Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people still support Bush?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I see Ann Coulter's (that's a french name I think) new book is #1 on Amazon. Good to see the educational system is working...




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

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


You're right. I stand corrected.

However, it makes no difference, since Seagull had claimed Bush was supported by a majority of the voting public. Since most of the voting public didn't vote, that statement wasn't true.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Since most of the voting public didn't vote


I think you mean most of the registered public didn't vote.
The voting public voted, thus the name.

So yes, 51% of the voting public voted for Bush. Seagull is correct.

Edit : Even most of the voting-age population voted in 2004. So a majority turned out any way you slice it



Sixty-four percent of U.S. citizens age 18 and over voted in the 2004 presidential election


[edit on 6/8/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I think you mean most of the registered public didn't vote.
The voting public voted, thus the name.

So yes, 51% of the voting public voted for Bush. Seagull is correct.


No, he's not, because he was using that argument to refute someone else's implied characterization of Bush supporters as "not normal." Seagull was claiming that a majority of Americans must by definition be "normal." For that argument to hold water, the Bush "supporters" indicated by those who voted for him must constitute a majority, not only of those who actually voted, but of those who could have done so.

They did not. So Seagull was wrong.

Incidentally, 51% of 51% is 26.01%, so that's what proportion of voting-age American citizens indicated their "support" for Bush in 2004. Of those who voted for Bush, how many were actually "Bush supporters" as opposed to lesser-of-two-evils voters? Impossible to say with certainty, of course, but if we say that half of the Bush voters actually supported him, then that means he had the support of 13% of the eligible voting public. Not very impressive, really. And it certainly leaves open (although unproven) the charge that these people are "not normal."

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Oops, now I see the disconnect between the discussion of the current polls and the election. My bad.

Time for bed


[edit on 6/9/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, he's not, because he was using that argument to refute someone else's implied characterization of Bush supporters as "not normal." Seagull was claiming that a majority of Americans must by definition be "normal." For that argument to hold water, the Bush "supporters" indicated by those who voted for him must constitute a majority, not only of those who actually voted, but of those who could have done so.


It might be more accurate to say statistically normal.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Its usually the hardcore religous fanatics and rich people who support him. Even most serious hard-core conservative I know think he has gone beyond acceptability, especially given that most conservatives tend to be more isolationist.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
why so I support President Bush? Because he is my president and as such deserves my support. Do I agree with him not always. However, he is a man trying to do a difficult job as best he can. He is not as the Bush bashers would have it the source of all that is evil nor is he the greatest president we've ever had or ever will have. I am like most people I know I will vote for the person who I believe will do the best job for my country and my familiy. You notice I said my country not the United Nations, European Union or any other group. It is the elected representives of this nation job to protect and defend the United States just as other countries leadership is supposed to protect and defend their country.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
why so I support President Bush? Because he is my president and as such deserves my support...You notice I said my country not the United Nations, European Union or any other group.


Interesting. So Bush support is connected to nationalism/tribalism. However, I doubt all of the above is true. Would you support Hitler if he were your president? Or Clinton? In any case, this outlook is very unsophisticated and immature and gives insight into why people support Bush.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Risla,
It is very obvious to me that you are unable to accept that other people may have view that differ from yours and that is very sad. Your insults do you no credit. As a matter of fact I didn't vote for Clinton either time he ran but once he won the election I supported him as my President as is right and proper. Just so you know I served in the military with Mr. Clinton as my commander in chief and still didn't agree with all his decisions. That's the beauty of our system we don't have to agree and at the end of the person's term of office if the majority of voters don't like them that person is voted out.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well, I'm able to accept you have an alternative viewpoint. However, I must draw a line with relativism and say your viewpoint is wrong. Would you support Hitler?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Well, I'm able to accept you have an alternative viewpoint. However, I must draw a line with relativism and say your viewpoint is wrong. Would you support Hitler?
So not the point are you trying to compare Bush to Hitler if so please give proof. You may certainly say my view is wrong that is your right just as I may say as I do that your view is wrong. I therefore, suggest that we simply agree to disagree. I fear I just can't get as angry about your views and you seem to about mine your views just don't mean that much to me. Have a great day.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
why so I support President Bush? Because he is my president and as such deserves my support.


Just answer the question: Would you support Hitler if he was your president because he was your president?

No, of course you wouldn't. So you're above argument is flawed. We do not support someone because he is our president if he is a lunatic. Or dangerous. Or dreadful at his job.

So why do you say such things?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

You're right. I stand corrected.

However, it makes no difference,.......


Very insightful. Hard logic to dispute there. However using your rationale no elected official in America would have ever garnered over 50% Majority of the voting eligible population.

Personally, I think those that were not happy with Bush's first and second elections have tried to explain their loses in the most banal of ways.

1. Those that voted for Bush were idiots.
2. Bush stole the election. Bush rigged the election. There is no way Gore/Kerry should have lost.
3. He won but didn't get the majority of the votes, therefore he really lost.
3. The "profiteers' voted and kept him in office.
4. People that support or voted for Bush are not "normal".
5. People that voted for Bush are knee jerk conservatives who can't think for themselves.

I've heard more, but they will do as examples.

