English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Previously they unleashed a war loving monster on the world in the shape of George Bush, and there has been nothing but bloodshed since.
Have the American's learned anything from previous electoral decisions?
Will they reflect more carefully before they cast their votes in the forthcoming elections, knowing that the decisions that they make can reverberate around the world - for good or ill.
Will the American's use this opportunity to restore their former good name in the world which has, sadly, been badly dragged through the mud, to the point that they have lost the high esteem in which they were once held universally.

2006-11-06 01:47:46 · 12 answers · asked by emeraldisle2222 5 in News & Events Current Events

Just a couple of points;

1. I think that it is time that American's realised that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11, and

2. I am not American, and I do not have a vote.
Neither am I Muslim.
My nationality is Irish.

2006-11-06 04:48:12 · update #1

12 answers

I agree with you whole-heartily. I can understand why some voted for him to begin with -but believe it or not I didn't trust him from the get go. That arrogant smirk did him in for me. But I will never, to the day I die, understand why he was re-elected. I was shocked. He has sullied the reputation of America throughout the world. Who can trust us not to start a war with another country? Hopefully, he will be contained in the last two yrs of his presidency. I pray the dems become the majority; maybe then he can be reined in.
We'll see how the wind blows in tomorrow's elections. That the dems take over is not a sure thing; the conservatives are working hard to garner the votes needed to hold the majority in congress.
A friend's mother told me that Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ. Had she lived during Bush's administration I'm sure she would have changed her mind. For those who believe in the anti-Christ it's time to read your bibles.

2006-11-06 05:29:07 · answer #1 · answered by Judith 6 · 0 1

Voting sensibly also means taking the time to observe what the new hackable machines are displaying on the screen.

For example, (NY Times today reports on early voting) Democratic names are being abbreviated and are unclear, people are pressing Democrat and the vote is flipping to Republicans. If you don't read carefully, your decision may not be counted properly.

If you don't check the "summary page" of your selections carefully you could have problems. If you don't press the final "enter" key hard enough, the machine will halt and the Republicans have set it up that party representatives must delete your votes in some counties.

Bring all of your i.d. because voter suppression is rife during this midterm election.

With the introduction of the Hava Act after the 2000 debacle, new machines were required and Republicans have taken the actions of owning hackable glitched filled receiptless machines and then forcing them on communities using the Act.

Join or create a Poll Vigil, meet your neighbors and get their stories. http://www.alternet.org/movies/43872/

2006-11-06 10:11:15 · answer #2 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1 1

Sensibly according to whom? According to Republicans a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists and according to Democrats a vote for Republican is a vote to continue the slaughter in Iraq. Seems to me that a sensible vote according to the rhetoric would be no vote at all and that makes no sense???Is there no common ground that would allow voters to choose based on performance rather than rhetoric and fear. Kennedy never backed down, he was a Democrat, Nixon and Ford worked on getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. Not all Dems are pansies and not all Repubs are war-mongers. Take a good look around you and if the present administration works for you, vote that way, if not...That is the American way, questioning decisions has always been the American way and for one side or the other to condemn a vote, is wrong...

2006-11-06 10:17:38 · answer #3 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0 0

War loving monster? I would love to know how you would have responded to 9/11 if you were president at the time. It seems to me that the Democrats and the liberal media have made no constructive point about how to deal with the continuing threat of terrorism and despots like the former dictator Saddam. All we hear is appeasement and heavy criticism of there own country. Patriots? Traitors more like!

2006-11-06 11:13:57 · answer #4 · answered by jack lewis 6 · 1 0

After the fiasco last time, should the question not be: "Are the Americans capable of having a clean, democratic ballot, or should the UN step in to make sure there is no funny business this time around?"

2006-11-06 11:33:11 · answer #5 · answered by lickintonight 4 · 1 1

Nope. Until Americans realize it isn't against the law to vote for a third party, the usual stuff will prevail.

2006-11-06 09:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

In my memory these have been the Presidents of the USA:

Nixon (twice)
Ford
Carter
Reagan (twice)
Bush Snr
Clinton (twice)
Bush jr

And you ask are Americans ready to vote sensibly?

I ask you did they ever?

.

2006-11-06 10:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by George D 4 · 2 1

Not if they are as "sensible" as you! Bill Clinton got the US involved in more conflicts than Bush, but nobody seemed to care. Also a "sensible' voter will not be persuaded by the Media, which you apparently are.

2006-11-06 09:53:46 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0 3

I doubt it. You are all so much persuaded that the war in Irak is the war against terrorism !!

2006-11-06 12:01:21 · answer #9 · answered by Mimi 5 · 0 1

Yes. Lets Go BUSH!!

2006-11-06 09:55:49 · answer #10 · answered by $Sun King$ 7 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers