NationStates Jolt Archive

1. This poll is mainly intended for people OUTSIDE the USA

2. This thread IS NOT a place to express your feelings about Canada!! If you're a childish troll like Greater Valia kindly stay away and go wreck someone else's thread. Thank you.

*********

Do countries outside the USA do better or worse when America elects a Repblican administration?

Living right next door to the USA, we in Canada often feel a distinct chill in the relationship with our beloved cousins to the south when they go and elect a Republican administration.

Canada is the largest trading-partner the USA has, but Republicans seem to habitually forget that more easily than Democrats do. In decades past we had our squabbles with Democrat administrations too, but ever since Nixon it's nearly always under Republicans that Canada gets the shabbiest treatment.

I'd be happy to mention a few examples should anyone be curious, but first, lets hear opinions on this from NS folks in various parts of the world.

Also, I wonder this: When choosing a President, are Americans obliged to consider what the rest of the world might prefer rather than ONLY their own domestic populace? I think they are. Whomever is elected President of the U.S. affects everybody, so it's a more serious decision than merely a domestic one.

I mean no offence, but when a Republican government is elected it seems to send a loud message of "f--- you" to the rest of the planet. I'm *not* saying that's what Americans intend, but I honestly feel that's what much of the rest of the world hears.

All I'd ask is that the American people - who really *are* mostly good hearted and intelligent people - think of the rest of us during their next presidential election.

Think about your final statement a bit more and then think of how you would react if Americans told the good citizens of Canada how they should vote in their next election. It is highly offensive to me that you as a citizen of another nation should dare tell me that I should cast my vote in the US Presidential election this November based on your perception of what may or may not be in the best interest of Canada. This is an election by for and of citizens of the United States of America.

Think about your final statement a bit more and then think of how you would react if Americans told the good citizens of Canada how they should vote in their next election. It is highly offensive to me that you as a citizen of another nation should dare tell me that I should cast my vote in the US Presidential election this November based on your perception of what may or may not be in the best interest of Canada. This is an election by for and of the citizens of the United States of America.

Republican, Democrat ... twin brothers, differently coloured shirts. Each party will put the bankers' interests ahead of the rest of the world anyway.

:P

well, i get the feeling that if bush stays in power, whoever is in charger over here (canada) is going to end up kissing ass to make up for not going to iraq. fucking politicians have to be so spineless in this country.
can: we want to decriminalize pot. it'll be great, fines for this much, plants for personal use et c.
us: wtf? you're not legalizing the devil's weed! we'll tighten the borders!
can: not legalize... decriminalize... like you have in a couple of your states... we'll crack down on growing plants if you want... huge fines for that.
us: so long as you're not going soft on the war on drugs. hahaha.

not to mention that dman star wars missile defense sheild that everyone but layton seems to want. damn bush. you americans had better get rid of bush so he'll stop screwing things up over here.

Think about your final statement a bit more and then think of how you would react if Americans told the good citizens of Canada how they should vote in their next election. It is highly offensive to me that you as a citizen of another nation should dare tell me that I should cast my vote in the US Presidential election this November based on your perception of what may or may not be in the best interest of Canada. This is an election by for and of the citizens of the United States of America.

When the USA holds elections the outcome affects the entire world. Whereas Canada's elections affect only Canada.

I don't think it's at all offensive to ask that American voters at least partly consider others when they are making a decision that affects everyone else on the planet.

When the U.S. became the world's "only superpower", it's citizens forfeited the moral privilege to think only of themselves when they vote. But that's a very cool responsibility don't you think?

Leadership is not simply following whatever most people think. Leadership is taking a strong stand for what you believe in and what you think is right, and acting on it, despite unpopularity in the polls.

Thats how the USA needs to lead the world. Reagan, not Clinton.

If the American people put politicians into government because those are the people the rest of the World wants, it won't be too long before those politicians start making decisions favouring what the people of other countries want instead of what's best for us, so that they'll get re-elected. We'll get laws we don't want ( eg. guns banned) and treaties we don't want (eg. nuclear disarmarment), just because those things will please the Chinese or the Euro-trash.