Very stereotypical in my book if you ask me. Make your opposition sound inferior and even if you lose ......it's not your fault.

Face facts, the Democratic Party Platform has not been a National winning ticket in recent years. What does the Democratic party stand for, not against? I asked this question to dyed in the wool democrats in Nov. 2000 MULTIPLE times and got silent, blank stares. That speaks volumes. My favorite question was "What would Kerry do when the next terrorist strike happens?" ....they couldn't answer me with any conviction.

Here's a hint, next election the Democrats won't be running against Bush. Select the candidate who will actually not only win the Democratic primaries but also resonate nationwide with ALL voters. On top of that, go out and actually VOTE!
Of course in their minds they will still run against Bush rather than FOR themselves. It's hard for many to vote for people that ridicule and disparage their opponents.

And yes, I did vote for Bush so you may discard my viewpoint, since that is not what you want to hear.

After all, it's not the....

The Argument Sketch



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
2. Bush stole the election. Bush rigged the election. There is no way Gore/Kerry should have lost.
3. He won but didn't get the majority of the votes, therefore he really lost.
3. The "profiteers' voted and kept him in office.


Well, the democratic candidates in the last two elections did get more votes. Bush was selected the first time, wrongly. In the second it now seems Ohio suffered huge vote fraud.


Originally posted by pavil
4. People that support or voted for Bush are not "normal".
5. People that voted for Bush are knee jerk conservatives who can't think for themselves.


This is something I am examining in this thread. I'm not asking are they abnormal or are they knee-jerk conservatives. Rather, I'm asking why are they _insert-description_here_.


Originally posted by pavil
What does the Democratic party stand for, not against?


Please stick to the thread point. This is not a partisan thread. Disagreement with Bush does not implicitly mean support for Democrats.


Originally posted by pavil
And yes, I did vote for Bush so you may discard my viewpoint, since that is not what you want to hear.



Not at all. Your contributuon to the thread is indirectly useful. While you offer no direct insight into why someone would support the 'man' (I use the term in its widest possible sense), you do give us an example to study.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Also, it should be noted that "support" is not equivalent to "voted for." Many people probably voted for Bush because they didn't like Gore or Kerry, and vice-versa. I voted for Kerry in the last election, but I was certainly not a "Kerry supporter." I just really, really, really didn't like Bush. The Democrats could have nominated a corpse and he'd have gotten my vote. (Actually, some would say that's exactly what happened.)

Current polls suggest that a very large majority of Americans do not approve of the job Bush is doing as president. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong here, please) that this thread was directed at the majority who do approve of the job he's doing, and the question is: why do you? What is he doing that you like or approve of?

There's no reason to get defensive about it. It's just curiosity.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Well, the democratic candidates in the last two elections did get more votes. Bush was selected the first time, wrongly. In the second it now seems Ohio suffered huge vote fraud.


Bush won the electoral college both times and the popular vote the last election... please do a little research if you doubt my statement. 2004 Election



Please stick to the thread point. This is not a partisan thread. Disagreement with Bush does not implicitly mean support for Democrats.


How is this not a partisan thread. Look at the verbal bombs you have been dropping. Namecalling is never a very productive way to have a discussion.

I am on topic. The Democrats have not put forth a candidate who resonates with Middle America. That is why they have lost the last two presidential elections and is the reason that some support Bush. Whoever resonates with that group the best is the the party that will win the election. Clinton and Reagan had it.... Bush Sr. and Kerry did not.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There's no reason to get defensive about it. It's just curiosity.


It's not being defensive. I just get tired very quickly over all of the namecalling and heaped on insults that seem to continually occur. Can't just agree to disagree ..... the other side must be crazy / morons attitude just angers me to no end. I treat the opposing view civility, should I not expect the same?

Like it or not, Bush has a vision of America that he sticks to with a narrow focus. Many voters in America like a President who can steer the nation rather than having it just float here and there. Look at successful Presidents; FDR and Reagan for example, they knew what they wanted to accomplish focused on that.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I think people support Bush who are rich. Point blank. The money that they have, as long as it keeps making them more money, they will remain quiet. When they, or there loved ones face the dangers of opposing the Administration, then only then, will the lights come on. Most supporters are also ignorant and take the Administrations words/actions as gospel. There is no real support, it's just blind ignorance. I honestly don't know any supporters. What is scary, is the bumper sticker days are over. You wear an impeach Bush or Cheney bumper sticker, or a t-shirt, and you'll be marked as a terrorist. It's a shame so many people are scared. It's not right. Keep on suppporting.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   


and less than a majority of the voting public voted.


Who's fault is that then? I know the liberals tried every which way they could to drive people into the voting booths with the most negative view of the President they could possibly muster. Speaking of conspiracies, heres one for you, MTV pushing liberal agendas on Americas youth every 30 minutes, including sending out fake draft cards with Rumsfields signature on them to college kids, trying to imply the "impending" draft that Bush would institute. You also have Michael Moore making the biggest docu-drama of the year, and admitting to releasing just before election time in order to influence the election. You have CNN, NBC, CBS, ect. pushing Kerry and his ketchup eating wife down our throats, and Bush still won. I think the election would have almost been a landslide for the Republicans if they didn't have all the negative factors.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
@ gallopinghordes - "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join