World Opinion on the result of 2004 election

[graphic7]

Or maybe it means if you're a bad catholic you lose... :rofl:

Although, Bush did win, you just admit how close of an election it was. It's not like Bush just blew Kerry away. Now, there's even more division in America. Enjoy.

Keep in mind that the majority of voters that voted for Bush voted for him because of his 'moral values' and 'faith,' whereas the majority of people that voted for Kerry voted for him because of 'future change' and 'intelligence.' Which one sounds more sensible?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[MiGUi]

"The only thing Aznar (which was, indeed, on economic grounds a "good" PM) wanted to do was to please the US"

Oh surely... and also the newspapers says always the truth, no manipulation...

 

[russ_watters]

Although, Bush did win, you just admit how close of an election it was. It's not like Bush just blew Kerry away. Now, there's even more division in America. Enjoy.

It was close - everyone knew it would be close...but it wasn't as close as the last one and at least this time Bush had a clear majority of the popular vote (which isn't really relevant except that it was something to whine about last time).

 

[vanesch]

Objective analysis is lacking, all-too easy Bush-bashing is omnipresent.
Perhaps French media is somewhat better; from my knowledge of British&German newspapers, I would be pleasantly surprised if it were so.

Right now, this is true. But it is the consequence of a long history. I have to say that in more intellectual french magazines (like nouvel observateur, or le monde diplomatique), over the years, a very thorough analysis of the politics of Bush was present, even if it might not be 100% objective. After 9/11, during the Afghan war, there was even some sympathy (although certain aspects of the war could be open to critique, the overall principle was agreed with) for Bush.
However, his statements about "the axis of evil", the "*crusade* against terrorism" and of course his war in Iraq were analysed correctly as not so very different from the way of thinking and handling of a ME bearded religious zealot who goes about and kills and destroys what, according to his god, is bad and evil. It is not so much the specific action, it is the way of thinking and handling that was analysed to be very shocking for the guy in the white house.
After that, there have of course been shortcuts and cheap namecalling, but it was the result of a long analysis, and not just taken out of the air.
There are two completely different approaches to politics. One approach (which is typically french, I'd say, but quite european too) is that the idea is more important than the deed. Although some pragmatism is permitted, the guiding idea has to be of a high standard, and based on an enlightened humanism. The other one is Machiavellistic. Bush seems to have failed on both!

So I think that the anti-Bush mentality in Europe has grown and was based on a deeper analysis than you seem to suggest. But once he got his (IMHO deserved) reputation of course...

 

[vanesch]

Keep in mind that the majority of voters that voted for Bush voted for him because of his 'moral values' and 'faith,' whereas the majority of people that voted for Kerry voted for him because of 'future change' and 'intelligence.' Which one sounds more sensible?

It is this which is so frightening! You know that in 2002, there has been an "accident" during the election of the French president: it is a 2-tour system, and the 2 candidates for the second round were not, a "left winger" (former prime minister Jospin) and a "right winger" (former president Chirac), but due to several independent left-wing candidates, it turned out to be Chirac versus "Le Pen" (a neo nazi, although I'm not supposed to say so) !
So all of left-wing france called to vote for their traditional opponent, namely Chirac.
The second round determined the "stupidity level" of the french people, (namely the vote record of Le Pen) and it turned out to be 18% (Chirac won with 82 percent).
I cannot help but think that the stupidity level of the american voters turns around 51 %

 

[Clausius2]

Brainwashing works two ways; in Europe, we're almost indoctrinated into believing Republicans to be bad and Democrats to be good.

Yes it is so. But not wherever you go. For instance, surely British are supporters of Republicans, and Putin has made campaingn in favour of Bush.
But you're right in some way: here the USA Republicanism is viewed like something pre-historic.

Our current president is a completely incompetent whose campaign was full of antiamerican content.

AMÉN!

Anyway, behind the apparent european opinion about USA life, there is something hidden. All of us look up to your national sense of nation. In particular, when a pair of days have passed after the elections, and whoever has won, you will be keeping on being an UNITED country. That makes USA greater over any other country in the world.

