I'm not American, I did not vote in this, or the last election. My opinion may be considered less relevant than yours on this matter, whatever.

I'm not going to bother arguing over the fact that the Republicans removed votes from the Florida vote last time round, that matter was already dealt with in Court and arguing about it now really won't make a difference, especially now that the votes are "in".

As for Kerry's stance on the issues, well considering he's a Democrat and Bush a Republican, is suprisingly similar to Bush's stance in many areas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

"Bush wants to preserve tax breaks for the middle class, slash the deficit in half by 2009 and limit government spending. So does Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat supports a continued American leadership role in securing Iraq, enhanced authority for the United Nations and sending in more U.S. troops to complete the job if needed. So does Bush."

"Bush endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and, in a controversial step to Arabs, said it should be expected that Israel could keep some settlement blocks in the West Bank as part of a final peace deal. So did Kerry. Both tout greater spending to fight terrorism."

"Kerry sells himself as a pro-business, "free but fair" global trader and fan of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's monetary policies. As does the president. Bush wants to spread broadband Internet service to rural communities, assist small businesses with tax relief and impose greater accountability on schools. Kerry feels the same."

"Both candidates vow to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, a common pledge for modern candidates, and one that often proves hard to deliver. Bush, for instance, promised in 2000 to rein in government spending, only to sign into law record-sized budget plans that created record deficits, when measured in real dollars."

So if they're so similar in terms of their stance on the "War on Terror" and so on (admittedly not other issues like same sex marriages and Abortion) then why don't I want Bush to win?

In my opinion, and judging by his track record, Bush will not handle these issues as well as Kerry will.

Tell the people, your people, "We're going into Iraq to regulate oil distribution in the world in a more efficient and reliable manner, as well as liberate the opressed people of that country". Don't dodge the issue and insult the intelligence of your people, and that of the rest of world's, by claiming that you're doing so solely to remove a tyrant (Suddam),which I completely condone (not the fact that his office blatantly lied to the world). More people would have said, "Fine, sure go for it.", I know I would have. Don't use the scapegoat of WMDs, just come right out and tell your country the truth.

"You'll thank me later" .Liar.
----------------------------------------------
Bush's claim- Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agen

Reality-Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
-------------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people

Reality-Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Reality-Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
-----------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

Reality-Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
---------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Reality-Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
----------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.

Reality-Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003
----------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Reality-Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
===----------------------------------------
Bush's claim- Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact

Reality-Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
--------------------------------------------------
Bush's claim-Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Reality-Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
--------------------------------------------

The Bush Administration attempted to use every possible justification they could come up with in the hopes of obtaining greater popular support for the war both at the national and international level. They needed to do so because Saddam and Iraq had committed no aggression or act of provocation to justify an all-out attack against it by the United States. In a dozen years since the firdst Gulf War nothing had changed. Saddam was firmly in the box and everyone knew it. In fact, in 1998 there was tremendous international pressure to drop UN sanctions against Iraq due to their prior large-scale compliance with UN mandates. Almost immediately following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfwitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. In this attempt they were almost entirely unsuccessful.

Kerry may have made similar mistakes, maybe he wouldn't have. The point is that if someone in office has screwed up to the extent that Bush has, then why on Earth do they deserve another chance in office, to redeem themselves?

No, I believe Kerry should be given a chance.

[ 11-03-2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

That's cos a lot of us are resigned to the wrong guy winning. If it gets close he always has the lawyers and the judgesto fall back on.

Oh - and the other thing - "security" won the recent election here, so why would the same trick not work elsewhere. People don't have to be safer - they just have to feel safer. State of mind transfers into votes dontchaknow ;) .

That's cos a lot of us are resigned to the wrong guy winning. If it gets close he always has the lawyers and the judgesto fall back on. </font>[/QUOTE]True, so very true. :D

Everyone I've talked to that aren't Christians are voting for Bush all for one reason. They have paid absolutely zero attention to all the other issues Kerry has discussed and are only focusing on his higher taxes, they don't want to pay them, so they're voting for Bush. Personally, I don't like him mainly due because he's turned the economy to crap and wants to get rid of Social Security benefits to us youngins which sucks because I'm already physically disabled.

Not going to complain if he does win, because I already saw it coming. In my opinion, I don't they're both any good, but I'd prefer Kerry over Bush nevertheless.

I take it all your friends are millionaires then? As that's not even a logical motivation otherwise...

That's cos a lot of us are resigned to the wrong guy winning. If it gets close he always has the lawyers and the judgesto fall back on. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] It was Gore/Leiberman who kept having election results be recounted and making sure that the courts oversaw the recounts.

Anyway, that is ancient history. The political soothsayers were right: Ohio is the new Florida.</font>