Anyone not from the US suport Bush?

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-09-03 09:01pm

Just wondering how many non americans support Bush. I get the feeling that support for bush is pretty thin on the ground outside the US (and ten downing street of course

), but I have no idea what kind of percentages we are talking about.

Anyone have any figures stashed up their sleeves?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-09-03 09:07pm

Most on this site are anti-Bush, so you'll not likely find much support for him here. Bush supporters here are about as plentiful as those who believe Trek could beat Wars.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-03 09:08pm

Actually I think there are more TrekUberAlles guys here than Bushies.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-03 09:18pm

Comical Axi, if he is indeed from South Africa.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-03 09:32pm

The Kernel wrote:Comical Axi, if he is indeed from South Africa.

He isn't (he's a New Yorker) and I'm not entirely sure why his sig says otherwise.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-03 09:34pm

My support for bush is zero, but my support for Kerry is measured with a negative value. Vote Fuzzy!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-03 09:48pm

I actually know a couple of Canadians at my university that support Bush. One argued he'll be remembered as one of our greatest presidents!

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-03 09:57pm

I don't support Bush but neither do I particularly favour Kerry over him, Kerry seems to be even more of a protectionist than Bush is (and as much fun as hearing "EU slaps US up side of head over trade, again" is I would prefer less hassle and WTO litigation), while Bush has badly bodged up Iraq I'm not sure Kerry will do any better in the future.

Since I don't live in the US Bush's regressive social policies don't affect me, nor does his running up of the deficit (in fact I like that, weakening the Dollar and increasing concern about US investment could be a boon to the EU, as long as it doesn't progress too far) which means I really have no reason to root for Kerry since I am on the other side of the Atlantic.

I would probably view things differently if I lived in the US but looking purely at the interests of my country (and the world at large) I see little reason to actively hope for a regime change in Washington, in fact I probably favour a Bush win just because Bush being ousted may put extra pressure on Blair.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-03 10:47pm

jegs2 wrote:Most on this site are anti-Bush, so you'll not likely find much support for him here. Bush supporters here are about as plentiful as those who believe Trek could beat Wars.

And about as reasonable.

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2004-09-03 11:07pm

I'm not a supporter of Bush either, but Kerry seems like he'll do more harm than good. I particulary don't see Canada-US relations picking up at all with Kerry in charge, in fact, they'll probably go to hell with his protectionist policies. As the Darkling said, we don't live in the US, so we're not subject to any regressive social policies implemented by the current administration. America's deficit and unstable economy doesn't seem to be affecting us all that much, but if Kerry institutes his foreign policy, things are only bound to get worse. So I too have reason to dislike the idea of regime change.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-04 01:04am

While I do have some concern about Kerry's talk of trade protectionism, Bush has also been a highly protectionist president (he talks free trade, but like most of his promises, he tends to say one thing and do the other), and has been generally somewhat hostile to Canada for years now. My larger concern is with the burgeoning strength of the Religious Right movement in America, and the bleedthrough effect in Canada, particularly in the western provinces. I would even go so far as to say that George W. Bush is not the real problem; he just happens to be the man at the front of the parade right now.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-09-04 01:49am

Darth Wong wrote:I would even go so far as to say that George W. Bush is not the real problem; he just happens to be the man at the front of the parade right now.

You're not going far in saying that by any means. People have been saying since the first day of his 2000 campaign that the Bush administration isn't about Bush--its about the ideologies of the New Right and the Ancient Right coming together with him as figurehead and puppet.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-04 03:56am

When the Greens and the Reds are so patheticaly passionate in their hatred of Bush it's hard not to like him. It is especially amusing when people to stupid to get a drivers license comment on the lacking brains of an ex-fighterpilot.

