There are so many degrees to this election its amazing. I'm not entirely sure who would be the best for a Canadian, since Kerry has a record of being very protectionist of American jobs and economic intrests which could negativly effect Canada. However if i was an American Citizen there is no doubt i would vote for Kerry on the basis of his ethical stances, his economic policy, and his judgement.

your thoughts?

I personally would prefer to vote for neither, who's the independant this time????

well i think some of the things bush has done are attrosious......but i dont like kerry either.......

Well Bush is a complete asshole but I dont think Kerry is good for my fellow mexican ppl in the US but still I think Kerry will be not the best choice but lets say the not so fucked up choice for me <_<

i dont like BUSH anymore.. KERRY all the way

Kerry is leading by more then twice as much on the main page vote. Everyone knows that TheRoms is the ultimate resource on all your election needs so we have to be right.

Bush - 29%
Kerry - 63%
Other - 7%

heh, were I old enough to vote, Kerry would get it. I follow politics more than most adults I know, haha.

*edit*
@NaTaKu: Independant is Nader, while he's the best (I think), voting for him is pointless because, face it, none of the 3rd parties stand a chance. Basically it's between Bush and Kerry, both of whom are bad, but seeing as how Kerry is the lesser of the two evils, gotta go with him.

Wel, I'm certainly voting this year for sure (I mean everything from the U.S. president to the local propositions).

I will most likely end up voting for Kerry, as he is the lesser of the two evils in my opinion (Bush has fucked up this nation and given it an even worse name than it already has in the global community).

As of who I would REALLY like to vote for (and may just out of spite of the bipartisan government) is Michael Badnarik, the libertarian presidential candidate.

I won't vote, because every election is always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. (South Park Rules)

I like Bush's take no shit attitude. Too bad he got us into a war thats is blown badly out of hand now. I like his view of lets go meet them at their house and fight. So ours don't get fucked up.

Kerry seems to me like he'll be a pushover when it comes to dealing with the Terrorist threat. If he does win the election. Will he pull out of Iraq and leave it unfinished. Although that'll lead to less soldiers dying it'll make me question if he really cared for what those 1000+ soldiers were killed defending.

I think I'm going with Bush.

i dont want to knock you, but i mean do you really think the busting down terrorist doors is gonna work? i mean especially in the long run. Think of how these people became terrorists in the first place. because they believe America is Opressing them. What better way to create future terrorists than to start war in Foreign countries and push your policies on them. I think in the short run you may see a decrease in "terrorism" but in the long haul, oh say 20 years, all the little youngens whos brother was killed by a US bomb/soldier/embargo/ or "insert resource here" was taken over by a US company will be so bitter that they will decide to attack and kill americans.

So personally if global stability is the choice of voting, i think Kerry is still hte better choice, because he will strike back against people that strike him first, but he wont go in alone, and his policies will probably be least likely to spark future terrorism.

Kerry has no plans of pulling out of Iraq. He and Bush alike know that it would be an even bigger mistake to leave now. Besides...

I wasn't really against the war myself... I'm just against Bush running the war.

If I by some freak of nature happened to live in the land of the 'free', I would have to vote for kerry, purely on the basis that bush is the dumbest president ever.

well what would happen if kerry got in?? would he withdraw all the troop?? if so you'll just be leaving a job half done and fucking everthing up over there even more than it already it!

No. He clearly states in just about every speech that he is against the whole war in Iraq but now that it's started we have to finish.

America and it's policies actually grew the terrorists that it's now fighting. No question about that.

We are already fighting that second part about fucking them over and in turn they are now retaliating. They have show that they are terrorists. That they can scare the shit outta some people. The human life can be very cheap in some places in the Middle East.

It seems like Iraq was a pussy country to begin with (against the US and its allies). Now that it is occupied we are getting these hardcore terrorists coming in and keeping the area unstable.

I'd really love to know exactly how Kerry's going to improve this war. The get slapped then slap back approach is going to yield a fucking knockout punch sooner or later. Most of us didn't oppress them. Yet we are inheriting their hate.

Because there is no perfect war. My trust would go to the current Administration that knows the most information about this enemy and is learning its mistakes.

The current administration may know more about the enemy, but they're doing nothing to protect our troops. They're putting the troops out into foreign ground but refuse to pay for adequate armor/utilities. Studys have "proven" that over 75% of the casualties in Iraq could have been avoided if adequate (nothing fancy, just adequate) armor was provided.

