Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities 698
corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my
I hope it is made so on the 2nd.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
--trb
Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events. There is not and suggesting otherwise is a bunch of crap. Give me a break. This was a study that measured people's correlation with the study makers views.
As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were capable of forming attitudes. Who exactly defines what the "world attitude" is? It's awfully presumptious, to define any particular attitude as the "world attitude". There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, or is one that you should be "in tune with". The US couldn't possibly be in the right if it ignores the "world attitude" could it?
Kerry supporters love to conclude that because we know NOW that Iraq had no WMD's in hand that Bush "made incorrect judgments before the war" (quoting the study). That does not follow -- based on the information available AT THE TIME, he assessed the risk and was unwilling to gamble on the "No WMD" option. Kerry supported the authorization of force, so he too agreed the risk was unacceptable. Only Kerry now wants it both ways because we have better information. The only reason we got that better information was because we removed Saddam and put in 1500 inspectors for a year.
You cannot be intellectually honest and retroactively change your assessment of risk. Bush took the only course of action that guaranteed we would know Iraq would not provide WMD to terrorists.
If Kerry were in a situation where the risk was 50% that a rouge regime had WMD and the risk was 50% they would cooperate with Al Qaeda, what would Kerry do if France and Germany didn't agree? I'm not willing to risk giving the presidency to someone who wants for foreign powers to lead when uncertainty and risk are in play.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, talk about hypocrisy...
Re:Here we go again... (Score:1, Interesting)
You're a member of Mensa, which is a group that consists of people who can do really well on IQ tests. Show me a Mensa member willing to admit that it indicates this and nothing more and I will show you a socially more intelligent person.
You have a comp. sci degree, which a large percentage of readers have as well as myself. You found a job as a software engineer, congratulations.
You've read Feynman and Hawking. Great. What exactly does that add to your social/political knowledge?
You've read Ulysses. Fantastic! Reading a stream of consciousness novel lets you make more informed political decisions how again?
And based on all the information you've given above, it has made you smarter than 99.8% of the people voting for Kerry or Bush?
Re:This article is... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question now is, could it have been handled better, and is it reasonable to expect that it should have been? Much to Bush's embarassment, a sizeable chunk of the population thinks so. There was no imminent threat from Iraq, the WMD situation was much less clear than the administration claimed (especially its claims about Hussein's nonexistent nuclear weapons program), and there was time to develop a broader coalition, formulate a plan that would have minimized the looting and chaos that followed Hussein's departure, and make an honest case about why Hussein needed to go.
The problem is, there are any number of "insane assholes" running countries, each of whom would love to get themselves some nukes. There was no clear evidence that Hussein was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but what little controversial evidence existed was latched onto by this administration and presented to Americans as a clear threat.
I'm not looking for a premature pullout from Iraq. Now that we're there, the best thing we can do is get things stabilized so that Iraq can be independent. But the judgment Bush showed in taking us into war is, in my mind, proof positive that he's not the man to finish the job.
The question isn't whether we are obligated to put the interests of the world at large ahead of our own. The question is, when most of our allies are telling us an action is foolhardy and ill-conceived, we should be willing to try and make our case. If we cannot, then there may be a chance that our plan really is foolhardy.
This is what Kerry meant by a "truth test" in the first debate. We're supposed to support and respect our allies. That's why they're called allies, not enemies. We listen to them, their opinions matter to us, and they accord us the same respect. Seriously, how many times have your friends talked you out of doing something tragically stupid?
Bush wants to live in a reality of his own creation, where America is always right and the decisions of its commander-in-chief are always the best decisions that could be made. In order to continue to live in this reality, he cut himself off from the press (his famous April 14, 2004 press conference was only the third of his administration), interacts primarily with those in his very insular clique, and refuses to accept expert opinions that disagree with him. For example, in this illuminating article [nytimes.com], the author recounts an anecdote about an encounter between Bush and Congressman Tom Lantos during a roundtable on a peace plan for Israel:
I don't want resolve from my president. I don't want someone who will "hold to his view." I want someone who will accept the fact that he might not always be right.
What i find really amazing is . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
The results from the survey, broken out by question. [pipa.org]
Just in case you don't feel like rtfa, a couple examples:
53% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the International Criminal Court. We do not participate in the ICC and Bush does not think we should.
51% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the Kyoto agreement. We do not participate in the Kyoto agreement and Bush does not think we should.
20% of Bush supporters think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and 19% of Bush supporters think that Bush is telling them that.