Neko_Oni · Post by **Neko_Oni** » 2004-09-04 05:19am

Apparently even Bush doesn't support Bush. Bill Clinton's gone to hospital and George Dubya has wished "President Clinton" all the best.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-09-04 06:21am

Well, I'm from Sweden and I strongly support Bush. I was very skeptical towards Bush in the beginning, thinking him to be more or less a clown, but Bush has proven himself to be a man of action and drives consistent policies.
Bush acted decisively after the 9/11 attacks (regardless of what that Moore says) and acted to ensure the future safety for the American people by taking firm measures. Bush (together with the U.K, Poland and the rest of the coalition) had the courage to invade Iraq and crush Saddam Hussein's regime of terror against his own people. That no WMDs has been found yet, doesn't mean that something hasn't been hidden. Even if no WMD's are found, Saddam Hussein still had the intention of manufacture WMD's and the regime possessed blueprints for new missiles with a range longer than that was allowed by the U.N Security Council. BTW, illegal material was found, such as dismantled SCUD-missiles that were hidden beneath a soccer stadium and powerful rocket engines.
Bush is the best person to lead the world in the war against terror.
Bush also has the best policy towards Iran and North Korea.'

With Kerry, the international terrorists will get a "yes", "no" but most probably "maybe". Kerry runs his campaign by listening to opinion polls, he sways like corn in the wind. If he becomes President, he will find out that it's not as easy doing so when you're the leader. A leader must sometimes act in order to protect the public, measures that sometimes aren't that popular. Kerry is very naïve in his stand on Iran. John Edwards spoke about what he called a "great deal" that Kerry has in mind for Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _iran_dc_6). This so called "great deal" allows Iran to keep its nuclear power plants etc. if Iran agrees not to produce weapon grade nuclear material. He warns that if Iran bluffs, then the Europeans would stand by the USA. Oh, brother, what a naitivety. Iran has its own uranium mines and can covertly produce weapon grade materials.
Politics is more than National Security, but Bush has the best policies in economy, which I'm sure will show itself soon. Outsourcing is something the President must act swiftly on.
In exploration, Bush has made the most promising strives with NASA's new goals. I'm really looking forward to see them come through.
I also like Bush's emphasis on the family.

Do I think all Bush does is great then? No! What are some things that I don't agree with?
* Bush's religious stance. I'm an atheist (well, agnostic, but I don't believe in the Bible), and I think that Bush displays his faith far too much. He must realize that according to the Constitution, church and state are separate and that religious faith belongs in the private realm. Not all Americans share the same faith or don't have faith at all.

* Bush's environmental policies. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto treatment and wants to destroy forests etc. that are of national interest.

Well, this has become far too long already, but I know that if I had been an American citizen, I would vote for Bush, and I urge you to find for yourself which of the candidates (Bush of course

) that can protect America and make it prosper.
My stance is somewhat unpopular in Sweden, a country run by the Social Democrats, communists and the greens, but I do hope that Bush wins the election.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-04 06:29am

Neko_Oni wrote:Apparently even Bush doesn't support Bush. Bill Clinton's gone to hospital and George Dubya has wished "President Clinton" all the best.

Presidents are entitled to be addressed as 'Mr. President' as a courtesy title even after they leave office. Bush makes a lot of gaffes, but this isn't one of them.

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-09-04 07:15am

Bush supporters in Spain are extremely rare, although some right-wingers do so.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2004-09-04 10:11am

I can't say that I'm a great fan of Bush, but Kerry is like the US equivalent of John Major, I keep checking Kerry to see if there are strings supporting him.

And I also find it a bit sad that the main issue that seems to be brought up are what happened in Vietnam. Any sensible voter would be more concerned with their candidates (whether Republican or Democrat) policies in the here and now.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-04 10:26am

Mange, you should educate yourself on Kyoto.

It was discarded because it placed an unreasonable burden on the United States at the exclusion from exploding polluters like China and India. (The former of which, y'know, wants to build a coal power plant more powerful than Three Gorges).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-04 10:40am

* Bush's environmental policies. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto treatment and wants to destroy forests etc. that are of national interest.

Kyoto was a majorly flawed treaty that would have placed an ureasonable burden on the United States (and much of western Europe as well) and done severe economic damage while allowing Russia, China, India and other to actually increase their poplution levels. Not a particularly sensible solution to something that might not even be our, meaning human beings, fault.

And Bush doesn't want to destroy those forest by any means; that's entirely a fabrication of the eco-tard movement who see any use as destructive. He does want to selectively* log a number of national forests, which are different from national parks in that they're intended to be used, not merely preserved. And this is done for a number of reasons, formost among them to clear forests in a manner that's economically productive rather than letting them burn in massive forest fire. Given that for the last five to ten years these untouched forests have burned in massive, damaging fires that have cost tens to hundreds of millions to control, logging is a very good idea.

