US Presidential Elections

[unbeatable 0]

Bush won but kerry still is better than him

[Charly1405241472 0]

I was and am a strong supporter for Ralph Nader, although I do not live in the States. I believe their isn't much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, apart from their ethical views. They both need the support of big companies in order to get re-elected. That 's why a second Bush term may be better than when Kerry would be elected: Bush can't be elected a third time. This term he can do whatever he wants, without having to think about the companies that would finance his next campaign (because there will no be another one).

[hast-webben 0]

Hi,The US Elections is now over, and I'm as an European sad to know that Bush did won. By the way does I still think that it's still good for the seperation between the EU politics and US politics. Strange that noone dosn't set any questions about the trouth of the US election, doesn't any think that it was a little strange that an video from Bin Ladin came up as close to the election as it did. And did any thought about what happen with the Oil prizes? Truely doesn't I spend much more time about that, I have my oppenion about what is going on over there, but I keep it for my self. There is too much better things to spend life on.CheersJens

[d-and-d 0]

Well I'm not in the USA, so I might be pointless for me to say this, but to me it seemed to be a choice between the devil you do know and the devil you don't know. THey both had up points and down points, though from what I have heard, Kerry's stance on abortion and gay marriage was what let him down.

[Mossaic91 0]

IMO, I think that it was a good idea to stick with Bush because its a really bad idea to switch presidents during a war. Especially if they are a different political party than the other.

[Charly1405241472 0]

Rice 2008! :PSee http://www.rice2008.com/ for more information.

[sottm 0]

I think under Kerry. He is humanistik.

[Soleq 0]

IMO, I think that it was a good idea to stick with Bush because its a really bad idea to switch presidents during a war. Especially if they are a different political party than the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eh, this can go either way. Sure, in WWII, Roosevelt was actually elected three times for this reason, but look at Vietnam. Do you honestly think the result would have been any better if there was just one administration through the entire campaign? An ineffective war is still ineffective no matter who's leading the charge.

 

I was saddened to see Bush reelected. Partisanship aside, the logistics of the war in Iraq are just mindboggling. It's almost as if Bush is just ignoring common sense and the generals are following suit like common brown-nosers.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Ok, the president is the commander in chief. That means he is the person in charge. Now, if you were in a company, where your livelyhood depended on that company's continued existence, would you like it if you had a CEO who did something like spend all the Corp's money on something with no value, threatening your economic structure, as well as your ability to interact and bargain with other corporations? Or, would you interupt this by replacing the CEO with someone who is actually competent and at least will ATTEMPT to fix things as opposed to making them worse? I personally, would HOPE the board would fire the idiot. Its an analogy that may or may not work for you. But hopefully you will see what Im getting at.

[Nathan1405241474 0]

Even though, I live in Australia, I still wish that John Kerry had won, instead of Bush, because, Kerry would lead his Administration better than bush, and with Kerry we might have been able to end the war in Iraq, but still Bush isn't that bad

[Mastermund 0]

Bush has systematically handed America to the big corporations (especially the environment -- maybe one day he'll actually visit it -- and taxes -- he'll tout that Kerry wanted to raise taxes on small businesses when under his definition of a small business individuals who might not have even been hiring would've been counted as small business). His failure in Iraq is monumental as well as his ability to go after the countries that really possess WMD and support terrorists.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

you know, thinking about the result of the election, I wonder if it might all be for the best. If kerry had gotten elected, all the problems caused by Bush would quickly have been blamed on him. I hope that with Bush reelected, all of his problems will finally come home to roost, taking him and the neocons down. granted, this is a hope, but its all we really have at this point.

[Mastermund 0]

I really doubt that Bush's probelms will all come down on him. He's prettymuch shown that he won't admit he made a mistake; after all, even though we never found any WMD in Iraq we got rid of a highly dangerous dictator -- never mind the fact that we went into Iraq for that very reason.

 

And for all the people who'll say going into Iraq was good because we 'liberated' the Iraqi people, where were you before the war?

 

On another note...I think Clinton was blamed for Bush's problems because Clinton served for two terms, which means that there was more time for him to mess up/have critics say he messed up.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

well, its not about having him admit his mistakes, that will never happen. Its about having problems mount to the point that a majority of americans realize that for themselves. Granted, he will always have appologists, but thats not the point.

[pbolduc 0]

What's ironic about the whole Bush thing is that he isn't makeing any mistakes, or least according to his hidden agenda (secure the oil). Don't you get it? The problem Bush faces is not how to fix mistakes, but how to keep the media focused on these superficial mistakes while he covertly places this vast oil supply in the hands of those he is working for.Sound rediculous, it is! Not the theory, but the fact that he is getting away with it all. Ask yourself these questions: Why is it that we only go to war in oil enriched countries when a Bush is in office?Why is it that Bush, a personal friend of the Bin Laden (sp) family, still maintain relationships with them while he is sending our sons and daughters off to die in a supposed all out effort to get Osama?If have not yet seen Farenheit 911 you should view it. Not that this is the end-all on Bush, but it sure does open alot of doors for one to do personal research if they desire. Checking out the corpoate life of both Georges is an interesting endevor. The corpoates ties to the middle east are too numerous to ignore. Bush has an aganda, but it is all personal. And, he is using our tax dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters to carry it out.If you do not believe that an individual (Bush) with a personal agenda, who wouldn't hesitate to act on it, can get in the White House, than you have not done enough personal research on the matter yet. Don't believe everything on the news. We are only told what they want us to know.You really want to know whats going on behind American politics, listen to, or watch the BBC. Ironically, the Brits get a more accurate picture than we do.