Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

posted on October 16th, 2008, 8:01 am

Well now you can find out!

It's called "If the world could vote?" and it's an Iceland based website (which might explain why over 5,000 votes have been cast from that small country) dedicated to a world-wide poll that asks a simple question, who would you vote for, Barack Obama or John McCain? So far, the people of Earth have cast about 250,000 votes from all but about a dozen of the world's 190 or so nations and the website's stated (though half-joking) goal is for the number of votes cast in the poll to exceed the voter turnout of America's 2004 presidential election of about 122-and-a-quarter million...

If the world could vote?

And so far it seems, interestingly enough, that the entire world bar two countries is in the tank for Obama... The two countries I'm referring to being Africa's Burkina Faso (from which two votes have been cast, both for McCain) and Europe's Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (from which about 390 votes have been cast, about 90% of which have been for McCain).

Want your country to be represented? Then vote, and let your voice be heard, I have! Americans are welcome of course (indeed, 80,000 of the votes cast have come from the US, around 82% of which are for Obama)...

So, who's it gonna be? Remember folks, this is just a bit of fun, so be civil and don't take it too seriously...

As for me, I've made my choice... Aussies for Obama, oi, oi, oi!

posted on October 16th, 2008, 10:34 am

Hahahah! Classic.

Love it.

posted on October 16th, 2008, 11:41 am

About 90% would vote for Obama over here in Germany.

posted on October 16th, 2008, 1:30 pm

Yeah... that's pretty much cos of Bush's legacy... absolutely justified. This man and those who stand behind him should not be elected a third time, they simply don't deserve it. Democracy ftw.

posted on October 17th, 2008, 1:44 am

posted on October 17th, 2008, 2:36 am

==
what's the difference -- Skeletor vs Mowgli?! are u kidding me!

Bomb iran vs Bomb Pakistan..

Revamp health care for the insurance firms vs revamp health care to properly pay the insurance firms their ludicrous charges for minimal coverage

Tax breaks for the rich under some skewed idea of supply side economics which end up inflating cayman island bank accounts instead ofthe economy VS taxation promised on certian income brackets as long as it does not end up at an economic cul de sac from bureaucrats like Paulson and Bernanke.. but of course nothing promised tangibly for the middle class guy.

Aggressive right lobby of neoconservatives vs duplicitous lobby of particular special interests.
And of course, both have to go to Israel and get its approval and blessing - shalom jewish lobby: McCain and Palin say no one can question God's chosen ppl regardless of mad bans on driving and excessive uses of force that kill civilians and coddle kalishnikov wielding settlers
VS
Dont make any faux pas that would upset the lobbyists and vote base.

and the forked tongues go on and on...


Certainly Obama is the lesser of the 2 evils - although Mccain himself is a decent guy certainly more of a gentleman than Obama(remember Obama's debacle with Hill), but has to act like the side he represents (of which Palin is more a representative - mad and bellicose)

But if all voters are left with is a "lesser of 2 evils" then Democracy is a system that has gone the way of Capitalism and Communism.

posted on October 17th, 2008, 5:24 am

I have to ask:  Did any one consider Hilary (more specifically, I'm interested in where folks place her on this evil scale, but serious comments are welcome too)?

Back in High School, my government teacher properly predicted her attempt, but seems to have failed in his prediction of the outcome. 

posted on October 17th, 2008, 5:33 pm

Being not so much as for McCain as against the Obamessiah I have to say that, if I put aside the loathing I feel for that socialist nincompoop, I hope John McCain wins if for no other reason than the extreme world wide butthurt that would result would be about the lulziest thing to happen. EVAR.

[Anonymous]

posted on October 17th, 2008, 6:31 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on October 17th, 2008, 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

let's not be against socialism.
In the end Socialism saved Wall street and the UK banks, and the swiss banks and the German banks

Pure capitalists speak only because of upbringing and college brainwashing.
In reality no one even knows why they are "pure capitalists" and against "socialism"

It is only the upper 1% who know why, and that's cos Socialism will not indulge the breaks they have been gleaning from middle class america for the past so many years.

Who in their right mind could even think Capitalism works for anyone other than lobbyists and the upper 1%.

posted on November 27th, 2008, 12:30 am

If the whole world could vote, then Marik Ishtar would be president.

posted on November 27th, 2008, 1:38 am

I didn't notice the anti capitalist rant.

If I work harder, I deserve more than someone who doesn't. People are not meant to be equal. If it were so, we would be identical.

Equality hampers diversity.

[Anonymous]

posted on November 27th, 2008, 3:50 am

Last edited by Anonymous on November 27th, 2008, 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

If u work harder. hmm.
I dont believe Donald Trump works "harder" than the average middle america worker. Sitting in an air conditioned office and barking orders to subordinates can never be equated to hard labor on the assembly line. Sitting awake till 1am looking at the market move isnt hard work, when compared to the ac repair guy who works by the sweat of his brow.

So what exactly is your superficial analysis supposed to reveal?

No one espouses Equality - but when taxation is a state imposed burden then the person who can afford 5 Maybachs can certainly bear the greater burden especially when you expect a single mother of 3 who can barely make 2 ends meet to pay the same imposed taxes.
So if you do want inequality, then why not start by bearing the inequitable burden too....

Btw - as Christian conservative Republican capitalists, espousing social inequity goes against the very fundamental principles of the very ideology republicans use to garner votes (vis a vis the Bible). Are right wingers confused or just plain unable to balance selfishness with the ethical principles they claim to cherish!? Hypocrites!

posted on November 28th, 2008, 12:44 am

Maybe it is that mothers responsibility in that she did not use a condom? Honestly, her situation was created by her.

And Donald Trump is a great example! He was nearly bankrupt, the fact that he can manage his money more intelligently than the average middle income American is just fine. If I put away 100$ a week into mutual funds and have a million dollars thirty years down the road (hypothetically, of course) does that mean I worked any less than a normal individual? I should be entitled to what I've earned.

A slightly progressive tax is okay with me, however creating an egalitarian society is a horrible idea. No authority to maintain order, no competition to promote incentive and...eventually no diversity imo.

posted on November 28th, 2008, 2:58 am

A slightly progressive tax is okay with me, however creating an egalitarian society is a horrible idea. No authority to maintain order, no competition to promote incentive and...eventually no diversity imo.

Riiiight... And Obama said he wanted to do this... when... exactly? And define egalitarian, because egalitarian can simply mean that everyone has the same, to quote Wikipedia, "political, economic, social, and civil rights", which is (*gasp!*) something your Constitution guarantees...

And that's the problem with terms like "liberal", "conservative", "socailist" and so on 'nour days... They have no generally accepted definition and are simply used by both sides as buzzwords...

posted on November 28th, 2008, 6:27 am

I have no problem with Barack Obama! I am not even an American.

I'm just saying, the world we live in isn't so bad, it just needs to be cleaner and more efficient.

And 'economic' rights is a very vague term. Do you think it is fair that someone who can put down 100 000 cash can have a better interest account than someone who can't? Or is that the banks just using their economic freedom?