Who the hell likes Bush and why?

[SeizureDog]

I dont understand it. Everywhere I look: internet, tv, friends, random people. No one seems to like Bush. Yet somehow he's got a 65% approval rating? What the hell? Are these people just blind to all the crap he's gotten us into? So where are these mysterious supporters?

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I'm a bush supporter. I think that he's done a decent job. People felt the same way when Clinton was president, but now everyone says that he did a decent job. Many of the things that people say are horrible mistakes will turn out not to be as bad as they thought. The other thing is that most people look at it as Bush as opposed to some other Democrat. Most of Bushs support comes from people who support Republicans without regard to their individual capabilities on the basis that they would rather have a person who shares their ideology than someone more capable with a different ideology.

[CaptainPeepers]

I support bush. you can't blame him because some Arab crashed a plane into the WTC. even though he got us into alot of crap in Iraq, I still support him. he did a good job.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/18/04 09:44 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I'm a bush supporter. I think that he's done a decent job.

As far as furthering his political ideologies: definitely! Much more efficent, than say, Clinton.

Many of the things that people say are horrible mistakes will turn out not to be as bad as they thought.

Time will tell.

Most of Bushs support comes from people who support Republicans without regard to their individual capabilities on the basis that they would rather have a person who shares their ideology than someone more capable with a different ideology.

True that. Unless something really monumental occurs, you won't get polling numbers under, say, 45%. But where did you get your 65% number? Perhaps it's changed that much since I last heard, but are you sure your talking about his general approval rating? Or his approval rating in Iraq, or.. etc.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/18/04 09:48 PM, fhqwgads wrote: I support bush. you can't blame him because some Arab crashed a plane into the WTC.

*ahem, clears throat*
*points to all the mounting evidence before 9/11*
* points at the files the Clinton administration had passed along*
*points at the 'Homeland Security' that democrats had wanted to create before 9/11
*is escorted away by suited men*

[Raptorman]

I support Bush, with reservations. He holds the cards to what could be the strongest issue in the upcoming election: National Defence. I have been and still am a supporter of the Gulf war (also with reservations) and I belive he is the best man to carry through on the job. However, he does pose a few problems for me with things like fiscal responsibility. This is not the huge problem that some people try to paint it as but large deficit spending cannot continue indefinitely, the belt must be tightened at some point. His constant pandering the religious right kind of annoys me as well. This has been mostly just words with very little legislation involved but still, those people just bug me.

Among the Dems I did like Lieberman, his stances were strong and consistent but he lacked the fire and the message that would get him nominated. Dean also had some policies that I liked but not the temperament to hold control of the country. John Edwards has impressive charisma and energy. I think his star is rising but I don't know enough about him, the jury is still out. The presumptive candidate, Kerry is a stiff suit. He served honorably and with distinction in wartime but doesn't seem to be much good when nobody is shooting at him.

The election is still a ways off but it looks like I will go Bush by default. Who knows, maybe I'll write in McCain again. I still like that guy.

[Commander-K25]

Although not exactly a supporter, I don't think he's as bad as many believe. He is neither stupid nor tyrannical; The wisdom and effectiveness of his policies will, like all presidents, be judged by history and not Hollywood actors or leftist authors.

Many people deride him for his appearance or his public-speaking skills. Yet, these are not valid political issues nor do they speak to his intelligence or policies. People that expound these sorts of trivial details only prove that they are not really concerned with politics or rational thought. I would also remind these people that many presidents have had poor public speaking skills, (people such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln), and that few people in their 50s are particularly handsome.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/18/04 10:11 PM, Raptorman wrote: I support Bush, with reservations.

Best way to support anyone!

However, he does pose a few problems for me with things like fiscal responsibility.

Me too.

This has been mostly just words with very little legislation involved but still, those people just bug me.

Alot of words, and more legislation than you would think. For instance, one of the first things he did when he got into office was cut all government funding to any organization which said that abortions should be allowed. Not just organizations that did abortions, or funded them. Any that simply stated that, "yes, they should be legal." A blatant cookie to the religious right.

The presumptive candidate, Kerry is a stiff suit. He served honorably and with distinction in wartime but doesn't seem to be much good when nobody is shooting at him.

Yeah, I dunno. I have mixed feelings about the guy too. I like him a hell of a lot better than the other 'serious' candidates. But then I voted for Kucinich, so what do I know?

The election is still a ways off but it looks like I will go Bush by default. Who knows, maybe I'll write in McCain again. I still like that guy.

Yes, vote McCain. McCain is cool. Although actually, here's what you do: see which way you'll state will go. If it's a done-deal, vote third party.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/18/04 10:25 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Many people deride him for his appearance or his public-speaking skills. Yet, these are not valid political issues nor do they speak to his intelligence or policies.

No, they don't speak to his intelligence or policies. But they're very important in contemporary politics.

People that expound these sorts of trivial details only prove that they are not really concerned with politics or rational thought.

We're talking about the electorate here. They aren't really concerned with politics or rational thought.

I would also remind these people that many presidents have had poor public speaking skills, (people such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln), and that few people in their 50s are particularly handsome.

Ah, two presidents from a long time ago. Stage presence is an important quality these days. Bush, he is a poor speaker, he looks strangely ape-ish. But who are he running against? Wooden Al.

Side note: Isn't it funny how loose Al got after the election? He grew a beard, started to dress down. That was the Al people wanted!

[Commander-K25]

At 2/18/04 10:46 PM, -redskunk- wrote: No, they don't speak to his intelligence or policies. But they're very important in contemporary politics.

