Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Politics

The Rest of the World Wants Kerry 458

Posted by CmdrTaco from the something-to-think-about dept.
Pentagram writes "A poll by GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland of 34,330 people from 35 countries found almost all of them gave a strong backing to Kerry; less than one in five backed Bush. Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush, whereas Norway gave Kerry the strongest backing with 74% to Bush's 7%. The UK, the US's most vocal ally during the Bush-led Iraq invasion, overwhelmingly preferred Kerry at 47% to 16%."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Rest of the World Wants Kerry More

The Rest of the World Wants Kerry

Comments Filter:

  • Two presidents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vijaya_chandra ( 618284 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:43PM (#10332863)
    May be it's time the US has two presidents
    One for the people of the US and the other for the world

    Everyone'd be happy

    • John Dean argues [salon.com] we already have a Head of State (George W. Bush) and a Head of Government (Dick Cheney) and that they serve as co-presidents.

      It's certainly enough for me!

    • Re:Two presidents (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <revaaron@hotmail. c o m> on Thursday September 23, 2004 @08:28PM (#10336363) Homepage
      Sounds fine to me. But if we're changing the way things work, we better allow for someone who lives in the US to get the other president- I really, really do not want to get stuck with Bush for another 4 years (really). Not that Kerry would be all that great, but I'd take a a cheese sandwitch over Bush. It may not accomplish anything, but at least it can't do anywhere near as much damage.

      Anyway, that brings up an interesting idea- govern people according to how they voted. With computers it could almost be done, though there are areas it wouldn't work. E.g., if you voted for Bush, your taxes drop 0.5%, but your kids get stuck going to a shit school- unless you send them to a private one; you don't get any national health care; and maybe they'll put your name on a missle. Vote for Kerry or Nader and have your taxes go up 3%, but actually get services for your contribution. When some poor schmuck who voted for Bush shows up at the hospital, they ask for his ID, and check the database. If he voted republican, send him the full bill; if he voted Green, send him home healthy and with a co-pay or reasonable deductable.

      Things like roads would obviously not work- but most politicians would agree on the need for a public transportation infrastructure. But the national vacuum train system would only be used for those who voted for the candidate which supported it...

  • They don't 'want Kerry' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:44PM (#10332876)
    The don't want Bush.
    • Pretty much right on. I know a lot of people who are voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush, and don't think he's done a good enough job to stay in office. I haven't talked to a lot of people who are not ardent Democrats who think Kerry is a great alternative. His biggest asset is not being Bush. I seriously doubt he has what it takes to be a good President, but he may go about things with a little more diplomacy than Bush has-or he could do what Nixon did and expand the war in the hopes of getti
      • Pretty much right on. I know a lot of people who are voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush, and don't think he's done a good enough job to stay in office. I haven't talked to a lot of people who are not ardent Democrats who think Kerry is a great alternative. His biggest asset is not being Bush.

        There was a great Onion headline a while back that said 'Kerry Unveils One Point Plan for a Better America' and it showed a picter of Bush with a circle and slash over it. Priceless.

  • "The Rest of the World Wants Kerry" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trikenstein ( 571493 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:44PM (#10332880)
    This may not be completely accurate.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:
    "The Rest of the World Wants Anyone but Bush"
    • Yea when they took the poll this is what it looked like to them:

      If you were a US citizin who would you vote for?

      [] George w. Bush.
      [] Efdgnaq J. Kwosqla.

      Let's all pick the not Bush one.

      • Your search -
        "Efdgnaq J. Kwosqla" - did not match any documents.

        Suggestions:
        - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        - Try different keywords.
        - Try more general keywords.

        Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

        Dang, for a moment there I had HOPE!

  • Practice abstinence! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:46PM (#10332909)
    No Bush and no Dick in '04!

  • UK is not Bush's ally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonm ( 13708 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:46PM (#10332911) Homepage
    Please do not say things like "the UK is Bush's most vocal ally". Most people here hate the Bush - it's only our stupid leaders who are buddying up to him.

