Get Americans Abroad Registered to VOTE~~~! (Against Bush!)

05-17-2004, 05:03 PM
Hey guys,

If any of you know of any American citizen (who is preferably a Kerry supporter ;) :p ) living abroad in your country, please feel free to send them these links for getting them registered to vote against this travesty of an administration. :fiery: :mad: Even if you're not friends with these people, its just an email pushing them to practice democracy. So spread the word!!!!! We've got to do our part to get rid of this guy!

Democrats Abroad, :angel: :worship:

Republicans Abroad, :cuckoo: :fiery:

Registration forms (for all Americans living inside or outside the country) are downloadable at :yeah:

FYI: I attach here a valuable link to an article discussing the impact absentee ballots may have on the upcoming election. Feel free to forward them to any or all American citizens you know.

These things have to be done with plenty of time to spare since most of them have deadlines way before the actual election date, which is around Nov. 7th I think.

Don't be fooled by what anyone else is saying. Its going to be a close one. The Republicans are going to use every stinkin' trick in the book to get Bush re-elected. God knows they've done it before. :rolleyes:


Dems, GOP Target American Voters Abroad

Mon May 17, 8:33 AM ET

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

KLOSTERNEUBURG, Austria - Rubber ducks scribbled with the names of John Kerry (news - web sites) and George W. Bush bob and swirl down a babbling brook in this Vienna suburb.

"Go, John, go!" shouts a group of American expatriates, some using hockey sticks to give the Kerry ducks a helpful slap downstream. Not surprisingly, the Democrat wins by a waterslide.

The Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) wouldn't approve. But the Austrian chapter of Democrats Abroad says the mock race achieved its aim: to awaken the 7,000 Americans in Austria to the approaching U.S. presidential election, and get eligible voters to register.

Mindful of the recount fiasco that put Bush in the White House four years ago, Democrats and Republicans everywhere from Hong Kong to Hungary are aggressively targeting American expatriates, whose absentee ballots could prove decisive in a tight race.

With an estimated 3 million U.S. citizens of voting age living overseas, "We're like the 51st state," said Katie Solon, a Colorado Springs, Colo., native and Democrats Abroad volunteer in Austria. "We're riding a wave of renewed interest."

Strong anti-American sentiment overseas is driving U.S. citizens to register to vote, and both Democrats and Republicans could benefit. On the GOP side, a backlash against the anti-Bush fervor has attracted Republicans, while dismay over Bush's stewardship is getting Democrats who haven't voted for more than 30 years.

Republicans, who claim to dominate the overseas vote by a 3-to-1 margin, are mobilizing to ensure him a second term.

"It's difficult to be an American abroad now with the hatred around the world for the U.S. government and President Bush (news - web sites)," said Stephen O'Connor, who runs Republicans Abroad in Hungary, where an estimated 20,000 Americans live. "You need thick skin to be an American."

"What we're seeing, all of us, is this malaise, this feeling of anti-Americanism," said Nancy Galan, chairwoman of Republicans Abroad in Italy, home to an estimated 60,000 Americans of voting age.

Eileen Wilkinson, of the Rome chapter of Democrats Abroad Italy, said people have signed up "who haven't voted since Nixon in 1960 or McGovern in 1972."

In Hong Kong, Republicans Abroad is getting daily inquiries from the 50,000-strong U.S. expatriate community, vice chairman Mark Simon said. Bush's narrow victory over Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000 has driven home the message that every vote matters, he said.

Canada, Mexico and Britain have the world's biggest American communities. Fourth is Germany, with roughly 250,000, and party activists are trying to draw interest with visits by former Vice President Dan Quayle (news - web sites) and Kerry's sister, Diana.

"We have 33 Senate races that are going to decide who controls Congress," said Ronald Schlundt, chairman of Democrats Abroad Germany. "Bush is almost certain to win Alaska, but it looks like a Democrat might win the Senate seat there. I registered someone from Alaska the other day."

Overseas voters can find it a hassle to get absentee ballots from their home states, and traditionally haven't played a key role in past presidential elections. Turnout in 2000 was 37 percent among expatriates, compared to 51.3 percent overall.

No one knows just how many Americans abroad intend to vote this time, since the party groups can only give them registration forms to mail to the U.S. county where they voted last.