* Selective logging is not the clear cutting everything in sight that the eco-nazis would have one believe. A good number of trees are left in a stand as well there being measures taken to see that the area can naturally regrow (in the natural manner, as if it had been cleared by a natural phenomenon) and the forest return. It's commonly used through out America and Canada; it's a ecologically sound method of logging.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-04 11:31am

To buttress Stormbringers point, selective logging is nowhere near taking even a majority of a forests trees. The way they used to do it was clear cut whole forests. In Pennsylvania, around Pittsburgh, you'll see huge amounts of trees there now, but around the turn of the 20th century, the area around Pittsburgh looked like Kansas because loggers can clear cut everything and took down the entire forest for lumber.

Modern logging is a tad different. Nowadays, loggers go out to forests and carefully examine them and mark trees that are ready for harvest, then go in and cut them down, leaving the rest of the forest relatively untouched. IIRC, they've even build mechanical walkers that can move around in the forest on mechanical legs so to do less damage to the forest than if they rolled in with treaded machinery. They are very careful about not damaging the ecology of the forest, simply out of self-interest.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-04 11:51am

It's not just Bush that has been hated on the international front, it's any conservative candidate. I think you'll find over 3/4 of the world population outside the U.S. at any given time prefer the liberal candidate over the conservative one.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-04 12:05pm

Talon Karrde wrote:It's not just Bush that has been hated on the international front, it's any conservative candidate. I think you'll find over 3/4 of the world population outside the U.S. at any given time prefer the liberal candidate over the conservative one.

That's a bunch of bullshit and you ought to know better. It's time to drop the persecution complex, Bush is hated because he's treated American allies badly and generally acted like a jackass. His policies have been America and to hell with the rest. One can look out for national best interests with out alienating our allies; the two are not mutally exclusive.

A lot of conservative presidents have been while enough liked, or at least respected, by our friends. Certainly a conservative is not automatically a pariah as you suggest.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-09-04 12:20pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Mange, you should educate yourself on Kyoto.

It was discarded because it placed an unreasonable burden on the United States at the exclusion from exploding polluters like China and India. (The former of which, y'know, wants to build a coal power plant more powerful than Three Gorges).

I know a great deal about the Kyoto protocol, I've read the background on it and the treaty itself, it was also the issue of many debates in my political science class during my last year in university. I'm no big fan of the Kyoto protocol, and in principle I think Bush made the right decision not to sign it, it was also the stand I made during the debates. The treaty is unrealistic, but I think that President Bush should have made some concessions, or at least negotiated for some exceptions. The reason I mentioned the Kyoto protocol in my post, was to illustrate how I don't agree with the President's environmental policies, but it was kind of stupid to include it as I think President Bush made the right decision. About the logging business, what kind of euphemisms one chooses, it still is sad to see protected forests destroyed. I'm not with the Greens, but I'm still worried about the environment.
I fear what will happen in those countries you mentioned, China and India, now that the population of those countries strives for the western standard of living. It will place an enourmous strain on resources.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-04 11:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:It's not just Bush that has been hated on the international front, it's any conservative candidate. I think you'll find over 3/4 of the world population outside the U.S. at any given time prefer the liberal candidate over the conservative one.
That's a bunch of bullshit and you ought to know better. It's time to drop the persecution complex, Bush is hated because he's treated American allies badly and generally acted like a jackass. His policies have been America and to hell with the rest. One can look out for national best interests with out alienating our allies; the two are not mutally exclusive.

A lot of conservative presidents have been while enough liked, or at least respected, by our friends. Certainly a conservative is not automatically a pariah as you suggest.

HEY MORON. Don't give me this bullshit. First off, I never claimed to be "persecuted" and all that crap. Secondly, go back and check the polls. When Bush was running against Gore every country outside the U.S. except 1 if I remember correctly would have voted for Gore.

Don't act like he was liked at one point. He was never supported internationally. And don't try to pull out some "persecution" bullshit when I never brought anything up like that.