  • Error a president can make ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by btk667 ( 722104 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:46PM (#10332913)
    Please tell me, what does a president have to do, to be remove from office ? Can you tell me what Bush haven't done yet? Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble? ? ;)
    • Christ - could you imagine that thrusting away on top of you?

      What a disgusting image.
    • According to Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
    • like similar stuff for Kerry above?

      Flush the Johns in '04.

    • Re:Error a president can make ? (Score:4, Funny)

      by theghost ( 156240 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @04:19PM (#10334297)
      Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble?

      Even sex wouldn't stop Bush. After all, he already fucked the economy, he fucked Iraq, he fucked our international relations, he fucked our intelligence services, he fucked our civil liberties, and he fucked our electoral system. Kinda puts a blowjob from an intern into perspective, doesn't it?

  • It's true. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rasteri ( 634956 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:46PM (#10332923) Journal
    Living in another country, you actually feel threatened by some of the stuff the US gets up to. I for one know I feel a lot less safe since the U.S started its war on terror, and not because of terrorists either.

  • This will probably be spun negatively (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:46PM (#10332925) Homepage Journal
    Given the current media attitude, this will no doubt be spun as "world wants a less firm, less studly leader than Bush so it can do its Francophilic walk-over our fine democratic values."

    Alternative spins include "the world wants a nuanced leader who understands the issues", or "the world wants less war", or "the world wants to attack us so they need a senator in charge", or "the world likes red ties more than blue".

    Hmm... it'll be interesting, but I think this is mostly a non-fact. World opinion doesn't count much within the US.

    If the US takes an isolationist stance, that's not a bad thing. If we'd rather have more UN engagements (i.e. less US soldiers, easier for us to pull out and leave our allies holding the stick, et cetera), though, it might be worth paying attention.

    "World wants to send soliders in to fight our battles, but only if we change leaders!" Now that's an odd spin we could try.

  • Too bad for them (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nelsonal ( 549144 )
    We're not voting for head of the UN (perhaps Kerry should seek that post) this is our election and most American's don't really care what the rest of the world wants in our leader, how come we never see global preferences for Britian, China, Japan or other countries' leader selection.
    • Because most other countries don't take on a self-appointed role as global policeman.

  • We should definitely elect Bush then... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skalizar ( 676291 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:47PM (#10332932)
    As I'm quite sure the rest of the world doesn't have our best interests in mind, just the opposite in fact.

    • Re:We should definitely elect Bush then... (Score:4, Funny)

      by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <bjm.midsouth@rr@com> on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:00PM (#10333162) Homepage
      As I'm quite sure the rest of the world doesn't have our best interests in mind, just the opposite in fact.

      Sure the rest of the world has US interest in mind. I'm sure the first thing that went through the poll respondants mind when polled was "Well, who would best represent the interests of the US people... because that's who I want." Then they go to the store and think to themselves, "What products can I buy to best support US companies?". They go home, flip on the TV and think, "Which show can I watch to best support Hollywood and the US media?". Then they get on their computers and think to themselves, "Which website can I go to to best support the US tech industry."

      They think all these things because they really, really have our best interests in mind. That's why they want Kerry.
      • Certainly, it isn't like you sarcastically stated it. However, the contrary is even farer from the truth. And suggesting so, is quite insulting.

        People are buying U.S.American products, are listening to American music and watching American films. They aren't forced to, they chose so. And when the US has a bad economy, other nations are feeling the downsides, too.

        So, usually foreigners would not knowingly make the worse choice for the US.

        Sure, foreigners are less qualified to judge the internal policies. B

        • So, usually foreigners would not knowingly make the worse choice for the US.

          I agree with you. They are not likely to intentionally choose who is the worst choice for America. It's not an either/or situation. When they choose to watch American TV programs it's because they like them - not because it is good for America. When they buy American products it's because they like them - not because it is good for America.