But election fever runs strong. Democrats Abroad Thailand recently revived itself after lying dormant for 16 years. It now has chapters in Bangkok and the northern city of Chiang Mai, and has participated in conference calls with Kerry and former presidential hopefuls Howard Dean (news - web sites), Wesley Clark (news - web sites) and Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites).

"The response has been incredible," said the group's head, Gary Suwannarat.

Peter Kropp, a suburban Washington, D.C., native who works for a cosmetics company in Belgium, didn't vote in 2000.

He registered this year, he said, because he disagrees with the Bush administration's handling of the economy and the gay marriage issue — "and because I'm tired of always having to apologize for American behavior."

05-17-2004, 05:05 PM
good idea :yeah:

05-17-2004, 05:08 PM
It's especially important to get expats who are from key election states. OHIO or FLORIDA, to name just a couple!!! These will be close battles. As we all learned in 2000, the candidate who wins a state gets ALL the electoral votes, even if the vote is incredibly close.

If they are from New York, the New England States or other Democratic strongholds, there is little chance Kerry will lose there.

05-17-2004, 05:15 PM
Thats right Mister Q. The states of INDIANA and WEST VIRGINIA are also important.

05-17-2004, 05:29 PM
And California and New York........... AND Michigan!!

05-18-2004, 05:34 AM
Im going to keep bumping this for at least a week or so... ;)

05-18-2004, 05:31 PM

05-19-2004, 04:23 PM
bumpety bump

05-22-2004, 07:43 AM
Great Idea :yeah:
We must make sure Bush, DOES NOT get re-elected at all costs!!

05-22-2004, 10:27 PM
I am a Kerry Supporter. The government needs to care more about the people of their country and the betterment for them and not for themselves and those they "favor". Thats one of the reasons i dont like Bush. I also dont like how he tries to force his "conservative christian" beliefs on everyone in the country. Not everone in this country is a self proclaimed conservative or christian and it would be nice if he realized that. I also dont like how he tries to hide the fact that the deficit is up to the trillions and also the fact that with the tax cut its not helping the middle class like he claims it is. I also dont understand why a president would want more than 1 constiutional amendment to take away rights of people living in this country. I think their are more important issues that need to be dealt with than if two people that love each other enough want to get married or that an athlete is taking steroids. Our President needs to Wake Up and Smell the Coffee. America is turning against its logo "home of the free and land of the brave".

05-23-2004, 12:14 AM
They should let English people vote too seeing as Blair and Bush are more or less the same person.

05-23-2004, 07:13 AM
Interesting. I understand Blair is dramatically down in the polls and will step down eventually. Whats the deal with that Brits? Was Iraq his downfall?

05-23-2004, 09:40 PM
They should let English people vote too seeing as Blair and Bush are more or less the same person.

Then we know who'd win :) There would be no point in even counting the votes.

05-23-2004, 10:07 PM
They should let English people vote too seeing as Blair and Bush are more or less the same person.

I'm all for it! :lol:

I am so disappointed in Blair. Quite honestly, I do like him. I can't imagine what led him to support Bush. It is so very sad because had Blair not supported Bush, I think the U.S. would have been deterred.

05-24-2004, 12:30 AM
It is so very sad because had Blair not supported Bush, I think the U.S. would have been deterred.

So true. And Blair undoubtedly knew this as well and chose not to exercise a more cautionary approach to solving the WMD "problem", ie: going through the UN and practising containment --i think Blair really thought getting rid of Saddam was the real crux of the problem, and that a stable democratic state would naturally follow afterwards. I know both Bush and Blair are religious men but Blair definitely should have known better.

I believe Iraq will go through a massive period of infighting and civil war after the Americans pull most of their troops out, which is exactly why Bush Sr didnt want to mess with the country in the first place during the First Gulf war. And most experts on the topic agreed with his decision then as they do now . Iraq is going to go through a major bloody period of civil war and the americans, as well as the world, are going to be swept up into it one way or another. All thanks to Bush and Tony Blair.

05-24-2004, 01:26 AM
:lol: You are the same people who would have called Churchill a wacko in the early 30s. Oh and Undomiele would America have been better off had we not had a Civil War?

05-24-2004, 01:40 AM
The Iraqi civil war is going to be much different than the U.S. Civil war. You may count on that. But, yes, the U.S. would have been better off it slavery could have been ended without a Civil War. If the issues could have been settled peacefully it would have been better. This country and particularly the southern states suffered for more than a half century from the effects of that war. To some extent we feel the effects still.