A president is not elected to represent the collective interests of the World: he is elected to represent the collective interests of the people of the United States of America. It's the job of the UN to do what everyone wants, not the US. Just because our decisions may affect other people doesn't mean that they should determine what we decide. How many people of foreign countries were in favour of the Declaration of Independace, do you think? And more of them supported the Confederates than the Union in the Civil War.

Their interests are often contrary to ours. We should keep the World running the way it is: every country looks out for itself; the UN looks out for everyone.

... and then the u.s. ignores the un.

The US constitution applies only to the US, not the world. Therefore, the American people need to have free choice.
Besides, remember that the world primarily has something against America in the public opinion arena. When has anything we've done affected these people's daily lives? Do either the Canadian or European people feel that the US is trying to influence their daily lives in a negative way?

Hmn! We get the royal screw job when there is a Republican because they have no regard for the fact that we have a different system... We subsidize our farms so that they can produce and not because we want a monoply, contrary to popular opinion of the Bush Admin... Them assholes are wankers, is what they are, eh!

If the American people put politicians into government because those are the people the rest of the World wants, it won't be too long before those politicians start making decisions favouring what the people of other countries want instead of what's best for us.

Is it always the case that America's interests have to be different than the world's interests? I don't think so.

There are plenty of issues that America and much of the world can come to agreement on - we just need to get our priorities in sync. And work at being not so totally self-absorbed and self-interested.

Do either the Canadian or European people feel that the US is trying to influence their daily lives in a negative way?

I think the answer to that would be: "BIG TIME".

Again though we would refer to the U.S. administration, not to the average American person who I'm sure does not wish to push other people around.

I think it is better for us to have a second time BUsh, this will fasten the political and millitary cooperation of the EU and even Russia. This president will also weaken the US economy by the violation of international trade laws like he did with the steel, as a result of this, the countries that don't give state support came at their steel came out victorious (+ count the better quality of non US steel products).

It will also be good for the enviroment since Bush will continue to destroy nature and will only give the benefits of economy at the superrich. In the end, he will continue to weaken the US position on every scale (international respect will continue to degrade, trade wars woill form large anti US fronts, even worse US enviroment; more dead US citizens by his ant health and anti social policy is also good for the rest of the world).

In fact, the US would of course be better of with a smart president but the contradiction with all the bad things that Bush did is in fact good for the countries of the free democratic world that are pushed with their back at the wall by this guys violation of about anything you can violate (H.Rights, International rules of any kind).

EU countries will speed up their cooperation and Russia will be forced top form front together with the EU and China against GWB. In fact that is all quite good and won't happen with a free elected (non fraude) US president that is good buddies with EU and helps to make the world a better place like they do.

Think about your final statement a bit more and then think of how you would react if Americans told the good citizens of Canada how they should vote in their next election. It is highly offensive to me that you as a citizen of another nation should dare tell me that I should cast my vote in the US Presidential election this November based on your perception of what may or may not be in the best interest of Canada. This is an election by for and of the citizens of the United States of America.

When the USA holds elections the outcome affects the entire world. Whereas Canada's elections affect only Canada.

I don't think it's at all offensive to ask that American voters at least partly consider others when they are making a decision that affects everyone else on the planet.

When the U.S. became the world's "only superpower", it's citizens forfeited the moral privilege to think only of themselves when they vote. But that's a very cool responsibility don't you think?


The citizens of the USA have not now nor at any time in our past, forfeited the privilege to think of only ourselves when we vote. It is OUR government that we are electing. It is OUR choice and our choice alone in who we, collectively as the voting citizens of the USA want to govern us, to make our foreign policy and decide our domestic agenda. I would never presume to force the people of Canada to decide their election based on what is best for me ecause Canadians should vote based on their own interests. I may from time to time be critical of the decisions of yours or anyone elses chosen government, but in the end, it was your choice and doesn't really affect me. For you to demand of that we consider your opinions and preferences when choosing who is to govern us is an outrage. If I made the same demand on the citizens of Canada that you are making on the citizens of the USA there would be general outrage on this forum that I, as an "arrogant" American had even dared to suggest that the people of Canada give up their sovereign right to self determination.