          They are likely to choose who they think is best for them (being a non-American), based

  • Foreign Interference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @02:54PM (#10333028) Homepage
    If it had been up to me, Margaret Thatcher would have been appointed PM for life, but not being a citizen of the UK, nobody asked for my vote or my opinion. That is as it should be.

  • Interestingly enough, other nations say otherwise (Score:4, Informative)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:00PM (#10333181) Homepage
    Ironically, I read this article yesterday stating how it is in India's best interest to keep Bush... http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1020531,00 15002200000158.htm

    • Quote from the article [hindustantimes.com] : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush -- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"

      Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S. president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called Bush an "idiot".

      Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for
  • I fail to understand why it should matter to me John Q. Britisher would rather I voted Democrat. In fact, given the general internation consensus on America, I think I'm more likely to consider the endorsement of John Kerry by millions of John and Jane Q. Europeans rather a negative indicator of his capability as President.

    I suppose they liked Carter, too?
    • No, they liked Clinton! As if that was a smart choice. I have seen a secondary poll that goes right behind this one. The numbers are abotuthe same and other countries want the US to have a weak president, like Kerry.
    • I fail to understand why it should matter to me John Q. Britisher would rather I voted Democrat.

      I agree that what is good for the rest of the world may not be good for the United States but the United States needs to realize that what is good for the Unites States may not be good for the rest of the world.

      Specifically, Republicans who think that the rest of the world wants the United States to bring the world "freedom" and "democracy" aren't exactly basing their world view on reality.

    • We're Not Alone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo@NOSpAM.jaquith.org> on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:28PM (#10333628) Homepage Journal
      That's just foolish -- we're not alone in the world. Globalization means that we're intricately interconnected with much of the rest of the world, and highly dependent on other nations. If American went isolationist tomorrow, we'd starve to death within weeks.

      There's good reason why only Americans can vote in American elections. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider all of the facts, including the fact that the rest of the world is getting increasingly wary about the United States.

      -Waldo Jaquith
    • I fail to understand why it should matter to me John Q. Britisher would rather I voted Democrat.

      Because like it or not, the USA is part of a world community. If you take that attitude, and don't give a shit about how your government treats others, then don't be suprised when you are spit upon when travelling abroad, or even denied entry to some contries.

      Also, you should not be surprised when people from the rest of the world consider your country to be 'criminal'. Do you know why the US will not abide
    • Whether or not it should matter to you is up to you. Really it's more of a point of interest than voting guidance.

      What it does indicate is that the majority of the World feels that Kerry will be better for the World in general than Bush will be. This is not neccesarily the same thing as being better for the USA, though.

      However, as a member of the Rest Of The World, it is fustrating that I am not in any way represented in the voting in of a person who will have a huge effect on my personal safety. For inst

    • Carter

      Carter's presidency, while marked with practical difficulties (like his micromanagement of White House tennis court schedules), will be remembered 100 years from now as more moral and principled, especially after the Watergate scandal ridden presidencies of Nixon and, to a lesser extent, Ford.

      Carter's stand on human rights violations by tinhorn dictators in the 3rd world was particularly admirable. And, yes, foreigners I met overseas in the late 1970's were impressed with Carter.

      Every president

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:08PM (#10333318)

    You can spin this data any way you want to (assuming it is valid data - I would tend to assume that the voting population in the study was hardly randomized among all the various determinant factors). I'll provide an opposed spin (it's stupid, but no more so than any of the others) that makes the data pro-Bush:

    In the current geopolitical scene, one country's financial loss is another's gain. Therefore smart people in the world would try to push for a candidate in the US who would cause the US to lose in the larger global fiscal game (not in a big de-stabilizing way that would backfire, just enough that the other countries can take advantage). Therefore the fact that people outside the US overwhelmingly favor Kerry means that they are predicting (in the market sense) that Bush would lead to a stronger US fiscal victory over the rest of the world.

  • Nigeria, eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by abb3w ( 696381 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:12PM (#10333382) Journal

    I'm sure us geeks have an opinion [aa419.org] on support from Nigeria.