Maybe you live in ignorance (as a lot of people say here in Europe), but the case that's true, at least you live all united. This is a fantastic thing, and I think modestly it has been the reason of your power all over the world.

Congratulations everybody.

 

[vanesch]

Maybe you live in ignorance (as a lot of people say here in Europe), but the case that's true, at least you live all united. This is a fantastic thing, and I think modestly it has been the reason of your power all over the world.

Well, it is about time that you realize that Europe should take this opportunity to unite, now that we have an isolated fool fighting his desert wars on the other side of the pond, and give some real power to that ridiculous parliament in Strasbourg. But there are a few gamebreakers. There was Aznar, and there's still Blair and that circus artist in Rome to get rid off, but I think Europe is getting in better shape overall. However, 4 years is short to do much, it is a long and delicate game. But hey, maybe after that, they'll elect Rumsfeld for president: that'll give us 8 more years to get stronger :tongue2: :tongue2:

 

[Clausius2]

Well, it is about time that you realize that Europe should take this opportunity to unite, now that we have an isolated fool fighting his desert wars on the other side of the pond, and give some real power to that ridiculous parliament in Strasbourg.

Yes you're right. I wish we were such a united people. But...

But there are a few gamebreakers. There was Aznar, and there's still Blair and that circus artist in Rome to get rid off

here you are wrong and out of game. When Aznar was president of Spain, he didn't agree with the recent settled European Constitution because Germany (Schröeder) and France (Chirac) were claiming for benefits and additional power that were not appropiated to their poor economic position into Europe. Aznar want not to firm a Constitution being in secondary plane, because Spain reached the best economic figures of the EU. He was a businessman, and not the personal dog of France and Germany. They are the real gamebreakers here.

EDIT: I have just look at your location, so: you're the real gamebreakers here :tongue2: .

 

[GENIERE]

While waiting in line at the polls, talking to a few Kerry supporters, I found no one cared what the citizens of France or their government think!

 

[vanesch]

here you are wrong and out of game. When Aznar was president of Spain, he didn't agree with the recent settled European Constitution because Germany (Schröeder) and France (Chirac) were claiming for benefits and additional power that were not appropiated to their poor economic position into Europe.

But it is exactly this attitude which breaks the dynamics. The part of Europe that is lacking is not the economic part, but the social and political part. Of course any country will always think it didn't get a fair part of the cake, and you can discuss endlessly about such things. If in the long run there will be a more united Europe, it won't matter what powers exactly are given to what country. This can and will evolve. The fair deal will probably be, in the long run, that there is proportionality to demography, and certainly not to economic power. But if you start nitpicking about how to cut up the cake from the start, there won't be a united Europe in the end. Again, it is not who gets what which is important, it are the guiding ideas which matter. Having a constitution, and having a real parliament which can vote laws, and can appoint a the commission should be a minimum. Even if the constitution is not 100% ok.
The US has always succeeded in playing the leading role - even within Europe - which has always opposed a "loyalty towards the European construction" to a "loyalty towards big boy US". The current situation is exceptional, in that _for once_ they isolated themselves so much that there can be a dynamics over here. Moreover, Europe seems now to be the only alternative to bring out a real, intelligent politics in the middle east. So let's not nitpick and go ahead with it!

 

[vanesch]

While waiting in line at the polls, talking to a few Kerry supporters, I found no one cared what the citizens of France or their government think!

Why should they care ??

 

[Clausius2]

You are saying what it should be (and heaven I agree!), but not what is, and how it has to be settled. See:

Of course any country will always think it didn't get a fair part of the cake, and you can discuss endlessly about such things.

Do you know what the hell has made Zapatero? He smiled at Chirac and Schroder and got his trousers down ready to being f...ed. Now, Europe has been constructed under the dictatorship of those two countries who have the majority of the votes in the parliament, by the way that event has been enhanced by Zapatero in his race for counteracting all what Aznar made.

This can and will evolve. The fair deal will probably be, in the long run, that there is proportionality to demography, and certainly not to economic power.

I don't want that, because if so, Europe will be dominated by Turkey in a few years. The Hell, isn't it?

But if you start nitpicking about how to cut up the cake from the start, there won't be a united Europe in the end.