While i often have a go at America for sticking its nose in other peoples business, such as the Iraq war, actual American elections are the business of Americans and Americans alone.

Also, I wonder this: When choosing a President, are Americans obliged to consider what the rest of the world might prefer rather than ONLY their own domestic populace? I think they are.

As an America, no. Think of it. It is our government, we arent ruled by people in Canada, why think of Canada when we vote? WHy think of anybody else? All our candidates are running for President of the United States of America, not President of Earth. We choose our own future, not you choose ours.

Do either the Canadian or European people feel that the US is trying to influence their daily lives in a negative way?

I think the answer to that would be: "BIG TIME".

Again though we would refer to the U.S. administration, not to the average American person who I'm sure does not wish to push other people around.
So, the US is forcing you guys to buy different products from different places, make different friends, forcing American lifestyle on you, and throwing a wrecking ball into your economies? I don't think so. If the US has influenced you in any way, it's being stuck in traffic jams by an endless stream of protestors in front of our embassies.

The U.S., through its ambassador Paul Celluci and his predecessors, has tried to directly dictate to Canada what our domestic policies should be on certain issues. Some examples which come to mind are our non-involvement in the Iraq invasion, our relations with Cuba, our plans to de-criminalize marijuana, and our regulations giving preferential treatment to Canadian-owned media here.

Also, various levels of U.S. gov't have insisted on violating the Free Trade agreement, and ignoring binding decisions made by international trade tribunals which the U.S. is signatory to. This refers specifically to lumber and wheat sales.

I'm certain that people in many other countries could name examples like this.

The U.S., through its ambassador Paul Celluci, has tried to directly dictate to Canada what our domestic policies should be on certain issues. Some examples which come to mind are our non-involvement in the Iraq invasion, our relations with Cuba, our plans to de-criminalize marijuana, and our regulations giving preferential treatment to Canadian-owned media here.

Also, various levels of U.S. gov't have insisted on violating the Free Trade agreement, and ignoring binding decisions made by international trade tribunals. This refers specifically to lumber and wheat sales.

I'm certain that people in many other countries could name examples like this.Garaj, with the execption of decriminalisation of marijuana, all of those are international not domestic policies. On the suject of decriminalisation of marijuana, I think the position of the US government was one of not allowing our shared border to become a major path to smuggle marijuana into the US. Marijuana is illegel in the US.

And as to your original post, no, no NO! The US has no obligation to consider your opinion or any other foriegn opinion when choosing our leaders. No matter what sort of chill you feel when anyone is elected the US is a free nation our politics aren't going to dictated to us by anyone.

Silly Mountain Walks, continue to spout your anti-US retoric. That's all it will ever be, talk. No matter how much you hate us or how much you dissagree with us, all that you or your governments do is talk.

There's a difference between lobbying for America's side of the issue than actually forcing America's views onto Canada. In the end, its the Canadiain PM and Parliment who make the decisions, not America's ambassador. China's ambassadors around the world had been lobbying Western country's governments to stop the arms-sales restriction put up after Tiananmen Square Massacre, but that dosen't mean the rest of the world should get a say in who's the next Chairman of the Communist Party of China.

The U.S., through its ambassador Paul Celluci and his predecessors, has tried to directly dictate to Canada what our domestic policies should be on certain issues. Some examples which come to mind are our non-involvement in the Iraq invasion, our relations with Cuba, our plans to de-criminalize marijuana, and our regulations giving preferential treatment to Canadian-owned media here.

Also, various levels of U.S. gov't have insisted on violating the Free Trade agreement, and ignoring binding decisions made by international trade tribunals which the U.S. is signatory to. This refers specifically to lumber and wheat sales.

