What the Election Comes Down To

[Halo]

Would the United States and the world be safer and better off with four more years of  President Bush trying to introduce democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and, by potential extension, much of the tribal- or religion-governed Middle East?

                                               or  

Would the United States and the world be safer and better off  with four years of President Kerry as the symbol of America's freedom to change its own elected leaders and try new approaches to solving U.S. and world problems?

If the election were tomorrow, would you vote W or K?

[Raptor]

Dubya

[Scootter]

When this election is over, sometime in March we will not be a shining example to anyone as to what Democracy is about .

[Sandman]

At the risk of being wiped out for being off topic... isn't this the third or fourth time someone has asked this question?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Halo

Would the United States and the world be safer and better off  with four years of President Kerry as the symbol of America's freedom to change its own elected leaders and try new approaches to solving U.S. and world problems?

The world needs a symbol of America's freedom to elect/change a President, only if it's Kerry?

yeah, we will be "safer" if we elect Kerry, thus proving to the world we are willing to change leaders....which we do AT LEAST every 8 years regardless.

LOL! Amazing ignorance.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Scootter
When this election is over, sometime in March we will not be a shining example to anyone as to what Democracy is about .

With our typical voter turnout, I agree.

[Nash]

The argument that "If Bush gets defeated, the terrorists win" is such crap.

If anything... Bush getting ousted only sends a LOUDER signal that democracy is real, is true, and that not only do Americans speak the language, they act by it. They live by it. Terrorists be damned.

If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.

[DREDIOCK]

The only thing is With either member. Nothing is gonna change in Iraq.
For the moment. for better or for worse we're stuck there

Im making two predictions right now.
reguardless of who wins. during the next term

A- the economy will be better

B-we will still be in Iraq

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Nash
The argument that "If Bush gets defeated, the terrorists win" is such crap.

If anything... Bush getting ousted only sends a LOUDER signal that democracy is real, is true, and that not only do Americans speak the language, they act by it. They live by it. Terrorists be damned.

If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.

Good point,  I wonder if it could go the other way though, like Spain, we fear them and want a leader that will back down to there tactics.

A case could be made both ways but as Sandy says they are Neanderthals and really don't care who is in the WH. They didn’t  leave us alone under WJK and he pulled out (so to speak).

No I don't think they care one way or the other, next time OBL does an interview we should ask him.

[Hawklore]

The Lesser of Two Evils!

If I could vote, and had to vote tomorrow..

I'd go Kerry...

I mean, how much more can he mess it up?

Hell who knows he might do some good, and then the four years after that, we'll have a fresh Republican Canidate, which depending on how Kerry does, will win by a landslide or it'll be a Gore/Bush thing all over again..

[MrCoffee]

Kerry/Edawards. Why? Current administration has a weak domestic agenda.

[Halo]

I tried to phrase the questions as neutrally as possible.  This is the way I've been hearing the main dilemma of many voters.  

I haven't seen the alternatives put quite like this in other threads.  

Wouldn't be surprised if something like this is the last thought many people have as they pull the lever or push the button or punch the chad.

Maybe it will be further boiled down to:

Who best to keep us safe the next four years?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Nash
If I were some delusional terrorist sympathiser and saw Bush get ousted, I'd begin to question a lot of stuff.

I ain't even gonna touch that one.  

[MrCoffee]

And if you think Im just ignoring Iraq, here are my thoughts on that.  I was with Bush at the start. How do I feel now about Iraq now? Iraq already has the component that is required for victory and that is  its own army building up. When Iraqs own Army is able to defend its own country from internal insurgency and perhaps external forces, then I think its safe to say that victory in Iraq will have been achieved. Perhaps just internal and the US should guard its broders for a while to ensure foreign insurgences dont get through. Its just a matter of time and no guerilla insurgency can survive without resupply of materials and men. Men get old and can no longer fight and ammunition runs out.  The areas along its east and western borders should be closely guarded like a DMZ.

So while thats happening, what about our own internal issues? Why does Bush have to have such a weak internal agenda?

[Scootter]

The first example gave specific  ... Democracy spreading to the Middle East and other countries. If this happens then it will make the world safer in the long term, getting there will not be easy or get done in four years or even be safer during that time but if accomplished this choice wins.

The second example only gives the world a symbol and this in of itself will change nothing to make the world safer by itself. What the Kerry administration does would of course remain to be seen.