  • I should care why??
  • Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush,

    Hey, those guys know what a strong leader really is:

    Philippines: There's nothing like electing a President who committed human rights violations under the Marcos regime.

    Poland: Well, you wouldn't think they'd go for invaders, but...

    Nigeria: Come for the stonings, stay for the floggings, amputations, and beheadings under Sharia law.

    In any event, what does it matter who the "world" would vote for? The only ones that count are the
    • Poland: Well, you wouldn't think they'd go for invaders, but...
      Or maybe Poland knows better than anyone else in the world what can happen [wikipedia.org] when no country is willing to intervene preemptively when a dictatorial regime fails to comply with treaties they've signed, repeatedly breaks their promises, and ignores the demands of the international community.

  • Why the rest of the world cares (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Inexile2002 ( 540368 ) * on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:19PM (#10333488) Homepage Journal
    It's funny, the second I saw this article I thought that there were going to be two basic responses from Amercians. Response A) The rest of the world gets no say (to varying degrees of rudeness). And B) See, Bush is undermining us abroad (with varying degrees of Bush-bashing).

    It's funny because both are 100% percent correct, and each will be used to support arguments that disagree with each other. In particular, while I agree that the rest of the world gets no say, and wouldn't for a second suggest changing that, to gruffly deny that we don't all have a stake is laughable. The world is a small place, and getting - relatively - smaller. More people, more interconnected economies, better communication, more, faster and easier travel, shared environmental and social problems etc. What happens in the US affects the rest of us, just as what happens to the rest of us affects the US. Even if we don't live in the "Axis of Evil". The rest of the world sees the outsider looking in perspective of Bush and we don't like what we see. Also, the much of the rest of the world still has laws about media fairness and impartiality and so we don't get relentless repetition of the GOP's weekly talking points passing as news. Bias check, I'm left wing by the standards of a country that has been called Soviet Canuckistan by you Americans. So by American standards that places me three steps to the left of Psycho-pinko-commie-freaks. By Canadian standards I'm part of the third largest political party in the country.

    I digress. We want to see Bush out because I, and most of the rest of the world, perceive Bush and the types of things that have happened under him as negative, destructive and dangerous. I frankly don't know much about Kerry, and thanks to the American media's relentless refusal to actually discuss issues and focus on election platforms, neither do most Americans. Ask yourself next time you see the media focusing on medals, ribbons, type setting etc - Do you really know anything about either candidate's platforms? Really really? Do you know Kerry's? Bush's? If not, why not? Shouldn't that bother you? This is an election isn't it? And as much as the spin machine wants to talk about easily misconstrued things like character and "flip-flopping", platform and issues matter. And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isn't an issue, it isn't a platform, and if you elect the candidate that insists on doing it...well, the rest of the world will have to wait four for years to get what we want and you'll get four more years of Bush. Enjoy them and try not to bomb anything.

    • Re:Why the rest of the world cares (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kismet ( 13199 ) <pmccombs@@@acm...org> on Thursday September 23, 2004 @04:53PM (#10334664) Homepage

      Ask yourself next time you see the media focusing on medals, ribbons, type setting etc - Do you really know anything about either candidate's platforms? Really really? Do you know Kerry's? Bush's? If not, why not? Shouldn't that bother you? This is an election isn't it? And as much as the spin machine wants to talk about easily misconstrued things like character and "flip-flopping", platform and issues matter.


      The problem is that there really aren't "platforms" outside of the emotionally charged rhetoric. The reality is that both major parties are centrist when it comes to actual government.

      So if you have nothing to argue about, then you must attack the other man's character. You must also find non-issues to talk about - things that don't belong in federal government anyway, such as legislating morality (how many wives you can have, or whether or not gays can marry, or if stem cells are people too).

      People aren't thinking of issues. It's too hard to think about what is best for the country - too much complexity. We want to know who is More Evil and who is Less Evil. Who best fits our ideal of moral goodness? Who is a Real Hero? Issues be damned.
    • just because the US media is baised in favour of 'whomever', doesn't mean one can't stay informed about ones candidates, either!

      so head over to: www.johnkerry.com [johnkerry.com]

      if you'd like to know more about Kerry.