Had slavery been ended through the will of the people, it might have also been better for the decendents of the slaves.

There is no evidence that the Iraqis had any plans for world domination as did Nazi Germany. The analogy with Churchill is inapt.

05-24-2004, 01:52 AM
No honey the Churchill analogy holds up because Saddamn did have plans for world domination. After he took over Kuwait he had his eye on Saudi Arabia. So Saddamn was planning to expand his empire. Muslim fanatics have the same desire. Slavery was a small issue in the war. South wanted to create a seperate country and slavery never would have ended had the South won. Also predicting an Iraq civil war is still far in future. It may or may not happen. Of course if we never liberated Iraq and everyone was under Saddamn's thumb then Star and her kind would be happy and content.

05-24-2004, 02:58 AM
Please. You are talking to someone who has studied the Civil War extensively. Slavery was not a small issue in the Civil war. The south wanted to create a separate country because they wanted to preserve the right to own slaves which they believed was threatened by the northern abolistionist movment. It was the collapse of the Missouri Compromise which was directly related to the slavery issue that was one of the catalysts for the war. The election of Abraham Lincoln a staunch opponent of slavery was another. Those who think that had the South won, slavery would have ended are sadly mistaken in their understanding of history. This is an apologist position that was created in order to absolve the confederacy. I do think that slavery would have ended eventually, but it would have taken much much longer. It was not as if the confederacy was planing to end slavery at the successful conclusion of the war. Without the issue of slavery between the north and the south there never would have been a desire to form a separate country and no civil war.

Again, in terms of history, at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were no plans of world or even regional domination. The Iraqis were repelled from Kuwait and I had no difficulties with that military operation. I do think that there was massive diplomatic bungling by the Bush,Sr. administration prior to the invasion of Kuwait that contributed to the invasion.

You seem to be fond of extremism when constructing an argument. To think that one who opposes the current Iraqi policy was "happy" with Sadaam is clearly wrong. I would think that those who defended Sadaam or any of his policies would be in the vast minority. Again, you are stooping to ad hominem attacks instead of adhereing to rational discussion.

05-24-2004, 03:09 AM
Of course if we never liberated Iraq and everyone was under Saddamn's thumb then Star and her kind would be happy and content.

Isn't it nice how Dirk uses liberation as a synonym for unlawful invasion? In case you didn't notice, the Iraqis didn't exactly welcome the Americans with open arms and roses. And if the US really believed in granting them democracy then why is the US so eager to contract their infrastructure and public insitutions to exclusivley american contractors (who by the way are robbing both the Iraqi ppl and US Gove't blind)?. And why this Iraqi Council bullshit??? The Iraqis before the 1st Gulf War were the most educated people with one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. They're more than qualified to hold nationwide elections and have, actually, done so before on a more localized level.

But what the fuck do you care whether or not Iraq goes through a civil war anyway Dirk? They're all just "subhuman animals" to you right? :rolleyes:

05-24-2004, 03:10 AM
Star I was right in my post of the Civil War. I wrote that Slavery wouldn't have ended had the south won. Thanks for adding more info. Funny how you place more blame on Bush Sr, than Saddamn for the Kuwait invasion. The only reason Iraq couldn't invade another country is because Saddamn knew he would be finished had he tried, but he did try in the early 90s. Oh and if we never did liberate Iraq ( I know I know Star, we shouldn't have liberated Europe and Japan because god forbid we bomb and kill innocent civilians) Saddamn would still be there and the wonderful humanitarians of the world would be content. Star I will send you a PM about information regarding one of the al-Qaida links that was recently discovered if you wish. I've given up on this topic. Its a waste of energy. I will make it a point to avoid Non-Tennis Forum. Oh and thanks for writing up a brief on the Civil War. Oh and I'm not being sarcastic this time.

05-24-2004, 03:18 AM
Undomiele, We went under UN resolution 1441. It was not unlawful. Clearly you missed the images of people cheering the soliders as they were coming into Baghdad. Contractors are from all parts of the coalition. We are not robbing them blind dumbass, the 87 billion the US is giving them has a clause it in that Bush fought very hard for. They don't have to repay it, so they are no being robbed because they are not paying for it. The Kurds in the north had more freedom since Saddamn's power wasn't as great up in the north. Nobody is saying their not educated or qualified, some local elections have already taken place in Iraq. Its a little hard to hold an election if terrorists and former Bath party members don't want it to happen. They need us there for security reasons right now. The ones who are killing our troops and Iraqis who are working toward democracy are the animals and subhumans. Sadly I need to point everything out to you liberals. You have no ability to subtext.

