Really? Then there are a lot of fools in this thread alone (for different reasons I happen to think that too).
I say that, well, because you should know better. The points where Bush crossed a line (no WMDs in Iraq, treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against the constitution, the patriot act, just to name a few.) are all over the board. If you’re voting for Bush, you’re saying that you agree with all that. Heck, from your response here I get the impression that you agree with what Bush did. So don’t be surprised when people make broad sweeping statements after the election in case Bush wins. That is the premise of the OP.
Me, I’m more concerned with individuals, that’s why I’d say something negative about Bush, Rumsfeld, or Clothathump instead of putting down the American people as a whole.
Pre-2000 I might have moved to the USA, although it wasn’t likely as I’m privileged enough living in Europe and giving up a couple of freedoms near and dear to me in trade for other freedoms I don’t value as much sounds like a bad deal to me. But pre-2000 it was always an option. Nowadays it’s even more unappealing: Why would I want to move to a country whose president is slowly eroding the foundation it was built on? Perhaps in 2004 it’s a worthwhile option again, but we shall see.
Anyway, the assertion that I should move and vote or shut up otherwise is quite naive. I refrain from commenting on the election in Luxemburg. Why? Simply because it is their own issue and I don’t have any stakes in it. Like it or not, the USA is such a big international player that George W. Bush is pretty much the inofficial president of the world. What he does has an effect on my life and as such I take interest in it and will continue to do so. :wally
Your suggestion has some potential, though - if it were possible to become a citizens for a day, I am sure a lot of foreigners would immigrate from September to November, vote that jackass out of the office and pack up shop again. Heck, I’d be up for that, but sadly it doesn’t work that way.
But anyway, the OP was not about lunatics voting for Bush, but about the perception of the American people as a whole deteriorating after another Bush win. This should not affect your voting behaviour, this is just grounds for debate. To dismiss it as nonsense and tar me a fool is not exactly helping the debate - what line of thought caused you to arrive at that conclusion?
I suppose you never held and expressed an opinion of the leader of another country? So you never advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? By your logic, you had no right to express such an opinion because you didn’t move to Iraq to help plot a revolution. What, Freedom of Speech is a basic human right; but only within your own country? What next? “If you didn’t vote for Bush, then you have no right to have an opinion on his policies”?
I’m dredging up this almost dead thread (in which I probably came across as an ass), just to thank Desmostylus for remaining a gentleman in shark-infested waters.
If I ever make it down under, I hope to buy you several beers, friend.
To mockingbird, johnn LA, et all… I guess we agree to disagree.
Thanks to you as well, Optihut. I drew first blood… and was most decidedly NOT a gentleman (and as Desmostylus pointed out, I was drunk).
FTR, I’m no Bush fan. I’m a staunch libertarian. Or in my own words, “an economic conservative and a social libertarian”. But doesn’t that equate to the same thing?
Anyway, I apologize for shitting in your thread. I hope you can see my viewpoint without denigrating it.
In the future, I will try to extend the same respect to you.
Sadly I don’t drink beer anymore. There’s something in the beer that makes me ill and it’s not the alcohol: Usually I have a hangover the next day after drinking 1.5 - 2 liters of beer, however after drinking whiskey-coke with alcohol content that would be equivalent to 3 liters of beer, I felt great the next day. Since you don’t have to drink as much and consequently don’t need to run to the toilet every 5 minutes, I prefer higher percentage drinks these days (not to mention that the taste is better and you reach that good-mood-point faster).
But yeah, considering my unkind answer, I guess I need to lighten up a bit and have a drink. Cheers!
Yeah, tell me about it. “Much better president by far”?! Pshaw! Actually, when he was elected, even though I voted Democrat, I had faith that America’s centrist tendencies would even out any ideological differences I had with the man. For me, Democrat and Republican are just two different sides of the same coin. You can’t stray too far from the center and get away with it in a two-party system. This is one reason I don’t mind the two-party system: it’s self-regulating.