But hey, the Republicans aren't the only uninformed people out there: 31% of Kerry supporters (36% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the Kyoto agreement and 34% of them think that Bush supports it.
39% of Kerry supporters (45% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the ICC and 45% of them think that Bush supports it.
What we can learn from this: one-third to one-half of the people out there don't know what the fuck they're talking about regardless of party affiliation, but Bush supporters are wrong slightly more often.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. We want YOU to have some control. A loose cannon is dangerous to everyone in the world. I don't particularly mind the US playing world police as long as you obey some kind of ruleset and there are some checks and balances that prevent you from just raiding anyone you feel like. A deranged chief of police is a danger to all the law-abiding citizens and neighboring counties too, you know - not just the criminals in his 'hood. You're a superpower, start acting like one instead of a spoiled frat brat. Oh, wait...
Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program? Big step forward, there. I feel much safer already.
Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, it's SOP for the GOP.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Interesting)
He talks a good talk ("axis of evil") but when you get down to how he's reshaped the Middle East politics, I think you could argue that Bush is a wet dream for the mullahs (or as he calls them, "moolahs").
First, in the wake of the Iraq invasion, the pro-democracy movement in Iran has completely stalled. Probably partly because anything American now has a real bad stain on it, partly because the world is too distracted by Iraq to put pressure on Iran, and maybe partly because people may be realizing the risks of destabilizing a government.
Second, George Bush has completely taken out one of their major rivals in the Middle East (Iraq) and there is a very strong possibility it will be replaced with a strongly pro-Shia, pro-Iranian government. Maybe that won't happen, but you've got to admit the odds are better than for having it replaced by an pro-American Western democracy.
Second, Bush has strongly limited the influence of another threat in the Middle East: the United States of America. Between keeping forces in North Korea, in Afghanistan, and being overextended in Iraq, the USA cannot take military action against Iran. Why do you think Iran suddenly developed a new foreign policy called "Screw you guys, we'll develop nukes if we want to"? They know we can't do anything. True, we could possibly send stealth aircraft in and take out their nuclear capability. But they would then agitate the hell out of the Shias, or infiltrate a bunch of guys into Iraq to make our life hell in Iraq. Well, okay, even more hell than it already is.
Re:Give me a break (Score:1, Interesting)
Kerry did not have access to the full FBI investigations of the aluminum tubes until later on - only the conclusions, which were blatantly wrong.
Kerry voted against the $87 billion because it did not allocate funds in a useful way. It included a $20 billion no bid contract for Halliburton, low funding for supplies for soldiers, and included further tax cuts for the rich. Don't forget that he voted for earlier versions of the bill that were more effective.
Try following how the law making process works sometime. Try reading different drafts of laws. Notice the subtle differences.
Say the public decides the penalties for murder need to be higher. A bill gets drafted to do this. Sounds good so far, right? Then you read the bill and notice there is an exception that prohibits people making over $1 million a year to be penalized for murder. The bill no longer sounds good, does it? If someone votes against the version of the bill with the exception, but for the version without, does that make them a flip-flopper? Does it make them bad? What about the person who voted yes to both bills - are they good because they voted for the bill both times?
Voting for one version of a bill and against another version does not make someone a flip-flopper. Blindly voting for a law based on a 1 sentence summary of it makes someone a fool. Changing your vote based on the specifics of bill shows someone that pays attention to what they do.
Re:This post is ... *not* irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
What planet are you from? Where I grew up, Democrats were lucky to be called "stupid." Usually what we get were vulgar sexual epithets.
No party is without its assholes.
An example: did Kerry call terrorists a "nuisance"? Yep. Sure did. Undeniable fact. Never mind that I've taken this out of context in order to intentionally bias the question.
Did you read the questionnaire the test subjects were given? Here, I'll copy and paste an example for you:That seems fairly phrased to me, not deliberately taking a fragment out of context. What do you think the correct answer would be? Or how do you think the question is slanted?
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
But of course, Bush is also a very different 'real' cowboy, fucking up the middle east in a very real way, with real (and unpredictable) results. But of course, you can trust Bush's gut feeling: It will all be fine, and Iraq will be America's second best friend.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:2, Interesting)
But:
Which will of course attack Europe if the United States isn't a target anymore (and the kind of fortress America I'm talking about we wouldn't be- nobody would get more than 10 meters across the border alive).
