32 replies to this topic

[Beldame]

Ok, several people in the other poll want to vote so lets have our own one. I'm voting Kerry because Bush is a disaster for the world environment and Kerry can only be an improvement.

[GiGi]

Very good idea, I am curious as to how people outside the US view the election.

thanks!

[G1223]

You mean becasue eh did not let the US get it's throat cut by Kyoto Treaty that China France and other sponsors fo have since refused to pass it.. The fact that Bush is not controlling the black clouds of Smog that cove Indoneseia or Western China? I hate to say those are not parts of the US  and are beyond his control. IS it that he is allowing professional lumbermen come in and clear out the deadwood and brush from National Parks?  Or the fact that he's not cutting automobile ownership by 90% in the US?

But at least you have a reason that is not just I hate Bush. Thanks

[Godeskian]

i honestly don't know

the devil you know, the devil you don't know, the devil that doesn't stand a chance

it just seems like a bunch of bad choices to be honest, and i don't know which one is the least bad choice from my perspective

[CJ AEGIS]

Where is the I’m Americian and can’t even vote in a poll about our own election option?

[Drew]

Honestly, the major threat to the Western world is terrorism. When we've got that solved, then we can worry about relatively minor things like the environment. I don't see how anyone can put any other issue before the global war on terrorism.

[Bad Wolf]

^  Adam just said about the same thing to me Drew.  See I TOLD you you guys would get along.

[Kevin Street]

I'd have to go with Kerry. He voted for the Iraq War and didn't really distinguish himself as a Senator, but his positions on the issues sound pretty reasonable. And compared to his opponent... Well, there really is no comparison. Kerry has spent his life actually trying to accomplish things on his own (even if he didn't always succeed), while Bush has gone through his easy life pretty much entirely on the help of his money and his father's friends. Bush is a hollow man with very few convictions and beliefs of his own, while Kerry at least seems to be a human being under the glossy protective armour of the politican.

Imo, of course.

[Shalamar]

Senator Kerry hasn't gone through life equally protected? oh yes he has, and want to talk about wealth?

[eryn]

I'd vote for Bush over Kerry.

mystic

[Drew]

Shalamar, on Mar 19 2004, 01:22 PM, said:

Senator Kerry hasn't gone through life equally protected? oh yes he has, and want to talk about wealth?

I admit that comment caused my jaw to drop open, too. Kerry was born into a very wealthy and influential family. And he's probably one of the wealthiest Presidential candidates . . . ever. (I think this year Bush comes in third behind Kerry and Edwards.)

[Kevin Street]

Quote

Shalamar:
Senator Kerry hasn't gone through life equally protected? oh yes he has, and want to talk about wealth?

Yes, they're both wealthy. But Kerry actually went to war, and then spent years as a Senator in the trenches, making laws and participating in the process of government. His accomplishments are mixed, but at least he's tried to make a difference, right from the start. In a way, Kerry has been training for the Presidency his whole life.

Bush went through his early life as a party boy, then spent time as a businessman making questionable financial deals, then he used his family's connections to become Governor of Texas, then on to the Presidency, thanks to the votes of special interest groups. Bush has always been on top, looking down on others, and has achieved everything in life because of who he knows, not because of who he is. I just can't respect that.

[Delvo]

Kerry was born rich and got richer by marriage twice, and Bush's record on environmental issues is actually pretty good. If this thread shows anything, so far, it shows how misinformed or uninformed outsiders are (and in a similar way to the way many in this country are as well: Republicans hate the environment, there's no such thing as a rich priviledged Democrat, "special interests" are only an unfair advantage of the Republicans which never defile a Democrat...).

Edited by Delvo, 19 March 2004 - 02:45 PM.

[Beldame]

Drew, I agree that terrorism is the major threat right now, but I am fairly confident in the ability and will of both major candidates to tackle it. (though I think Kerry might get up fewer people's noses in the process). But I don't think the environment is a minor issue. This is the whole long term future of our planet we are fighting for.
G1223, no of course I am not expecting any American President to act on areas outside their control. But the fact remains that the US is the biggest source of pollution in the world, 4% of the worlds population producing 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. Have a look at www.nrdc.org
for some of the arguments and the Bush record.

[Delvo]

Beldame, on Mar 19 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

I agree that terrorism is the major threat right now, but I am fairly confident in the ability and will of both major candidates to tackle it.

Kerry keeps talking against everything anybody wants to do to fight the war on terrorism but never suggests improved methods of his own for how to accomplish the same goals. This tells me he's against fighting terrorism at all and just doesn't want to admit it.

Quote

the fact remains that the US is the biggest source of pollution in the world

That fact is true for some kinds of environmental damage and not others, primarily divided along high-tech/low-tech lines. Other countries do more harm overall because even if they don't do as much as the USA in certain ways, they excel at others.

[Shalamar]

Sorry Kevin, George Bush did not buy his way into the governership of Texas, and sorry I can not consider being a senator to be being in the trenches, not in the least.  Both of these men are from highly placed, well connected families, who have both led a gilded life. The only major difference I can see between them in that respect is that Kerry was in 'Nam and Bush wasn't.

[Godeskian]

HAve there ever been any 'poor' presidents, elected on merit rather than their war chest?

[the 'Hawk]

^ Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. So does Harry Truman. (Okay, so he was re-elected.)

[Delvo]

It wasn't uncommon at all prior to sometime in the early or mid 20th century.

[CJ AEGIS]

the'Hawk, on Mar 19 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

^ Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. So does Harry Truman. (Okay, so he was re-elected.)

Nukes Hawk! You forgot Ike!  Repeat after me "I like Ike"!  Ike was not born into wealth and instead worked his way through the Army and then was President of Columbia University following the War before leading NATO as the Supreme Allied Commander.

Quote

Drew: Republicans hate the environment

That is always one of my favorites...  Governor Pataki ® in New York has added more land to the State Parks and done more for the environment than the previous Democrat ever did.  

Quote

Beldame: But the fact remains that the US is the biggest source of pollution in the world, 4% of the worlds population producing 25% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Oh yes and Kyoto will really stop pollution. Considering all those business in the US with environmental restrictions already in place would have just left for the 3rd World under Kyoto.  So instead you’d have them in China with no Kyoto Accord restricting them and far less concern or laws to protect the environment than in the US.  Yet somehow Kyoto is some brilliant bolt from the sky.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 19 March 2004 - 03:17 PM.