Bush is sending our nation to war and not paying to help protect them, but somehow he's taken our economy down from where Clinton had it (pretty much one of the highest times our economy has ever seen) to what it is now, one of the largest deficits the economy has been in. All around Bush is doing a terrible job.

His "no child left behind act" (I mention this only because it's what he's most proud of about his presidency) has failed miserably and he's too thickheaded to realize this. It's cut the funding for many schools that need it most, leaving far more children "behind" than before it was put into effect. Also, it makes schools a more dangerous place to be. Schools are labeled a dangerous school when they get 7+ expulsions a year, and one of the consequences of being classified as dangerous is a cut in funding. Therefore, schools don't expell kids who need to be expelled to avoid being labeled dangerous, leaving these kids in school making it more dangerous for the other students.

The worst mistake people can make with this election is putting Bush back in the office.

This is the thing.

Bush got's his past 4 years to prove and there are mostly negative views of his job (some find that they are for some and against others in thousands of combinations).


With Kerry we are trusting his word (not his experience, not his track record, and not his accomplishments) that he can do it better.

If he gets elected. I'll trust and won't hate him for it. I just don't think that a complete change of government is going to instantly change things for the better and we'll live in a la-la land of happiness (just because he's a Democrat and a change).


I dislike talking about politics. There are only two sides and what seems like a jab at somebody personally could just be a view on the topic as a whole.

I've got to say that is probably the only good pro-Bush argument I've ever heard. Either way, Bush got us into this war which most of the country (including myself) disagree with being in. Once we found out that there were no weapons of destruction in Iraq, we should have pulled out. Instead we kept after Saddam, which is fine, and I can understand helping them set up a new government seeing as how we destroyed theirs, but once again, once that was done we should have pulled out. No, that doesn't happen. What we should be focusing on in the Middle East is Osama Bin Laden, not some petty war with Iraq. Bush doesn't know when to stop. This whole war is doing nothing but bad for us. Seeing as how America ships all of it's oil to other countries, we have to rely on the Middle East for our oil, so instead of keeping relations up with the Middle East, Bush goes and completly destroys them. Again, he thinks he's helping when if he'd just watch the news, over half of the Iraqis that are interviewed want nothing but America to leave and leave them to themselves. Bush doesn't understand this, and while we don't have any experience with Kerry or anything like that, at least we know that he understands this concept. That in itself helps Kerry to be better than Bush.

Well The point i'm trying to get across is not how Kerry will handle the Iraq war, which will most likely be decided by congress, but if he will push for Future wars with other countries such as the "axis of evil". Kerry Probably wont try to start any future wars and attempt to achieve peace through force. His record in the senate shows he is generally moderate in these aspects. However Bush and Cheney have led a very militarisitic government leading to two wars, and it is quite possible that there could be another war in the future. I dont like those possibilities.

and talking politics is a good thing if done right, since people can look at a viewpoint they may not have considered.

Well, actually if we just look at history, these so called "terrorists" had been around until the 70's. I remember a few years back in school doing a report on Saddam Hussein. There was a war between the sunni and shiite factions in Iraq (this was going on before he was in power). Once in power, he decided for the Iraqi military to fight the shiite radicals (sound familiar?) since they were essentially on the offence. As sick and sad (and sadistic) as he was, this is Saddam's one saving grace. The ability to hold of these people that were destroying the country. Saddam continued to do that for his career in office till... well... y'know... we bombed the shit out of them.

Anyway, shortly after power and all the love for America came in, we started getting attacked from all sides. You wanna say they're just "foreign terrorists". Fine. But the truth is is that we may be fighting the very people Saddam fought. Once he was out of power, that gave an incentive of all that were against him to try their luck against the new gov't in power (ours). So essentially what I'm trying to say here is that, though I do not condone the awful things Saddam did to his people, you have to give credit where it is due. So, essentially...

Saddam's regime helped us out in our own war!

This was only when he was in power though. Real catch 22 eh?

Anyway, I'm just wondering if the Bush administration thought of just looking back in time just to make sure they knew what they were getting into. I really think not.

Though I do wonder if the Kerry administration would have did their homework too. Oh well. Guess we all know why I'm a third party supporter.

[quote="ziptal"]

I'm liking that nobodys yelling at each other. Politics is the stupidest reason to be mad at someone.