I'm certain that people in many other countries could name examples like this.
There is one thing that makes Canada a special case, however. What makes Canada so special is that it sits directly north of the US, and sometimes, Canada can be all that sits between the US and chaos. Take immigration policy, for example. We feel that it allows terrorists to take an easy route into the US. In fact, quite a few terrorists have tried to launch attacks on the US from Canada. It's a matter of international security, and it'd probably secure you guys, as well.
The decriminalization of marijuana also poses problems to the US. For one, it allows two avenues for drug smuggling, one north and one south. For another, it may encourage more smugglers to try to get to Canada in order to compete with Canada's new marijuana sector of the market. Decriminalizing marijuana would, therefore, force the US to send more border patrol agents to Canada. And with many in the US calling for the military to be stationed on the Mexican border, a similar response may have to come from the Canadian border.
As for trade violations, they are few and far in between. I'm glad that the steel tarriff was lifted, but that only happens a few times, when the Bush administration gets paranoid over something. NAFTA is working fine, as well. After all, Canada did successfully overrule California's ban on MTBE additives in gasoline a few years back.
But the lumber and wheat standoff is a good point of yours. However, I wouldn't worry about it. Those arguements have been around since Canada came into existence. Besides, it's just NAFTA rebalancing our differences in trade. After all, when both the US and Canada are plentiful in wheat and lumber, we want the exact same markets. NAFTA was never expected to solve our differences about these overnight.

The U.S., through its ambassador Paul Celluci and his predecessors, has tried to directly dictate to Canada what our domestic policies should be on certain issues. Some examples which come to mind are our non-involvement in the Iraq invasion, our relations with Cuba, our plans to de-criminalize marijuana, and our regulations giving preferential treatment to Canadian-owned media here.

Also, various levels of U.S. gov't have insisted on violating the Free Trade agreement, and ignoring binding decisions made by international trade tribunals which the U.S. is signatory to. This refers specifically to lumber and wheat sales.

I'm certain that people in many other countries could name examples like this.
There is one thing that makes Canada a special case, however. What makes Canada so special is that it sits directly north of the US, and sometimes, Canada can be all that sits between the US and chaos. Take immigration policy, for example. We feel that it allows terrorists to take an easy route into the US. In fact, quite a few terrorists have tried to launch attacks on the US from Canada. It's a matter of international security, and it'd probably secure you guys, as well.
The decriminalization of marijuana also poses problems to the US. For one, it allows two avenues for drug smuggling, one north and one south. For another, it may encourage more smugglers to try to get to Canada in order to compete with Canada's new marijuana sector of the market. Decriminalizing marijuana would, therefore, force the US to send more border patrol agents to Canada. And with many in the US calling for the military to be stationed on the Mexican border, a similar response may have to come from the Canadian border.
As for trade violations, they are few and far in between. I'm glad that the steel tarriff was lifted, but that only happens a few times, when the Bush administration gets paranoid over something. NAFTA is working fine, as well. After all, Canada did successfully overrule California's ban on MTBE additives in gasoline a few years back.
But the lumber and wheat standoff is a good point of yours. However, I wouldn't worry about it. Those arguements have been around since Canada came into existence. Besides, it's just NAFTA rebalancing our differences in trade. After all, when both the US and Canada are plentiful in wheat and lumber, we want the exact same markets. NAFTA was never expected to solve our differences about these overnight.

The U.S., through its ambassador Paul Celluci and his predecessors, has tried to directly dictate to Canada what our domestic policies should be on certain issues. Some examples which come to mind are our non-involvement in the Iraq invasion, our relations with Cuba, our plans to de-criminalize marijuana, and our regulations giving preferential treatment to Canadian-owned media here.

Also, various levels of U.S. gov't have insisted on violating the Free Trade agreement, and ignoring binding decisions made by international trade tribunals which the U.S. is signatory to. This refers specifically to lumber and wheat sales.

