Why do people still support Bush?

To honestly try to answer your question without being arguementitive, very truthfuly, I don't know.

But, I can take a good guess. For one thing, I know I have never been asked to participate in one of their polls. Have any of you? Probably not.

So, first of all, even if the poll numbers are accurate, since not everybody is invited to express their opinion in those polls, the polls themselves are not accurate due to not taking into consideration all or even most of the people.

The other reason why if that 29 - 35% whatever it is right now supports Bush, and they probably do, is that they are War Profiteers. You know, Boing, Lockheed, Haliburton, all the mercenery(sp?) companies that are not Military, but go and attempt to act as such, sometimes with no oversight by anyone, therefore making it extremely easy for them to basically rip off Iraq, rip off just about anyone they please with no accountability.

And I'm sure that there are numerous other like minded companies and perhaps some individuals who are raking it in because of the war, and will continue to profit as long as there is war. So, IMO, the majority of the current Bush supporters are the types I just mentioned, and theiy would support any president who would keep the country at war so that they continue to profit.

Make any sense? Not everyone is nice, ethical or moral, but they have no problem with greed.

It is only slightly less than blatently obvious what your views of Mr. Bush are. OK, fine, more power to you.

Ok, fine, he's wrong. What would you have done differently? Your job as President of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America, not the UN. Not the European Union. The United States of America.

The reason so many of us supported Mr. Bush is that he was the best man for the job that was presented to the American voter. Had the democrats offered a better choice to the American voter, he or she would have won. But golly gee whiz, they offered yet another Northeastern Liberal, who proceeded to turnoff the western half of the nation, and most of the south. Big shock.

I have issues with Mr. Bush, sure. Just like I have issues with every President who has served in my voting lifetime. Not one of them has been a saint, not one of them has been the epitemy of evil either. They were, and are, merely men trying to do an impossible job to the best of their ability. They deserve our support, if nothing else.

Ummm...not all of us who support the President are War Profiteers. I don't think I've made a cent off of the war, thank you kindly.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by seagull]

First of all, let me say that I support Bush and his administration very much. They have battled against some of the most critical moments in our nation's history, such as 9/11. I applaud Bush for his perseverance and his reluctance to compromise with his political opponents, whose goal is only to taint his presidency in any manner possible. This administration's efforts in the middle-east are admirable and someday will be seen as a true accomplishment.

Despite all the conspiracy theories running amuck on the internet and in the media I'm glad to say that this administration is still on its feet and will continue to work for america's future

You have completely missed the point of this thread.

Originally posted by seagull
Ummm...not all of us who support the President are War Profiteers. I don't think I've made a cent off of the war, thank you kindly.

My appologies. Nothing is absolute, or 100%. Although I still believe that the majority of those who are invited to participate in the "polls that count" are indeed War Profiteers, that is how I should have phrased it, "The majority of them [......]"

Originally posted by rizla
You have completely missed the point of this thread.

Just wondering, there have been several people who have contributed to this thread, and all have not completely parroted each other. Just who are you referring to?

Originally posted by rizla
You have completely missed the point of this thread.

And you seem to have completed missed the point of this discussion board.

Ignoring and shutting out an entire spectrum of opinion is hardly sensible, and asking non-bush supporters why people support bush is pretty silly also. Anyone who is not a bush supporter can only speculate as to why someone supports him, the actual bush supporters can state why they support him.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but why cut off the people that can straighforwardly state why they support him? Otherwise you just get bad ideas, like that its only people on his payroll that support him.

Originally posted by Sandman210372
Car,

Originally posted by Carseller4
Can you give Bush credit for the fact the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11/01?

If you can't then the media has you right where they want you.

Can you tell me when the US was attacked prior to 11/09/01?

Cheers

S

errrrrr.... December 7th, 1941??

Sending a 30 dollar per hour IT job to india and creating three 8 dollar per hour jobs at walmart, burger king and a parking lot kiosk is not helping. Not from my point of view anyways.


A treasonous failure this man is but thats up to Americans to deal with. I say hang him from the tallest oak you got in DC.

In the final analysis, the only polls in the USA that mean a hill of beans are those taken on election day.

And here's a theory to chew on, Bush supporters have some genetic predisposition, some chemical makeup, some difference in cerebral structure that causes it. Maybe there are other similarities too, possibly a large percentage of Bush supporters also are supportive of other things/ideas. It would make a good survey. For instance, of Bush supporters, how many of you 1. support gay marriage? 2. support abortion on demand? 3. support gun control? 4. support excessive tax and spend policies? 5. support endless attacks and attempts to dishonor, disgrace, and degredate US military personnell.........get it now, pal?

Can you give Bush credit for the fact the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11/01?

thats almost funny.

Originally posted by Census
Sending a 30 dollar per hour IT job to india and creating three 8 dollar per hour jobs at walmart, burger king and a parking lot kiosk is not helping. Not from my point of view anyways.