Very true, but I'm talking about what matters, not 'electability'.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/18/04 10:46 PM, -redskunk- wrote: But who are he running against?

* But who was he running against?

... obviously..

[The-Darklands]

Im not a bush supporter but i was when he began as president. There were two distinct events that changed my mind, War in Iraq and The Patriot Act. Ive argued with people concerning the patriot act and some believe it wasnt bushes intention for it to be misused and directed against civilians as opposed to terrorists but the blanketing of the term terrorist and they way he drummed up support with little evidence makes me wonder. Oh yea and single-handedly turning world support away from us.

[TheShrike]

At 2/18/04 09:37 PM, Seizure_Dog wrote: So where are these mysterious supporters?

These people grab their numbers from the most favorable places and polls. An honest attempt at impartiality is not only tough, it's not profitable.

If I weren't sure you're a kid, I'd tell you to vote Democrat.

[Dagodevas]

At 2/18/04 09:37 PM, Seizure_Dog wrote: So where are these mysterious supporters?

Not here. You seem to frequent places with lots of young people and young people don't normally support Bush (or most Republicans at that matter). Birds of a feather...

[The-Darklands]

At 2/19/04 12:30 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 2/18/04 09:37 PM, Seizure_Dog wrote: So where are these mysterious supporters?

These people grab their numbers from the most favorable places and polls. An honest attempt at impartiality is not only tough, it's not profitable.

If I weren't sure you're a kid, I'd tell you to vote Democrat.

so i see shrike took an entry level statistics course, and seizure is 15. Yup, just observations oh and the fact that favorable places being a problem for accurate statistics well i assume there arent to many polls to look at besides internet sign yourself up polls. Thats like having a "do you support bush poll" on bush or chimp.com or something to the opposite effect.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/19/04 12:35 AM, miket311 wrote: well i assume there arent to many polls to look at besides internet sign yourself up polls. Thats like having a "do you support bush poll" on bush or chimp.com or something to the opposite effect.

I doubt that's how gallup and zogby do their polling. Wait, no, I'm certain it's not.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/18/04 09:48 PM, fhqwgads wrote: I support bush. you can't blame him because some Arab crashed a plane into the WTC. even though he got us into alot of crap in Iraq, I still support him. he did a good job.

I think we can blame him for the rest of the terrorist attacks you will face because of Foreign Policy.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/18/04 10:51 PM, miket311 wrote: Oh yea and single-handedly turning world support away from us.

It should be brought up by the Democrats how after Clinton, Americas word was trusted.

Now you let Bush have a 4-Year Run, the rest of the world trusts America about as far as they can throw it. Which isn't very far.

[Peter90688]

Look, the reason I tolerate Bush is because he has good intentions, yet horrible ways to go through with them. If he had his shit striaght, I'd like him even more. I dont even like him, I just respect him and tolerate him becuase of his intentions and his attitude. But, he did mess up the economy.

[TheShrike]

At 2/19/04 10:10 AM, Peter90688 wrote: Look, the reason I tolerate Bush is because he has good intentions, yet horrible ways to go through with them.

There is this saying... what is it...
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/19/04 10:10 AM, Peter90688 wrote: Look, the reason I tolerate Bush is because he has good intentions.

GOod intentions. Patriot act alone is enough for me to scoff at that. He's taking away your rights left right and centre. I'm suprised he hasn't declared martial law or stopped you voting yet.

[Raptorman]

At 2/19/04 06:20 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

I think we can blame him for the rest of the terrorist attacks you will face because of Foreign Policy.

There is one very telling statistic that no political party is willing to mention. Number of major terrorist attacks againt Americans since 9/11 : 0.

[TheHappySheep]

im english, and from what ive seen heard over here, he's a complete moron, i agree with the poster, he should be removed from office

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/19/04 01:40 PM, Raptorman wrote: There is one very telling statistic that no political party is willing to mention. Number of major terrorist attacks againt Americans since 9/11 : 0.

Well done. You've proved America has not been under Terrorist Attack, since the last terrorist attack.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 2/18/04 09:37 PM, Seizure_Dog wrote: I dont understand it. Everywhere I look: internet, tv, friends, random people. No one seems to like Bush.

So the ENTIRE population of the United States of America, including Alaska and Hawaii are posting on the internet, are on TV, and are your assorted friends and random people? Really now.

Yet somehow he's got a 65% approval rating? What the hell? Are these people just blind to all the crap he's gotten us into? So where are these mysterious supporters?

Perhaps there are people who have opinions and don't think that he's gotten "us" into crap? Perhaps that they don't feel the need to make more, and more, and many threads, webpages and the such about Bush, given that they have more important things in their life to get on with? Not everyone can afford a computer, and then spam on message boards. Not everyone can buy their way onto TV.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 2/19/04 11:01 AM, TheShrike wrote: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Likewise with bad intentions.

Maybe we all need to become hermits with a kickass computer and internet connection......

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/19/04 04:29 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: Not everyone can buy their way onto TV.

As seen by your lack of 3rd party candidates.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/19/04 04:17 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Well done. You've proved America has not been under Terrorist Attack, since the last terrorist attack.

lmao. That took skill to come to that conclusion though.

Number of terrorist attacks if Bush had heeded all of the information Clinton's administration had passed along, and created a department of homeland security, since it was originally a Clinton plan?

0.

[The-Darklands]

At 2/19/04 05:54 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

Number of terrorist attacks if Bush had heeded all of the information

0.

ha very true sadly thats very true.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/19/04 05:54 PM, -redskunk- wrote: lmao. That took skill to come to that conclusion though.

I thought that was quite an impressive quip from me.