I'll grant you the latter is possible but the former is unlikely, the attacks on europeans were actually attacks on US allies, a status automoatically revoked by the fortress thing. Considering further that major european countries have significiant muslim population and sooner or later the turkish are to join the european union and the arabic countries need someone to buy their oil to support there rapidly growing population I find it highly unlikely europe's gonna be on their target list anymore. Actually Id suspect fundamentalist 'movements' to disintegrate into groups fighting for local supremacy and become pretty much self-occupied.
Of course this is speculation... and leaves one subject untouched: Israel. Closely linked can of worms, that is. But as Im speculating anyway, lets just carry on: of course Israel is the most likely target to draw the attention of al quaeda et allii. Stripped of american backing theyll be trapped in the same situation as the US is now, asymetrical warfare. Not that they wont be kinda used to it, but the scale and intensity will be increasing big time and I doubt they can hold their stand for long, with the one exception that I lack proper estimation of their nuclear potential.
Re:In tune != grasp of reality? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure Kerry supporters can be in tune with the rest of world opinion. They probably are.
But, I really don't think world opinion has come to the point where the world realizes that if Islamic fascism isn't defeated then everyone will be living under a "Talibanesque" (spelling?) regime real quick.
Already, the people of Spain have allowed Islamic fascists to decide a major election in their country.
When will the world realize the pretext these fascists live by?
When will the world realize that the only solution that will be tolerated by Islamic facists is the death of every person of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, atheist, and/or any other religious bent other than islam?
This ultimately means that the world cannot see where these evil doers want to take the world's societies.
The Islamic terrorists do not hesitate to murder anyone in their way. And if they die achieving their goals then they are perfectly happy with that also.
I say that if they want to die for Islam then let them. But let them die at the end of my gun on my terms.
Rather than me being beheaded because I refuse to allow my wife to be forced to wear a head covering, or if I refuse to pray to their skewed excuse for a god, or because I refuse whatever other religious atrocity they desire to impose upon me.
It's wrong to couch supporters of Kerry in terms of what the remainder of the world thinks.
Kerry, Bush, Nader, Badnarik, name your candidate, etc., everyone must realize that if you aren't an Islamic facist then the facists have a fate you don't want waiting for you. By sticking your head in a hole and refusing to see the obvious you are failing your species badly.
Political Bias Metadata (Score:3, Interesting)
I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.
Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid [okcupid.com] or related matching site type of meta data.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Interesting)
Clinton's agreement with the Nort Koreans resulted in us knowing where all their spent plutonium fuel rods were while we turned a blind to them building a bomb out of enriched uranium from other sources. North Korea thumbed their noses at the Clinton administration because they knew there would be no concequences to their blatent disregard of the negotiated terms. So under Clinton the North Koreans only managed to make two or three bombs instead of seven or eight. Woohoo. Great going there.
Re:Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
You just keep repeating this bullshit. "How were we to know? Everybody else said the same thing?" Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. Read the goddamn news once in a while, instead of blindly, religiously trusting the Republicans to tell you the truth. Blix said the WMD evidence was unraveling. Mohamed El Baradei said he was pretty sure Saddam had not resumed its nuclear weapons programs (again, RTFA cited above). The evidence is there if you wanted it- Bush didn't want facts, unless they supported his reality.
Let's get down to business, though. WHERE THE FUCK IS BIN LADEN? HUH? WHAT THE FUCK DID GW BUSH DO BEFORE 9/11 TO MAKE THOSE PEOPLE SAFER?
A plea for the center (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I can't stand the radical right, I'm not in favor of someone radically left. I've dealt with knee-jerk liberals- hell, I lived in San Francisco for a while- and their smug, only-read-stuff-that-already-tells-me-what-I-belie ve worldview drove me up the wall. And they were just as out of touch with reality as anyone on the right.
I think what this nation desperately needs is a radical move to the center. Not speaking-in-tongues religious, not a legalizing hemp hippy. Somehow, things have gotten so polarized, however. And I believe it's because of this president, and his black-or-white, with-us-or-against-us worldview. There are times that's useful. It was comforting in the aftermath of 9/11. But the world has all these shades of grey, and we need someone who can see them and deal with them, and realize that as much as we may try to do the right thing, sometimes even the most moral people can err. Terrorism is awful, and it needs to be fought, and assassinating terrorists needs to be done. But we also need to understand that it's not as simple as George Bush makes it out. I think that partly terrorism is driven by something you could most easily describe as evil. But partly people come to support terrorism because of frustration at generations of poverty and oppression.