I'm certain that people in many other countries could name examples like this.
There is one thing that makes Canada a special case, however. What makes Canada so special is that it sits directly north of the US, and sometimes, Canada can be all that sits between the US and chaos. Take immigration policy, for example. We feel that it allows terrorists to take an easy route into the US. In fact, quite a few terrorists have tried to launch attacks on the US from Canada. It's a matter of international security, and it'd probably secure you guys, as well.
The decriminalization of marijuana also poses problems to the US. For one, it allows two avenues for drug smuggling, one north and one south. For another, it may encourage more smugglers to try to get to Canada in order to compete with Canada's new marijuana sector of the market. Decriminalizing marijuana would, therefore, force the US to send more border patrol agents to Canada. And with many in the US calling for the military to be stationed on the Mexican border, a similar response may have to come from the Canadian border.
As for trade violations, they are few and far in between. I'm glad that the steel tarriff was lifted, but that only happens a few times, when the Bush administration gets paranoid over something. NAFTA is working fine, as well. After all, Canada did successfully overrule California's ban on MTBE additives in gasoline a few years back.
But the lumber and wheat standoff is a good point of yours. However, I wouldn't worry about it. Those arguements have been around since Canada came into existence. Besides, it's just NAFTA rebalancing our differences in trade. After all, when both the US and Canada are plentiful in wheat and lumber, we want the exact same markets. NAFTA was never expected to solve our differences about these overnight.

While I'm not surprised by peoples' angry reactions here, I am disappointed. What hope is there for a better world if people *including Americans* won't soften their stance and broaden their thinking?

If I were an American citizen, I'd express a viewpoint something like this:

"As an American voter, I reserve the right to vote *mainly* according to U.S. interests. This is what other sovereign countries do after all. However I also plan to learn how my country's actions affect other nations. I plan to base, say, 20 percent of my voting decision upon how the candidates plan to treat the rest of the world. Since my President is my representative to the world , it's very important what he/she does globally in my name."

What is so unreasonable and unfair about that?

On another message board I frequent, some Americans *have* expressed considerate opinions like that. I still have some hope that there might be someone on NS who would agree.

((bump))

[Silly Mountain Walks, continue to spout your anti-US retoric. That's all it will ever be, talk. No matter how much you hate us or how much you dissagree with us, all that you or your governments do is talk.

Mr. D., I think you are missing his neutral point .OK, You lost a discussion because of your extreme right agenda till him, like I saw in your discussion(weak of you, you where more like Goebels than a US, perhaps you are..? ).

He is saying that Bush is the best thing that EU, Russia and China can combine (because off Bush non respect of regulatians on H.Rights and trade that where signed by the US citizens in agreements) And I expect a better answer of you since SMW prooved (more then you) to be a person that has a good view (better records to) in transatlantic relations. In fact, admit, you did not read his analyse, did not you?

Any way, your reply was way out of line since you did not give arguements about Bush and the world he is creating...

[DP

[Silly Mountain Walks, continue to spout your anti-US retoric. That's all it will ever be, talk. No matter how much you hate us or how much you dissagree with us, all that you or your governments do is talk.

Mr. D., I think you are missing his neutral point (OK, You lost a discussion because of your extreme agenda with him).

He is saying that Bush is the best thing that Eu, russia and China can combine. And I expact a better answer of you since SMW prooved (more then you) to be a person that has a good view in transatlantic relations. In fact, admit, you did not read his analyse, did not you?

Any way, your reply was way out of line since you did not give arguements about Bush and the world he is creating...How does one lose a discussion? I explained in the moderation forum that most of what I said in the discussion that I "lost" was arcastic in nature and mainly driven by the universal, or so it seems at times, condemnation of any action the Israelis take to defend themselves.

And, George Bush is not creating a world. He is living in the one that was made before him. A world in which many peoples, Americans and Europeans in particular, have maintained a false good-will. In case you haven't noticed, we don't like each other very much. It is time that this ended. We must either learn to live with one another, or without one another. He does have a good view of trans-Atlantic relations,well, a realistic one anyway.

Silly Mountain Walks neutral? You were kidding I hope.

While I'm not surprised by peoples' angry reactions here, I am disappointed. What hope is there for a better world if people *including Americans* won't soften their stance and broaden their thinking?