And creating a minimum wage didn't help the wage-payers, from their point of view. By opening up the markets between the US states, and stripping down barriers to interstate trade, the union of states as a group benefited. By stripping down the barriers to inter-national trade and opening up the markets between nations, the economy as a whole will benefit. Besides, what right does a person have to a 30$/hour job? None. You can't make a law to prevent a business from looking for most work for the lowest pay, any more than you can make a law preventing people from looking for the best product for the lowest price.

Fox News tells us George W. Bush is a God. He is doing the best he can at fixing problems he created. Why should we not believe them. They are "Fair and Balanced". By the way, Fox News has a lot of hotties on its network. Thats 90% why people watch it.

Perhaps, but since 85% of statistics are made up on the spot, we can't be sure.

No trust me, people watch Fox News so they can see all of the short skirt, blond headed hotties. Every so often they will throw in a brunette, but stick with tradition, keep the blonds. Thats really the only reason i watch it. Eddy is a knock out, but confused. Fox News, stick with the leather and short skirts, keep those ratings up. 95%

Originally posted by Nygdan
And creating a minimum wage didn't help the wage-payers, from their point of view.

Well, that's certainly true, for what it's worth.

By opening up the markets between the US states, and stripping down barriers to interstate trade, the union of states as a group benefited. By stripping down the barriers to inter-national trade and opening up the markets between nations, the economy as a whole will benefit.

Sure -- just as soon as all the countries we trade with are operating under labor, environmental, and product-safety laws comparable to our own, as of course all the U.S. states do. Until then, however, unrestricted trade between the U.S. and poor countries with oppressive governments will only serve to drive everything down to the lowest common demoninator, and we will lose out.

Except, as you noted, those who live off other people's labor rather than their own.

Besides, what right does a person have to a 30$/hour job? None.

I disagree vehemently. Or rather, I would say that a person has a right to fair share of our collective-produced wealth commensurate with his contribution. And to manipulate international treaties or immigration policy so as to glut the labor market and drive wages down is a violation of that right. And that is exactly what the practice you are defending involves.

You can't make a law to prevent a business from looking for most work for the lowest pay

No, but you can make laws restricting the depths to which that can drive the income of ordinary people. Or, of course, you can make other laws that encourage it.

Now, since this thread is about Bush, I should add that this economic disaster in process did not begin with him. It began with Ronald Reagan. And no president since Reagan left office has seen fit to reverse it. Mr. Bush's predecessor, a Democrat, actually accelerated it by negotiating the NAFTA treaty. So there is plenty of blame to go around, and Bush should not have to carry all or even most of it.

People support Bush…because. Fill in the blank.
My 2 cents is that it’s because 99.99% of people don’t know diddly squat about anything and support Bush for very a vast array of reasons mostly related to their emotional treatment as children and how much of that baggage is still being carried around as an adult. Depending on how you frame things, bush can be anything to anyone. I suspect he has very little support from any normal human being and that anyone who still supports him also thinks that we Canadians live in Igloos.
I’ve never met a single person who supports Bush. Where are these people, who are these people? I suspect that for the most part of the 20-30% of people who support bush have an economic interest to do so.

Thank you, so very much, Liquidlove, for describing over 50% of the voting public as abnormal. Your idea of normal is? You did happen to notice that Mr. Bush, like him or not, did get over fifty percent of the vote?

People did indeed vote for him for a multitude of reasons. Most had an issue or two on their mind when they voted for him. And hey, they did indeed know diddlysquat.

I didn't vote for him the second time around because I happened to disagree with more than I agreed. Just because my guy lost, doesn't make those who voted for Mr. Bush abnormal. Boy do I look forward to your ideas of normality. If such a thing even exists.

You mean you don't live in an igloo . Another cherished notion dashed upon the hard rocks of reality . .

[edit on 8-6-2006 by seagull]

Originally posted by seagull
Thank you, so very much, Liquidlove, for describing over 50% of the voting public as abnormal.

I read over his post, and it seemed clear to me that he consistently used the present tense. Also:

You did happen to notice that Mr. Bush, like him or not, did get over fifty percent of the vote?

No, he just got more votes than Kerry did. In other words, this time he actually won. However, less than a majority of those who voted voted for Bush, and less than a majority of the voting public voted. So Bush's vote was a plurality (not a majority) of a minority of the voting public -- I would say around 25%, although to be exact I'd need to look up the stats.

What's more, I am reasonably certain that at this point a lot of those who voted for him in '04 don't support him any more (if they ever really did). And as I said, Liquidlove did word his post in the present tense, not the past.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
However, less than a majority of those who voted voted for Bush..

Bush Wins Second Term
Bush claimed 51 percent of the popular vote to Kerry's 48 percent...

So how is 51% not a majority? Last time I checked, anything over 50 makes a majority.



[edit on 6/8/2006 by eaglewingz]