I went to Africa: I saw some of the poorest people in the world. It was this brutally, oppressively poor place that makes you sad, and angry, and desperate to do something. I remember sitting with a young beggar girl on the streets in Madagascar showing her pictures from a book because I didn't know what else to give her besides some time and company. I could give her money, but it would be gone tomorrow and the only thing I'd have given her in the end was the idea that begging was the way to go through life, and I didn't want to give her that. That country broke my heart, and it broke my spirit, like nothing ever before or since ever has. There was so much potential, so much beauty, in the people... and so much of it just being wasted. All this joy, and so much pain and anger. I've never been hated like that before in my life. I've never hated being part of the human condition like that ever before. I saw things I wish I had never seen there, and learned things I couldn't unlearn, but I couldn't unsee them, and I couldn't unlearn them, and I wonder if that's how war veterans feel. Three months in Africa- I'll never get my innocence and faith in humanity back. Ever.
And if I could change Africa for the better, how far would I go? Would 3000 American lives be worth it for millions of poor people? I think it would be. Not just that- I think I'd be morally obligated. I would see 9/11 happen all over again if it meant that it would really change all the injustice there. Of course I know it won't, and that's why I'm not a terrorist.
I don't know if that's what bin Laden thinks- I suspect he's as much motivated by vanity and power as anything; and I do not respect his choice. I don't think that is the solution. But I think that maybe I can understand where people come from, who are willing to kill. The world is an awful place, the injustices so great, that sometimes desperate measures seem like the answer, the only answer. And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about: I was there. I was in New York. I remember how my throat itched from inhaling the dust, I remember and knowing what was in that dust, and I remember the huge cloud that spread out like dark wings over Manhattan... for miles. And don't misunderstand me: I love that city. So maybe I don't totally know, no. But I have some inkling of what kind of price I'm talking about. And it'd be worth it, if it brought a little justice to the world. Before you get angry, ask yourself: isn't that the rationale we use when we
Fanatics versus scientists versus the world (Score:5, Interesting)
From outside of the US, I think the scientific view is clearly dominant in most countries, and they are basically befuddled by what is going on on in America, and alarmed by the force behind the befuddlement. There are a few crazy and fanatical countries out there, but the US is clearly the strongest and most dangerous one.
I think that explains how a lot of our friends see the Iraq situation. They agree that it is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, and they would even be willing to help. However, on the other hand, it is keeping the suddenly belligerent US busy, and it is also clearly BushCo's own deliberate mistake. From that perspective, it's just as well to let the US keep playing with the tar baby for now, and their biggest fear is probably that BushCo might unilaterally withdraw and thereby force the rest of the world to clean it up. Fortunately (from their perspective), the oil aspect makes that unfeasible and unlikely.
The ugly facts are that Saddam was only a nuisance and not worth an entire war. Dubya believed otherwise, and to heck with those facts. What other crazy things does Dubya believe?
I believe I don't want to find out, and I hope Dubya is out of there very soon. Fortunately, fanatical birds of a feather tend to flock together in their little red states, so it increasingly looks like the swing states are going to swing the other way.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you'd checked the facts with Cheney's alternate reality shield turned off, you'd seen that Poppy Bush and Cheney were the ones that started the slide by letting NK off the hook and leaving the whole mess for the Chinese [gwu.edu] to sort out back in November 1991 after having decided to withdraw all US nukes from South Korea in October the same year. This in spite of persistent reports since 1985 that they were up to no good.
Clinton at least got the North to sign the treaty and dismantle their plutonium program by threatening to bomb their Pu reactor off [wordiq.com] the peninsula and together with the South Korean government made the North go with a more easily controlled uranium-based power generation program, delaying their bomb program by ten years. There were no indications at the time that they were breaking the deal until 2002 and last year when they openly admitted it. George W. Bush then took strong, resolute and decisive action by doing jack shit about it.
Neither Reagan, Bush or Bush has done anything except defer to the Chinese in this matter. Fact is, if it wasn't for Clinton and his credible threat of airstrikes, North Korea could have had plutonium bombs ready to go some time around 1995.
Re:Faith based politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Truth = Reality
Knowledge = true belief backed by evidence
faith = belief beyond reasonable doubt
faith,knowledge ==> conviction
So the real question is What do you believe in? For any belief to be useful, it must correspond to reality, held beyond reasonable doubt, and the holder must be aware that it is true. This is conviction.
It is not sufficient that you are certain it is true. It must actually be true to count.
Re:Nice Story! (Score:1, Interesting)
Since I brought up WW2, could someone please remind me what our exit strategy was for defeating Germany and Japan prior to declaring war on them? Can't give one? I thought not...