If I were an American citizen, I'd express a viewpoint something like this:

"As an American voter, I reserve the right to vote *mainly* according to U.S. interests. This is what other sovereign countries do after all. However I also plan to learn how my country's actions affect other nations. I plan to base, say, 20 percent of my voting decision upon how the candidates plan to treat the rest of the world. Since my President is my representative to the world , it's very important what he/she does globally in my name."

What is so unreasonable and unfair about that?

On another message board I frequent, some Americans *have* expressed considerate opinions like that. I still have some hope that there might be someone on NS who would agree.How much do you consider my opinion when you vote?

[ We must either learn to live with one another, or without one another. He does have a good view of trans-Atlantic relations,well, a realistic one anyway.

Silly Mountain Walks neutral? You were kidding I hope.

Ok, We must learn to live with one another , but you guys are spoiling it and drive us, EU, to at war because you are putting a fire in the world (are you blind or just simple because you don't see it). The EU supported the US when it was legal and when it was illegal too. But those countries have enough of your wars, a lot of those (like now) created by yourself!..

SMW is has indeed a very good eye in transatlantic relations. And for me, he is much more neutral then you are. You confuse critics on the US with anti US. And you don't like his critics, that is why you call him anti US (never saw a anti US word, saw anti Bush words...).

Noth liking this Gov.and have critics is for you the same as anti US, just lik a lots of Americans and Europeans are condemned anti semite when they have the slightest critics on Israel.. (You are quite typical ya know :wink: )

Pitty that you aren't as critical here as he is...

You guys have a difficult server on NS here..

what happened to all of my posts? :(

[ We must either learn to live with one another, or without one another. He does have a good view of trans-Atlantic relations,well, a realistic one anyway.

Silly Mountain Walks neutral? You were kidding I hope.

Ok, We must learn to live with one another , but you guys are spoiling it and drive us, EU, to at war because you are putting a fire in the world (are you blind or just simple because you don't see it). The EU supported the US when it was legal and when it was illegal too. But those countries have enough of your wars, a lot of those (like now) created by yourself!..

SMW is has indeed a very good eye in transatlantic relations. And for me, he is much more neutral then you are. You confuse critics on the US with anti US. And you don't like his critics, that is why you call him anti US (never saw a anti US word, saw anti Bush words...).

Noth liking this Gov.and have critics is for you the same as anti US, just lik a lots of Americans and Europeans are condemned anti semite when they have the slightest critics on Israel.. (You are quite typical ya know :wink: )

Pitty that you aren't as critical here as he is...

You guys have a difficult server on NS here..You only looked at half of the sentence about living with *or without one another*. How does the US drive the EU to war? By desposing a despot? By enforcing UN resolution when noone(besides Brittain) even the UN would? By fighting Islamic terrorists? OR, as I believe, is it because the US didsn't ask for your permission and didn't stop when you objected? Since it's founding when has the EU supported the US? Tired of US wars? There was a time when the US was tired of European wars. What happened? Did the US walk away from Europe? Did the US endlessly find fault, try to dictate European politics and spout bile at Europe?

Sure, SMW seems right and nuetral to you he shares many of the same views you do. You confuse criticism of aspects of US government with the unerring, constant hatred spouted by SMW at anything American.

I have no prblem with criticising the Israelis. But when one wants to criticise the actions of the Israelis and say nothing of thier motivation, in short tell half of the story, as SMW did, I find that anti-Israeli. You are quite typical as well :wink:.

Pity he only sees, or at leaste only speaks to, half of the story. US or Israeli.

It is better for my country (Australia) if there is a cowboy Republican sitting in the Oval Office...

Why you ask?

Australia is in a vulnerable position. The countries to our north are overpopulating at alarming rates and war is being threatened over the sovereignty of two small islands between Indonesia and Australia.

The promise of a 15,000 strong US base in northern Australia and the strengthening of trade and our alliance under Bush not only secures us militarily but economically as well...