    • Bad memories, maybe? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GQuon ( 643387 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @05:32PM (#10335046) Journal
      GWB, Rudy Giuliani, and all those people are reminding us of something bad, the 9/11 attacks and the following wars. Many nations were forced to take a stand, and they don't like that. If Bush went away, maybe terrorism would go away as well?
      That's on a subconsious level.

      On an intellectual level, there's the impression that the U.S. broke away from the U.N. The world would have wished for a unanimous Security Council resolution in the style of Operations Desert Shield&Storm, instead the U.S. is basing the legailty of the invation on cease fire violations by Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. is such a ferocious military power, that seeing it operate outside its old patterns scares other nations. And what kind of precedent does it establish? If you feel that a country presents a danger, you're allowed to attack it first. Pre-emption. What if China or Russia does that to a country that we like. (Ignoring all the WMD resolutions.)
      Plus, we have heard allmost nothing about the econimic interests France and Russia had in Iraq. And the food-for-oil corruption is a non-story.
      Although the situation on the ground in Iraq would be just as bad with a U.N. force, the situation in the rest of the world would be better if there was a clear Security Council mandate for the action.

      And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isnt an issue, it isnt a platform
      No, but protecting your country from terrorism is a serious issue.
  • Why exactly should we care? I really doubt the Mexican people care about our opinions of Vincente Fox. The same would apply to the British and our opinion of Tony Blair, or the South Africans and our opinion of President Mbeki. I thought the Spanish were quite silly for letting the Madrid bombing to affect their voting to such an extent, but I don't expect them to care about my opinion. It's their country, not mine.

    The US is our country. We will vote for who we please, not who may or may not please pe

    • Re:And ... ?? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by presearch ( 214913 )
      So, I'm curious.

      Is ignorance really bliss?

    • Re:And ... ?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pzarecta ( 775947 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @04:05PM (#10334118)
      It is a common misconception, fueled by the media, that the Spanish vote was swayed by the Madrid bombings. Fact of the matter is, a lot of Spaniards came to hate Aznar for several reasons, only one of them being that he practically licked Bush's ass. And it should also be noted that Zapatero had always intended to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, as it had been part of his campaign platform for a long time. None of this had anything to do with the bombings.

      The takeaway from the Madrid bombings is not how it swayed Spanish politics, rather how smart and media-savvy the terrorists are for making themselves appear to the rest of the world as having swayed the elections, and in the process embarrasing Bush.

      • Interesting. I had not heard that angle on the story before. I will have to do some more reading on the subject. Thank you.

      • Well (Score:3, Informative)

        by autopr0n ( 534291 )
        Remember that Anzar also tried to blame the bombing on ETA, when clearly it was AQ. It was an obvious, and crass lie about something horrible in order to score political points.

        That definetly would have cost him my vote. Not that I would have voted for him anyway.

        The other issue is that voter turnout was huge. People who normaly wouldn't give a fuck about politics suddenly said "WTF have we got ourselves into!?"

  • Why it matters (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In answer to a few earlier posts, it matters because the USA is the sole superpower in the world today and its foreign policy affects everyone else who lives on the planet, especially so in the post-9/11 era.

    Put simply, the USA is in a unique position of power. With that power comes responsibility. Come November, that responsibility is in your hands.

  • The US electorate should give consideration to the opinions of citizens from countries, chiefly from Europe, that have left humanity with a legacy of global warfare, colonialization, slavery, exploitation and political instability, abroad in their former colonies, and at home?????????

    Can the collective European electorates really have anything to offer the citizens of a successful 228 year old constitionally based republic? The history of France's civic history over the last 100 yrs alone will leave one'
    • The US electorate should give consideration to the opinions of citizens from countries, chiefly from Europe, that have left humanity with a legacy of global warfare, colonialization, slavery, exploitation and political instability, abroad in their former colonies, and at home?????????

