How would the world vote in US elections?

Here are 5 links to articles and poll results for popular votes if the world voted in the 2004 US election. Although Kerry and Bush are in a close race, the world shows strong favoritism towards Kerry. Not that it matters; these people won't influence the results, but it does show how our foreign policies affect the minds of peoples in other countries:

US-Election.org
Worldpeace.org
Betavote.com
Pipa.org (article in left column)
Pipa.org PDF document

Ben, the world would vote hands down for Kerry. The world wants some semblance of peace and they will never have it while Bush is around. Its the legacy of the Bush's.
Some will say that they want Kerry, because he's weak, he's a communist, etc....the usual...however, this is not the case. World does not want a dictatorship in this continent and by the looks of it said dictator could be Bush if given 4 more years. Be ready to part with your soul.

Both votes from Barbados were for Bush

Yuk, yuk

Sad thing is that the world doesn't get to vote in U.S. elections. Unless Bush stumbles or Kerry picks up we will have 4 more years~

Thank God it doesn't matter...

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Thank God it doesn't matter...

Amen to that. Im sure the rest of the world would vote with Americas best interest in mind, Not a chance every country is looking out for themselves when it comes down to it.

This really makes me not want to vote for Kerry

[edit on 10-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Hasn't anyone ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

its laughable that the rest of the world would vote in America's interest, but that the american people would not...


Thats America for ya

If I was a citizen of another country, I would be jealous of the US too. It's just not fair that the U.S. is so prosperous. Foreigners wanting Kerry to win, is a vote for U.S. weakness.

Bush will win in a landslide! Screw the rest of the World! But don't worry, when you have disasters, AIDS problems, terrorist problems, or invaded, just call the United States of America. Even though you hate us, we will still help you!

Did you think that maybe we're just scared of 4 more Bush years?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hasn't anyone ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

The document that says don't interfere with our internal concerns and we wont interfere in yours? link

I've heard of it but the National Endowment for Democracy hasn't.

CATO Institute:
Sometimes NED grants have worked in ways that are simply bizarre. In the mid-1980s, for example, the AFL CIO's FTUI approved a grant of $1.5 million to defend democ racy in France, which was astonishing for several reasons. First of all, French democracy in the 1980s did not appear to be so fragile that it required financial assistance from American taxpayers to sustain itself. The government of Fran�ois Mitterrand was duly elected within a democratic system nearly as old as America's. The AFL-CIO, however, determined that France's socialist government was permitting a dangerous rise of communist influence. According to the late Irving Brown, Paris-based director of international relations for the AFL-CIO at the time of the incident: "France . . . is threatened by the Communist apparatus. . . . It is a clear and present danger if the present is thought of as 10 years from now."(15)

That mentality has resulted in AFL-CIO support for highly controversial causes. One of the French groups that received funding, the National Inter-University Union, was widely viewed as a cauldron of rightist extremism and xenophobia and rumored also to have ties to terrorists.(16) Sure ly, the U.S. government did not intend to fund authoritarian groups that work to undermine the government of a stable democratic nation.

Indeed, when NED's activities in France were publicized in an expose by the French newspaper Lib�ration, the U.S. government disassociated itself from the endeavor. While no serious rift in American-French relations seems to have resulted from that diplomatic faux pas, it certainly illustrates the peril of allowing the AFL-CIO (or any other private group) to pursue an independent foreign policy with taxpayers' money.

I think that's worse than just voicing an opinion on who you'd like to have as President.

BTW, not an attack on you as you seem like a decent guy who probably believes each Nation has a right to decide it's own future.
It was not an attack on the US either, it's just the actions of the NED that really piss me off.
Their actions in Venzeula and other countries, their recent hiring of the Chechen Separatist etc...

[edit on 11-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

I didn't get on any of the links yet, (my girl friend needs to get online), but I can tell you what I believe on how the world will vote on this upcoming election.

Since most of the world obviously hates us, it's my belief that they would choose the weakest and most easily manipulated candidate out of the two.

Hint: He's not the incumbent.

[edit on 11/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not aspire to be like the US. America does not have it all. There is poverty, umemployment and a terrible welfare system among other things. Oh and a leader hell bent on destroying people's lives.

The little comment about when other countries need help, they go running to the US for help. pull the other one, you should try stand up. If America is so great and wonderful, why are there still countries ravaged by famine, AIDS, civil war, etc. America only 'helps' others if they/it can gain more than they give. Try a bit of ultruism next time.

America is not the centre of the world, we don't all bow down to it.

If the world could vote, it'd be John Kerry. Peace is always a better alternative to war.

And those who may think about blasting me for being 'Anti-American', well I'm not American and am proud of it.

I'm not proud to NOT BE IRAQI. Who prides themselves on something they're not? I'm proud for who I am not for what country I am not a citizen of.

Originally posted by colourblind
The little comment about when other countries need help, they go running to the US for help.

pull the other one, you should try stand up. If America is so great and wonderful, why are there still countries ravaged by famine, AIDS, civil war, etc. America only 'helps' others if they/it can gain more than they give.

