I was wondering:


With the current elections of the Democratic candidate for presidency; who would you prefer?

Regardless of the fact that you vote or not (or aren't allowed to as a non-US citizen), are a Democrat or not, etc. Just pick your favorite, pick of the litter if that's your opinion.


Mine is Wesley Clark.

I don't have one yet, don't think it would be worth the fuss deciding, monkeyboy is gonna win the elections anyway.

Bush. Clark is the absolute worse canidate only fueled by the Clintons.

I don't know much about American politics, but Bush his governement surely can't be called a succes. And now with elections coming on he tries to pull a few stunts by sending people to the moon again and telling the next stap is mars ..

It's prolly deciding between the lesser of evils though. But i think most of the europeans would rather see bush disappear.

It seems the show really begun, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html shows the score if i'm not mistaken. It's kind of a weird system though, first you have an election where the candidates of one party run against eachother, then it's against the other party. It would seem logical to me if there comes out one strong candidate who takes up the challenge against the candidate of the other party.

blah i'm really not a politics guy

Mm now i seem to notice it's the party delegates that vote, that would make more sense in my view.

Your right, you dont. We will just leave it at that. I dont know jack squat about Belgium so Im not going to pretend make any political guesses for Belgium.

Probably 90% of stuff you see about Bush is from the main stream (left) media and they love to slander anything about Republicans. Bush is THE best president since Regan.

And why would Euro's like to see Bush disappear?

I sincerely doubt that Bush with his neoconservative nutcase pals is the best president since Reagan.

Granted, the economy survived, but other than that he managed to almost screw up diplomatic ties with europe and started a war in Iraq on silly grounds, which didn't make the US look good in the rest of the world.

One thing is certain: it's time they start really taxing gasoline in the US. It would both add to the state funds and secure a relatively better future. Plus cut back pollution. Right now gasoline is like taxed for 28% over there, over here it's 75-80%, and it's not like we have crappy economy either. So= many advantages; few disadvantages.

What the fuck am i going on about anyway? So, what i meant to say: how so do you mean that Bush was great?


P.S. did you mean european mainstream media there? Or american?

I was (and am) pro-war, but Bush is a very bad president. The American economy is in a terrible state, don't look at the recent numbers that say the economy is growing again. America's twin deficit is huge, if it wasn't for foreign investors pumping money into the US the country would be broke already.
Those foreign investors will want their money back some time. If their trust in the US economy fails, the US economy is no more (some economists say this will happen soon, some say this won't happen, but it's a risky situation anyway).

His tax cuts wich he claimed to be good for the economy (no economists including Greenspan thought it was), have only been for his rich friends, who don't need it, because they can already buy anything they want.
Then his nice Mars stunt, just forget about that, his plan is rediculous, it can be done much cheaper and faster from the earth.

Furthermore I think that America should indeed increase tax on gasoline, American cars guzzle it like lemonade, the efficiency of Ammerican cars is a laughing stuck, if they start using good cars the US economy wouldn't have to suffer from the tax (I remember a nice arguement with Sir Vivor back in the days when he claimed he needed to hp's generated by SUV's to do his shopping )

Another stupid thing by Bush is his steel tarrif thing, off course he clai8med that cheap European steel was flooding the US market, wich was true, but he failed to look at the reasons. The reason is that US steel manufacturers are a very inefficient, and that Europeans (and Japanese) are just better in making steel. By bringing those steel tarrifs he didn't only curb fair trade, he also fucked every company in the US using steel, who now had to buy more expensive US steel.


That's enough for now, just call me when you want more Bush-bashing.

Oh yeah, the Mars plan lmao. Space exploration is the sux0rz. The only practical thing that half a century of space exploration has brought is Tefal coatings*. It's like one big moneypit. Not just in the US mind you, any nation(s) with a space program (so Russia and Europe).





*sure, it's nice to know if there was water on Mars, but in the end: who cares? And what's the point? Purely scientific information, very abstract.

Look at his foreign politics: he decided to go on war vs iraq, made up his own reasons to invade it, and now he's way over his head into troubles there.
It doesn't matter if you're pro or contra the war, the way he dealt with the situation is poor.

blah

Still confused by this democrat rally though. The way i see it, every single american can go and vote for his favorite democratic candidate, right? Or do you need like a membership card? Because otherwise, every republican would just go vote for the least popular democrat i'd think. Anyone care to explain?

Well, having people on Mars is just cool, people often forget that reason because they want to look to numbers and benefits only. Bush' Mars plan is just too expensive, it can be done much cheaper. Also space exploration is usefull, maybe you won't see a reason now, but that's also with fundemental science, most people will find it useless to built a particle accelerator (is that the English name?) to figure out what atoms are built of, but one day we may be able to make a hypercomputer with what we discovered now, you'll never know.
Bah, I'm drifting way off.

Bush is great in many ways. Here is one.

Clinton: World Trade Center gets bombed, one of our Navy ships gets blowen up. Whats he do? shoots some missle into the moutains of Afganistan.

Econmony as already heading slowly down hill.



Bush: World Trade Center gets destroyed. Taliban is removed from Afganistan. Saddam is removed from Iraq. Now thats taking action. I know that someone is awake at the helm and isnt busy banging interns and lieing under oath in a court of law.

Econmony takes a big hit, due to 9/11, and because of Bush's "Tax cuts" The ecomony turned around and is doing better and keeps on getting better.

PS. I dont know what kind of media outlet you have in big E. I can say that here in the US its like 90%. And Im pretty sure in big E yall have your fair share of libral media.


The reason for the pre-pre elections is to determine 1 democratic presidental runner. They had like 7 or 8, this weeds out the loser and sets up 1 canidate so the democratic party can funnel more money into 1 mans campain.



Maybe in your eye but not in mine. IMO he has done an excellent job in dealing with this situation. If something like that happend to your country you would want action.

It really comes down to how patriotic you are toward your country. I am very patriotic so when something like 9/11 I get upset. If you dont care and are un-patriotic then I guess you wouldnt care what action be done, if any was done at all.

Nothing was happening to America that could be prevented by invading Iraq. Saddam was just one bad motherfucker that needed to be removed.


Oh come on, did you really think he should step down for that blowjob? That affair was the start of my republican hate, what a bunch of sore morons that they have to find something like that to bash him instead of taking on Clinton about his policies. If he was that bad, they should have done that, appearently they were out of options.

Please stop using patriotism and 9/11 as the stick to whip every dog that walks in your way.
Saddam has NOTHING to do with 9/11, there is no connection with Bin Laden and there are NO weapons of mass destruction or chemical or biological stuff in iraq. It's about oil.
Sure saddam is a bad guy, but the world is full of bad guys. I don't see Bush invading Saudi-Arabia, nevertheless here we do have evidence that they supported Osama.
It's okay to be patriotic and normal that you're upset at the least with 9/11, but the actions you (the governement) will take must be rational and with a vision. Upsetting half of the Middle-East i do not call with a vision.

Btw, we have big bombs too in belgium: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/12/wbomb12.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/12/ixnewstop.html

Apart from that, I don't understand why people like the Brazilians and Polish have their picture and fingerprint taken when they arrive in the US. Are they possible terrorists? Have you ever even heard of a Brazilian muslim?

Throwing it on the patriotism tour is a big mistake. there's nothing unpatriotic about a good debate, on the opposite, didn't Bush want to spread democracy in the Middle East? How can he do that when he kills all (democratic) discussion by saying questioning his ideas is unpatriotic?

Wouldn't it be considered rascist or discriminatory if we just harrassed the muslims of the world? Besides, the shoe bomber freak was French (and massively ugly).