Who Will Win The US Presidential Election?

You know what I find ignorant and stupid, arrogant people who think that their way is the right way and the only way. Maybe I am different, but I would never think of calling anyone ignorant or stupid for not thinking the same way as me. I respect and understand the choices that others make even if they are different from my own. Tolerance is a lovely thing, and it makes me sad to see so many people lacking it.

nothing will ever trump bringing the two towers down. that is a given....

for one thing I am certain he wouldn't lead us into MORE trouble than Bush already has..... Leadership skills? Bush has zero skills leadership or not - he has very influential friends - which is completely different from leadership skills.

I suppose this is directed towards my statement of foreigners asking about the stupidity/arrogance/ignorance of the general american public --- well, that is the perception abroad - whether you like it or not and it doesn't just come out of the blue. If our president acts in an ignorant, arrogant and stupid manner - people think that those who elected a man like that are quite similar .... and there really is nothing I can say to refute that really.

You know what I find amusing, I would never think of berating an entire country for their choice of a leader. I don't live in that country, therefore I don't pretend to understand their choices. Blair is just as guilty as Bush in all of this, yet I don't see people calling the English stupid or ignorant for electing him into office. Chirac has his own little scandals that he is dealing with, yet if the French elect him, who I am to say that they are wrong? Maybe they too, were or will be stuck with a lousy choice of candidates. Surely, I can sympathize with that. In the end, I just find it ironic how some people criticize us about our lack of tolerance, yet they seem to display similar qualities themselves.

Little scandals of Chirac or Blair being some sort of appendix to Bush are not the things that make people judge about other countries. It's about the self-celebration of the "greatest" country and the factual impact it has on this planet and how those things are utilized in the wrong way by Bush. I know, I am generalizing here and I want to add, this is not my exact opinion, like you might know, but it IS mostly about the foreign politics and only because they are so influential - with the US being the sole superpower left.
It's not about tax issues or your health system or whatever. That's the "same" in "every" country.
As I see it, people tend to think Americans must be stupid to vote for Bush since he had hardly got anything right after 9/11 OUTSIDE his country, or they think Americans don't care too much for what happens OUTSIDE their country and are therefore stupid as well...
Now I said a lot but explained hardly a thing, but I guess this sums up the dilemma.

There's a difference, Blair had close to 90% of his people against him to go along side Bush in Iraq. No one can blame the British for this decision. And I believe he did a better job than Bush in UK politics.
Bush had a majority on his side for Iraq, and is still close to 50% despite his lousy record.

Chirac got re-elected because it was either him (a thief) or Le Pen (a neo-nazi). He got 82% of votes in the last election because his opponent was such an asshole, but only 20% of the French were really supporting his plans. Bush still has around 50%.
Plus if Chirac had an as big of an impact on the world as Bush, I sure wouldn't mind listening to your comments, just like I don't mind right now.

And one thing I'm pretty sure about, but I admit it's just my opinion, I don't think Chirac would have finished his term if he had started a war based on lies, violated our constitution as much as Bush did with yours, dug a record deficit, lost as many jobs, planed to privatize social security, etc... He wouldn't even be able to run for a re-election.

Exactly, a thief and a neo-nazi. I don't think we can be blamed or called stupid for electing the thief.

Again Mouse, you seem to be assuming that when criticising US leaders, we support ours, it's not the case. And having crap leaders ourselves doesn't mean we can't criticise yours.


Ponrauil

How did Blair do a better job? Isn't it worse to go against what 90% of what your own people want?? At least Bush had the backing of half the US, while Blair had basically none. You call that good politics?

Are 50% supporting Bush or just not supporting Kerry? This is the million dollar question. What others fail to understand is the fact that in many of our citizen's eyes, Kerry is no prize. This election is more about who to keep out of office, rather than who to put in.

You can criticize our leader all you want, and I don't have a problem with it at all. My problem lies with others who call the American people stupid and ignorant just because our leader happens to suck, along with the person that is running against him. You can't persecute an entire country due to lack of good candidates. Just as I would never criticize the people of France for the same reason.

How has Bush violated our Constitution, and why does it matter?

Adrian

Ever heard of the Patriot Act?

Ponrauil

It's not what I said, Blair should have been kicked out of office for disrespect toward British democracy, imho.
What I was saying is that since 90% of the Brits were against the war in Iraq as led by Bush/Blair, no one can call the British people stupid for Blair's decision to go to war. On the other hand a majority of Americans supported Bush on that issue when most of the world knew it was based on lies.

Yes I still fail to understand, especially after the debates, how can Bush still have enough support to even hope being re-elected, because issue after issue, Bush has got a lousy record.
I understand why people hesitate when it comes to trusting Kerry, though in my opinion he's more than just "the lesser evil", but I don't understand how some can still trust Bush. Sometimes their best argument being "At least we know what we're getting", as if they wouldn't give themselves a chance.
It's not because he sucks, it's because 50% or so still support him though he sucks for sure, when his opponent MIGHT suck.

It's not the lack of candidates, it's the unbelievably big support of the oh so lousy one.

Ponrauil