Thanks to Republicans, Australia this week (on top of a $7 billion FTA) may very well sign up on a $15 billion deal to supply natural gas to the USA via California. The PM is meeting with leading Republicans like the Gov of California and well he and GW are good pals by the way of things. It was Bush's pressuring in Washington that gained Australia a free trade deal with the USA - something many countries desperately want.

So, a republican president is good for Australia.

That doesn't mean he is good for America though. I think I need to say that. Republicans tend to be internationally focused, while Democrats are focused on social aspects. A mix of both would be good.

But you can't always have your cake and eat it too. (ask any supermodel :wink: )

Well, my country is really not that well off with Bush....because I'm American, and gas is fucking $2.30 a fucking gallon.

While I'm not surprised by peoples' angry reactions here, I am disappointed. What hope is there for a better world if people *including Americans* won't soften their stance and broaden their thinking?

If I were an American citizen, I'd express a viewpoint something like this:

"As an American voter, I reserve the right to vote *mainly* according to U.S. interests. This is what other sovereign countries do after all. However I also plan to learn how my country's actions affect other nations. I plan to base, say, 20 percent of my voting decision upon how the candidates plan to treat the rest of the world. Since my President is my representative to the world , it's very important what he/she does globally in my name."

What is so unreasonable and unfair about that?

On another message board I frequent, some Americans *have* expressed considerate opinions like that. I still have some hope that there might be someone on NS who would agree.

And if I were a Canadian, I'd think about how my vote would affect the US...

Bullcrap I would! Here in America, the government is by the people and for the people. "The people" meaning American Citizens. Not Canadians, not Europeans. AMERICANS.

Is it our fault that Canada's economy relies entirely on the US? No, quite honestly its due to the Canadians. The US doesn't make Canada do things, the Canadian government decides to agree with the US.

I will not consider Canada when I vote for my government. If I wanted to consider Canada, I'd move to Canada and become a Canadian citizen (fat chance of that). This is not a globalistic society. Globalism should never happen. As someone said earlier, We (Americans) don't elect the president of the world. If you percieve the US president to have too much power over what other nations do, then I would say that other nations do not have enough backbone to stand up for what they want to do. But hey, if it benefits my country, let them stay that way. America didn't, and quite honestly, we're on top. (Not to be arrogant, but we really are)

And no, I'm not angry at all. I just love my country, and I won't let foreigners push it around, physically or verbally.


(( YAY! for my first post in General ))

How much do you consider my opinion when you vote?

Some examples:

1) I know that U.S. citizens very much want Canada to better screen immigrants to our country to ensure they don't have specific plans to sneak into your country from here. I'm informed enough and care enough about ordinary Amercans' security concerns to vote for Canadian politicians promising to improve such screening.

2) There are a couple of cases I know of Canadian municipalities and industries which are polluting water that enters U.S. territory. Again I'm informed enough, and care enough, about our American neighbours' health that I'll consider voting for those local politicians who intend to curtail that pollution.

3) A great many Americans benefit from access to cheaper Canadian-made prescription medicines. Yet some Canadian politicians want to cave-in to the multinational pharmaceutical corporations and drastically increase our prices to Americans. I'm informed enough, and care enough, about Anericans in need of affordable medications that I'll vote for politicians willing to resist lobbying from foreign drug companies.


Now I don't know if these issues are of individual concern to you Deeloleo, but I know they are to many of your countrymen. THIS is the kind of consideration I think is useful and practical when we vote.

And if I were a Canadian, I'd think about how my vote would affect the US...

Bullcrap I would!

Um, have a look above at the examples above where THIS Canadian **IS** considering U.S. interests in voting in this year's Canadian elections.

What say you now?

I'm an American. November is my first chance to vote, as I just recently came of age, and I am most definately voting Democrat because I want a good life for everyone, not just Americans. I'm not just an American citizen, I'm a citizen of the world. Voting Republican means voting for killing the enivironment, revokation of rights (not only to current citizens, but to people coming in and visitors), tax cuts for the rich and big corporations that aren't just American but International, the death of countless people, American or not, and not to mention other obcenities based in America.