Sure, France and Germany should pay attention to improve their economics instead of wanting to be the workhorse without any reason, or simply by means of a large number of inhabbitants. Zapatero should wake up from his dream in the clouds, and take land and try to play an important role in Europe, at the same time he make strong again our links with USA and not critizising Bush at the corners. And Berlusconi should leave to help Bush at the same time he smiles France and Germany and put Aznar on the fire. And Tony Blair and GB have to end its eternal love affair with USA, because they seem a small USA in Europe.

 

[vanesch]

I don't want that, because if so, Europe will be dominated by Turkey in a few years. The Hell, isn't it?

Hehehe. So there are first-rate Europeans, and second-rate Europeans, then ?

Ok, then. Let us say: demography times the number of years that the country is part of the European union, squared
:rofl: :rofl:

 

[motai]

One thing I'd really like to know is, what do Americans see in Bush that the rest of the world doesn't? Do Americans like his cowboy attitude? His simplistic reasoning ability?

"Don't mess with Texas." Definitely a gun-totin' yeehaw cowboy. He attracts many of the right-wing conservative christians and, like many Republicans, puts morality higher than personal freedom. Most of his constituents tend to be poor, anglo-saxons and the rich elite (making broad generalizations here). What I find ironic is that these people support him even though he wants to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Its probably because they can relate to Bush far better than the tall-faced Kerry. After all, he is their "good ol' boy."

At least Bush makes up silly words, such as "strategery", "bilateralations", and other "hispanically"-spoken words. :tongue2:

 

[Political Prodigy]

It seems that while many people in the world, are opposed to President Bush and his policies, most people have been able to keep their feeling towards the American admin and the American people separate. This could be because most non-Americans believe that Americans just didn't know what they were getting when they voted Bush in the first time.

However, if Americans are to vote Bush again, people in the world may be more likely to hold the American people responsible for Bush being in office. What I'm getting at is, does anyone believe that a Bush re-election will lead to more anti-Americanism among moderate citizens of the world.

Sadly, many people in the world are already anti-american and Bush not getting re-elected would not have helped the problem all that much. Many countries criticize us. Believe me. From liberal to conservative, right wing to left, with moderates and independents in between, we know what we are doing.

To this day, I can still say that I've never met an American I didn't like (granted I've never personally met any American who claims to support Bush, or to have voted for him the first time around). I doubt that will change whatever the outcome of this election, but I'm sure that if Bush wins I'll find myself somewhat disappointed by my southerly neighbors.

Hi, my names Political Prodigy and I'm new here. You can call me Nick. I like reading, writing, politics, biology, etc. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush each time he ran. So how about it Revelator?

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

I hope that Bush would be another Lyndon Johnson in his next four years. I think the American people are even misguided to think that Bush can fight a better war on terror. You can't win those guys by force alone.

 

[BobG]

So, did the British paper "Guardian" help swing Ohio over to Bush?

Obviously not, since with a 130,000 margin of victory, the swing in Clark County's vote was a drop in the bucket. Humorous, none the less.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109217/

 

[Political Prodigy]

I hope that Bush would be another Lyndon Johnson in his next four years. I think the American people are even misguided to think that Bush can fight a better war on terror. You can't win those guys by force alone.

Why do you not think Bush can lead a better war on terror? I am just curious.

 

[revelator]

I hope that Bush would be another Lyndon Johnson in his next four years. I think the American people are even misguided to think that Bush can fight a better war on terror. You can't win those guys by force alone.

There's the saying that goes something along the lines of, If your not winning by force alone, then your simply not using enough.

Not that I agree with such thinking :P.

Hi, my names Political Prodigy and I'm new here. You can call me Nick. I like reading, writing, politics, biology, etc. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush each time he ran. So how about it Revelator?

I meant in person, but this works for me. I'm Keith. I too like reading and most science, obviously I am also interested in politics. I tend to vote liberal/left but have voted conservative on occasion. I agree with fiscal responsibility as do most conservatives, but vote liberal on account of social issues. Good to know you Political Prodigy.

 

[Tigers2B1]

...Definitely a gun-totin' yeehaw cowboy...

Here you go -

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/donkey500.jpg