View Full Version : One week until the most important election in the world.
10-26-2004, 08:44 PM
Don't even try to argue the topic title, you know that your country doesn't really count.
Anyway, we've got a week until we decide the future of the U.S. and, to be frank, I'm getting anxious. More than any other election I can remember, and more than any election in the back half of the 20th century, many people on both sides view themselves on the side of good and the others on the side of evil. Already, each side is amassing small armies of lawyers in preparation for post-election lawsuits. In Ohio, 3,000 Republicans and 1,000 Democrats will be patrolling polling stations to ensure that the voters are legal, though their are suspicions of alterior motives, such as tying up voters to keep many away.
Now, if anything, I'm certain that Americans hold a much greater faith in the system itself than to any candidate. I highly doubt it'll devolve into violence, but I'm not certain. Do you think this will be a mess on par or exceeding the the 2000 debacle, or do you think this will just be a peaceful election?
10-26-2004, 10:17 PM
haha it doesnt matter, you poor poor bastard. seriously kerry is terrible, and bush really isnt any better, i still am not sure if bush is lying or not...either way it wont matter.
Honda RC114 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_RC114)
10-26-2004, 10:37 PM
Bullshit it's an important election. It's between a lying warmonger big business scumbag, and a lying warmonger bigbusiness scumbag.
Other countries have more important elections cause their candidates actually have plans that will affect their country significantly differently.
And think it'll be a peaceful election. My hopes for an anarchist revolution are obviously too farfetched to be true.
10-26-2004, 11:31 PM
I'm basing my statement off this being the most powerful office in the world. If Gore won in '00 we wouldn't've invaded Iraq, and if Dole had won in '96 I'd say there's a much greater chance we wouldn't've attacked Serbia. While it may be true that, in other countries, the choice between the candidates could lead to a much different direction in that nation, it is unlikely to affect the world as much as the slightest change in U.S. policy.
And while I think an anarchist revolution would be fun, I'd only enjoy surfing out the first few days. Beyond that I could only prefer it to stability if I was the dictator to grab power in the ensuing power vacuum.
10-27-2004, 12:42 AM
If Gore won (Gore DID win, I mean, if Gore rightfully took office), we probably still would've invaded Iraq. We would have waited a bit longer, and kissed a bit more UN ass, but we still would've invaded. Gore admitted that he would've jumped into bombing Afganistan immediately after 911, just as Bush did, and no republican or democrat would be able to start an admitedly endless war without continuing it. Iraq was the inevitable next step after Afganistan - although Gore probably would have stayed long enough to destroy all the villages the Osama could possibly be hiding in that Bush missed by rushing into Iraq too soon.
You're right about Dole invading Serbia. But Dole also would've poured less money into Nafta, less weapons into Israel, and done several things to the left of Clinton, who's economics policies made Nixon look like Paul Wellstone. It all evens out in the end, buddy. We do have the most powerful office. All I'm saying is it makes fuckall of a difference who gets elected.
Ain't voter turn out in the states really low anyway?
Our media reports that Americans are "unusually interested in the election" this time. I think that tells us a bit about just how important it is (or at least how important everyone feels it is). People who normally aren't politically active are getting off their asses and trying to get everyone else to do the same thing as well.
To me it's like watching a football game where I don't really support either time, but somehow during the game I become attached to one team and then start supporting them. It's probably only because the watching of the game I became highly interested in it (or realized its significance).
Everything's a soccer metaphor. Anyway. The first half's over and no one's scored yet. I'm hoping it doesn't have to end with a penalty contest. (Not because I don't think my team is bad at them, but because I'm afraid that the other team'll...
Actually, nevermind that. Football is more fair than politics, PERIOD.)
Ha I make everything into sports metaphors, I told you we should marry b4 lol
I only make them when I feel like I would if something to do with football was happening.
I won't make a comparison to a CERTAIN Euro match last summer that basically had be saying "He won't score, there won't be a goal" and jinxing the whole fucking game, because I won't bring myself to think I'm jinxing a friggin' election.
I'll marry you if you learn how to dance like they do in the Bollywood films. ;p
10-27-2004, 10:44 AM
Ain't voter turn out in the states really low anyway?
Relative to other democracies, largely because we don't have compulsary voting and because our parties are relatively similar. If I remember, it's about 50-60%, but it'll be interesting to see if it goes up with this election.
And Sic, by being so far to the left, you miss several real differences between the parties, which have become increasingly distinct. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration were the ones that pushed the war and had to convince the American people - it wasn't the American public clamoring for another massive offensive.
And either way, it doesn't matter that you don't see many differences between the parties, the fact of the matter is that a great many Americans see very real differences that they believe are extremely important. To listen to some right-wing radio or read left-wing websites is to hear the opinions of people who believe that this election will be a deciding battle between the forces of good and those of evil. I believe that there is a dangerous amount of emotion being invested in this election. How it'll play out, I'm unsure.
10-27-2004, 11:56 AM
Well, I think the election is important, and maybe the different isn't big, but everything is better than Bush. And Kelly will be a lot peacefuller. Someone sayed Iraq was logical afer Afghanistan. Why the hell is that? Iraq was an obsession of Bush, he already started about it just after 9/11. So I don't think Gore would have been go to there. Well, 9/11 would maybe not even been happened with Gore, cuz Bush his international disasters was a reason for that. I also think it's kinda stupid to think it's THE MOST IMPORTANT election. America is not the centre of the world, even though some Americans think that. We all must get off that thoughts, cuz we can make a different.
10-27-2004, 12:01 PM
American foreign policy for at least the past 20 years was the cause of 9/11 not Bush. Unless you mean that Gore controls Al-Qaida.
The invasion of Iraq has been in the works since at least Clinton's times. It would've happened eventually. The democrats are after all, basically the waiting period between Republican administrations.
Kerry supported the war in Iraq you know? That hardly makes him 'peacefuller.'
10-27-2004, 01:03 PM
I am so sick and tired of hearing about your stupid election! Regardless of who you vote for, you're screwed either way. I just got over your 2000 election and I don't have the energy left to handle another American election. If everyone voted like me through the eenie meenie miny moe method, you'd be better off.
10-27-2004, 06:12 PM
THey only believe the differences to be important because America has just a centrist political current. Soviets citizens were able to vote on members of their central commitee, but the candidates were all members of the same party. Of course they had differences, but the differences were simply how to go about achieving the same thing, and each candidate would end up achieving the same result. That's how it is here - our two party system is simply a facade. The differences between democrats in republicans are less significant then that of opposing soviet premiers. They simply don't constitute a democratic, two party system. Also, the democrats supported the war just as much as the Republicans. All but two democrats in the senate voted to give the president full authority to attack Iraq. Now they're going back since it's been proven wrong. How can you trust an administration that constantly changes position and kisses the ass of whoever's in power?
10-27-2004, 06:22 PM
I hope that twat Bush loses. Personally I don't see what's wrong with Kerry apart from the flip-flop stories, but I've seen what Bush has done for the world so far and don't like it, so hopefully I'll get to see what Kerry will do for it.
10-28-2004, 05:38 AM
this *deep booming voice* "battle between good and evil" thing.... it's more than a little melodramatic.
i dont live in the states, so i cant really gauge how people there feel, but if people on radio shows or websites were making it out to be a *deep booming voice* "battle of good and evil" it would be an effort to drum up voter interest, which is a lost cause anyway. that may be because people are sick of politicians, who are there for themselves only and cant answer questions straight and simple. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2015 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.