My liberal friends, meanwhile, were crying like it was the end of the world when Gore lost the election. I gave Bush the benefit of a doubt and tried to reassure my hysterical friends. He seemed to be a good people person, had charisma, hey, maybe he’ll be a good team-builder and leader.
Boy, was I ever wrong. He’s worse that I could ever have imagined, and it pains me to no end that it looks like he’ll get re-elected. Before 2000, I self-identified as a left-leaning moderate. Bush has pushed me well over into the left and I passionately believe he is the worst thing to happen to the country in our fledgling century. I just wish the Democrats could field an inspiring candidate (here’s looking at you, Obama…2016?)
This “fuck what the rest of the world things” mentality is what drives me nuts. There is no place for this in the 21st century, and if we keep this course, it will bite us in the ass (and has already.) It makes America look like a selfish, spoiled, arrogant child. Our policies do affect the rest of the world, and it’s the world’s right to take interest and have opinions on what’s going on here.
I’m stunned that you needed a conversation with someone to figure that out.
This should be obvious to everyone who is a bit in touch with reality.
Not only the ME, but the whole world knows that even those who still support the criminal that occupies the White House could not predict that he was such a criminal.
Re-elect Bush and it shall be perceived as agreement of the US population with- and forgiveness for all his crimes, disgusting lies, deceivement, disregard for the UN and for internationla law.
In addition it shall be looked at as a solid proof for the complete disregard by the US population of the thousands of deaths in the ME that were caused by the Bush Criminals.
I’m not so sure the ME shall “go up in flames” because of this. Since thanks to the by Bush created additional anger within society - which was already smoldering having various causes among which the US foreign policies since decades - the perceived upholding stability (and security) of societies and regimes is in reality already close enough to collaps. Try to imagine living on top of a smoldering active vulcano, and you can get the idea.
Even if he is not re-elected, we still have to face and to cope with his adding to that growing instability and not in the least to an increasing radicalisation among groups that are instable enough without any more instigation coming from the outside.
All this is already constantly staggering because of the actions of the criminal you have there in the White House. It is his generous gift to the ME - and to the world, in fact - and shall remain so for years and years to come.
I would like to thank so very much those who come in here and rant about planning to vote for that criminal because “they can’t be bothered about the world outside the USA”…
Of course you can’t.
The murdering of thousands of people, the invading and occupation and all the havoc created by your favourite criminal happens outside the US, isn’t it.
Wake up call: If the ME goes up in flames, you can be sure of it that the USA shall also feel it and not only in economical terms.
Salaam. A
…half the voters in the 2004 election do not represent half the American people. Those that vote will not even represent half of all eligible voters. To the world at large, not voting against Bush will be seen as a vote for Bush- as it should. If you don’t vote, you don’t get to whine about whichever side wins. The reverse is not true- if you don’t vote, people still get to bitch about you not voting for the right candidate.
I have come to accept that some people simply cannot accept that they were wrong, or are just extremely stupid, or easily confused. These people will vote for the incumbent in November. I refuse to accept that some people won’t care enough to vote at all.
Perhaps people who don’t vote aren’t complaining that side A or side B won, but rather when the winner of the election screwed up. That’s perfectly ok and the retort “Well, A is doing this, but you didn’t vote for B, so you shouldn’t complain” doesn’t hold water as to the non-voters there is no guarantee that B wouldn’t have been as bad. I for one deem it perfectly ok to criticize the people at the helm, regardless of whether I voted for or against them or whether I didn’t vote at all.
Usually I complain when I see something as plain wrong. For example, I voted for the guy who is mayor in my hometown, but twice he has screwed up (one time the citizens gathered signatures and repealed his nonsensical ruling). Naturally I am going to point it out and make my dissatisfaction known, even though I helped put the guy into the office (I’m not going to vote for him again, though).
I didn’t vote for our leader, yet I feel entitled to criticize him for bad calls and praise him for good calls.
I didn’t vote at all in the USA (ok, I have got an excuse as I’m not allowed to vote in the USA, but still…), but again, I don’t see why I couldn’t complain about it when I feel that the president of the USA screws up.