Yeah, right. That's why G.W. Bush signed the multi-trillion
dollar give away to Africa to fight AIDS there. Because we get
sooooooooo much out of it for ourselves.

It was a genuine act of compassion that we didn't have to do,
and that we as a country certainly don't 'get' more out of it than
we gave.

Try again colourblind. America is the most generous nation
on the planet. There is still famine, AIDS, and civilwar on the planet
DISPITE America helping so much. We can't fix the whole world
by ourselves. Why not give the UN or the EU a ring on your cell
phone and ask them to actually help out sometime.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Foreigners wanting Kerry to win, is a vote for U.S. weakness.

Exactly. If France wants it for America, then Americans should do the
exact opposite. They always want whats worst for America. Voting
exactly opposite is the best way to be sure that we vote in America's
best interests.

To the rest of the world .... .... who YOU want in OUR White House
only matters to the extent that when we see who YOU want, we should
be sure to vote just the opposite as THAT is what is best for America.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Since most of the world obviously hates us, it's my belief
that they would choose the weakest and most easily
manipulated candidate out of the two.

Exactly.

BTW ... I see that thousands and thousands
of illegals keep trying to come to our country. They risk
rattlesnakes and overheating in the desert, sinking boats
and sharks in the oceans. Guess we aren't so bad, are we?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Since most of the world obviously hates us, it's my belief
that they would choose the weakest and most easily
manipulated candidate out of the two.

Exactly.

BTW ... I see that thousands and thousands
of illegals keep trying to come to our country. They risk
rattlesnakes and overheating in the desert, sinking boats
and sharks in the oceans. Guess we aren't so bad, are we?

Ditto! FlyersFan, you hit the nail square on it's head.

We may have our own internal problems, but as always, we wil put differences aside to focus on the solution of a crisis should it arise.

This is what set's us apart from the rest of the world. They say they don't need us? Fine. When they are faced with problems that they can't solve on their own, will we be the "bad guys" for withholding help?

We go around the world helping others to gain more from them than they gain form us? That's got to be one of the ridiculous statements I've heard in a while.

Let's see, if I contribute $100 to a charity, I'm doing it to get $125 back?

Yeah, right! We do the things we do because we care!

FlyersFan, I love your optimism and outlook.

[edit on 12/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yeah, right.

That's why G.W. Bush signed the multi-trillion
dollar give away to Africa to fight AIDS there. Because we get
sooooooooo much out of it for ourselves.

It was a genuine act of compassion that we didn't have to do,
and that we as a country certainly don't 'get' more out of it than
we gave.

He said in several speeches at the time, most notably in one to the UN that it acquired Democracy a foothold in Africa to fight the growing threat of Muslim extremism and terrorism. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, but that was no compassionate freebie. He was buying loyalty and a base of operations in the African continent.

In the same vein of thinking as using AIDS as an excuse to enter an African front on terror, he also set up the future use of "Sex tourism" to enter a South Pacific/Asian front on terror next term. Should he win, wait and see. We'll be hearing more about Sex Tourism no doubt.

Originally posted by colourblind
Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not aspire to be like the US. America does not have it all. There is poverty, umemployment and a terrible welfare system among other things. Oh and a leader hell bent on destroying people's lives.

I am not an american and proud to be who I am, but if I were an american I would be proud to be that too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being American.

Colourblind you speak like someone who has only been reading about America, or at best tried a tour bus through the States. I am from a third world country and am now living in the States and I can tell you that when Americans speak about the problems with American poverty and unemployment and the welfare systems they are speaking from a very different perspective than a third world citizen would ever. Most middle class third world people would quite happily have the education, welfare, healthcare and living standards that most "poor" americans have. So don't be misled by American terminology. A few years ago I was invited to speak at a school in NYC that was considered the shame of the city because of its lack of amenities etc. I was shocked in my country the majority of the kids would love a school like that.

As for the President he is definitely better than any of the tinpot dictators around the world. And probably as good as the Presidents and Prime Ministers of other countries. The biggest problem with Americans is that they expect to much from themselves and others. And the problem with the world and America is that they look up to America as an example of what life is supposed to be. BUT America is just another country with its flaws consisting of normal people. In the end does anybody (Americans and non-Americans alike) know who the President/Prime Minister of Sweden , or The Netherlands, or Italy, or Greece, or Japan, or any number of other first world countries are? No? Because they don't hold the same level of importance in other countries lives. But I bet that most people around the world can list at least 5 American Presidents??? Am I wrong?

There ends the lecture



[edit on 12-9-2004 by Mynaeris]

He said in several speeches at the time, most notably in one to the UN that it acquired Democracy a foothold in Africa to fight the growing threat of Muslim extremism and terrorism. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, but that was no compassionate freebie. He was buying loyalty and a base of operations in the African continent.

This is unusual for me, but I gotta agree with Rant on this one. Whos loyalty do we not buy though? I just wish we would stop sending money to all countries and then see who our friends are. Then we will help our friends and give money to only countries who do what we want them too, after all...it is OUR money we are giving away.

And in response to Mynaeris....awesome post....