      That's a nice straw man you have there. Shame if anything were to happen to it...

      chl

  • You don't get a Vote (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:30PM (#10333646)
    Just in case anyone forgot, NONE of us get to vote for the president of the United States. He's picked by Electors.

  • weaker (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @03:35PM (#10333705) Homepage
    The same poll also showed the rest of the world also wanted a weaker United States. I think that was what they had in mind when they were selecting Kerry as well.

    Why is this IMO stupid article being posted on Slashdot anyway?
  • Globscan press release and poll results summary
    PDF - 8 pages
    http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/GlobeScan- P IPA_Release.pdf [globescan.com]

    --Media Release--
    Poll of 35 Countries Finds 30 Prefer Kerry, 3 Bush Traditional US Allies Strongly Favor Kerry Bush Preferred in Philippines, Poland and Nigeria Most Say Bush Foreign Policy Has Made Them Feel Worse Toward US

    For release: September 8, 2004

    Washington DC: In 30 out of 35 countries polled, from all regions of the world, a majority or plurality would prefer to

  • My two cents as a Canadian:

    In general I don't think much of the "Bush-bashing" is warranted or useful. I don't think Bush is a particularly bad President, but from a philosophical standpoint I would rather see a Democrat than a Republican in the position of President.

    So, it seems that I'm in agreement with the rest of the non-US world. There's a catch, though: Although I prefer Kerry as a candidate, I realize that he's going to lose. Badly. The best synthesis I've ever heard of all the information in the

  • The poll is misleading - speaking from the UK you will find that most people don't particularly care for Kerry - we just hate Bush.

    Literally anybody but Bush in the next election would be great. The guy is a moron.

  • None of the above. (Score:5, Informative)

    by I am Jack's username ( 528712 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @05:15PM (#10334875)
    Including the "neither" (undecided and other) percentage, and comparing it to the 2000 election:

    Country: Kerry, Bush, neither

    Kerry
    Germany: 74%, 10%, 16%
    Norway: 74%, 7%, 19%
    France: 64%, 5%, 31%
    Canada: 61%, 16%, 23%
    Italy: 58%, 14%, 28%
    Brazil: 57%, 14%, 29%
    Indonesia: 57%, 34%, 9%
    China: 52%, 12%, 36%

    Kerry, no mandate
    UK: 47%, 16%, 37%
    Japan: 43%, 32%, 25%

    Too close to call, no mandate
    India: 34%, 33%, 33%

    Bush
    Philippines: 32%, 57%, 11%

    Neither, no mandate
    Spain: 45%, 7%, 48%
    Mexico: 38%, 18%, 44%
    Nigeria: 33%, 27%, 40%
    Thailand: 30%, 33%, 37%
    Poland: 26%, 31%, 43%

    2000: Gore, Bush, other, none of the candidates

    None of the candidates
    USA: 22.0%**, 21.8%**, 1.7%, 54.5%*

    * Eligible voters [seacoastonline.com]
    ** Gore, Bush, and other's percentage support of eligible (I hope) [fec.gov]

    My comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line.

  • Dupe, Troll, and Non-Story to boot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by superyooser ( 100462 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @10:22PM (#10337038) Homepage Journal
    There is no reason for this. As others have pointed out, the world doesn't particularly like Kerry either.

    Non-Americans don't like American candidates. In related news, Americans don't like non-American candidates. Not to mention that pesky legality issue...

    It's a non-story because everybody knows that the world's socialists, communists, and terror enablers are against American values. I would like to see a poll that included the millions of dissidents and people of the "wrong" religion or party that dictators have locked away from the outside world and see if they would support Bush and his liberation schemes.

    It's a troll since it's a desperate attempt to show support for Kerry who is falling behind in the polls of legal voters.

    It's a dupe [slashdot.org], and both stories were posted by CmdrTaco!! Can you smell an agenda? Hello, Dan Rather.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @11:37PM (#10337467)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close