Vote Democrat, Americans. Otherwise, like it was said earlier, you are basicaly saying a big "f--- you" to the rest of the world (and many many other Americans).

I'm an American. November is my first chance to vote, as I just recently came of age, and I am most definately voting Democrat because I want a good life for everyone, not just Americans. I'm not just an American citizen, I'm a citizen of the world. Voting Republican means voting for killing the enivironment, revokation of rights (not only to current citizens, but to people coming in and visitors), tax cuts for the rich and big corporations that aren't just American but International, the death of countless people, American or not, and not to mention other obcenities based in America.

Vote Democrat, Americans. Otherwise, like it was said earlier, you are basicaly saying a big "f--- you" to the rest of the world (and many many other Americans).

Yes, vote Democrat - It's easier than working!

And I will be voting Republican because I want a better life for Americans.

I won't vote democrat because I don't beleive in murdering the unborn, forcing people to pay for society's drop-outs through taxes, legalising drugs, and caving into the secular humanist philosophy which will destroy this country.

The Democrats will be the end of this country.

How much do you consider my opinion when you vote?

Some examples:

1) I know that U.S. citizens very much want Canada to better screen immigrants to our country to ensure they don't have specific plans to sneak into your country from here. I'm informed enough and care enough about ordinary Amercans' security concerns to vote for Canadian politicians promising to improve such screening.

2) There are a couple of cases I know of Canadian municipalities and industries which are polluting water that enters U.S. territory. Again I'm informed enough, and care enough, about our American neighbours' health that I'll consider voting for those local politicians who intend to curtail that pollution.

3) A great many Americans benefit from access to cheaper Canadian-made prescription medicines. Yet some Canadian politicians want to cave-in to the multinational pharmaceutical corporations and drastically increase our prices to Americans. I'm informed enough, and care enough, about Anericans in need of affordable medications that I'll vote for politicians willing to resist lobbying from foreign drug companies.


Now I don't know if these issues are of individual concern to you Deeloleo, but I know they are to many of your countrymen. THIS is the kind of consideration I think is useful and practical when we vote.These are all good things and I thank you for considering them. But, these things are a far cry from the issues that decide a US election. Maybe things like these should play a larger role, but they don't. Your point about trade tariffs and free trade hasn't been raised once by either candidate in the upcoming election. Americans therefore have little idea where the candidates stand on them. But, your assertion that voting for the Republican party,or any US party, amounts to a slap in the face of the rest of the world gives the impression that you bare not opposed to someones stance on any issue but would like to dictate who people vote for based solely on the party they belong to. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I assume many others. And, unless US immigration ploicy is tightened Canadian erfforts will make little difference. And steps are already being taken to alieviate the expense of perscroption drugs on Americans, which would make the need to go to Canada less of a factor, all brought to us by those *evil* Republicans. :wink:

I'm an American. November is my first chance to vote, as I just recently came of age, and I am most definately voting Democrat because I want a good life for everyone, not just Americans. I'm not just an American citizen, I'm a citizen of the world. Voting Republican means voting for killing the enivironment, revokation of rights (not only to current citizens, but to people coming in and visitors), tax cuts for the rich and big corporations that aren't just American but International, the death of countless people, American or not, and not to mention other obcenities based in America.

Vote Democrat, Americans. Otherwise, like it was said earlier, you are basicaly saying a big "f--- you" to the rest of the world (and many many other Americans).

Citizen of the world?...Really...is there some sort of special passport that I need in order to become one?...is it dual-citizenship?..can I renounce my American citizenship if need be to become a citizen of the World?..if I do, to whom do I pay taxes?

There is not world citizenship...there is no World Government..there is no authority to indicate that my political choices should reflect on any other sovereign nation...period.

There is not world citizenship...there is no World Government..there is no authority to indicate that my political choices should reflect on any other sovereign nation...period.

Thank goodness! As if we havn't got enough hassles with the UN condemning everyone and having a hissy fit every time a government decides what is best for its people.