05-24-2004, 03:21 AM
Again you are wrong. I do not place more blame on the U.S. administration than I do on Sadaam. You make up positons for people simply in order to refute them. In debate, this is called setting up a straw man. It is a devious method of debate.

Yes, of course, Sadaam was foiled in his attempt to conquer territory. But nevertheless he was at a standstill on that score, and, thus, the Churchill analogy fails.

And it is only my speculation that slavery would have ended. I say that because of the way the world was evolving. It may have been that slavery would have been ended in the Confederacy by an invasion from the outside or by rebellion from within. I doubt very much from knowing the economy and politics of the Confederacy that it would have happened at all by legal or peaceful means. I also think that the Confederacy was doomed because various states would have spun off to form their own countries. The "states rights" position was doomed for failure.

05-24-2004, 03:39 AM
It was because Saddamn was foiled that he didn't turn into Hitler. So the Churchill analogy does stand. Had UK and Europe listened to him early on, many lives would have been spared.

06-26-2004, 04:17 AM
I have one simple sentence to say: BUSH IS THE MOST HORRIBLE, IGNORANT EXCUSE FOR A PRESDIENT IN A GOOD MANY YEARS!!! :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: I cant tell you how many pictures i've seen in newspapers, and on the News, of destruction, total chaos, all because of 1 selfish PRICK: BUSH!!! Millions of lives thrown away because of this dictator. hmmm. Where are those weapons of mass destruction, Mr President :rolleyes: He went after Sadamm for 1 reason, and 1 reason only: To try to take revenge for his father, that was nearly killed by Sadamm awhile ago. Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is outragous. He didnt have near the weapons or power to be a threat for the US. But comparing Bush to Hitler is more accurate. Soon this fucker, will be just cutting away at are rights as citizens. But, alas, i forgot, its quite alright for no reason to go and invade a country, and in the process lossing many, many lives on either sides. Its unfortuante, that all of the Great presidents were assinated. Abraham Lincoln: One of the greatest Presidents in the history of the US, assinated, killed. Yet for once cant the evil ones be killed. Bush is clearly one of the worst presidents EVER, and is an evil DICTATOR himself. Sadamm was a dictator, but was it HE that sent our planes crashing into our towers. NO!!! Where's the man that actually did this all! Where is Bin Laden. I know he's still out there, alive, preparing for plan B. He'll make us all pay for focusing on Sadamm, and Iraq, and not trying to get the real culprit, the real murderer. You can be sure of that. They'll never find him. We turned are attention to Iraq, because Bush had his own personal reasons with Sadamm, therefor letting Osma escape.
This is the day i say: NOT proud to be an American. :(
I'm deeply ashamed of what this country has become: a dictatorship :sad:

Clara Bow
06-26-2004, 05:42 AM
But, yes, the U.S. would have been better off it slavery could have been ended without a Civil War. If the issues could have been settled peacefully it would have been better. This country and particularly the southern states suffered for more than a half century from the effects of that war. To some extent we feel the effects still.

Had slavery been ended through the will of the people, it might have also been better for the decendents of the slaves.

Sorry- but I have to disagree- slavery was not ending that way, they tried for decades. There had been efforts to end slavery in a diplomatic way for years. Therefore there needed to be a war. I grew up in the South from a family who has been there a long time (yes I was a deb)...fled to Chicago... where my heart now lies...and all I can tell you is that slavery needed to end as soon as it could. If a war ended it- thank ye mighty gawds. Slavery needed to end as quickly as possible and if war happened as a result- well then that's the most noble reason and the most true reason for war that exists. One of my to be bridesmaids is a true descendent of slaves (her family is being interviewed for a fantastic oral history project btw) and I do not think that she or frankly anyone of my chums would think that the Civil War was bad. Anything that really helped end the oppression of a whole group of humankind is imo a very, very good thing.

Sorry to go off on a tangent......

06-26-2004, 06:40 AM
Peace required. I like Clinton

06-27-2004, 09:37 PM
this thread is full of ignorance and arrogance