|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 6, 2003 13:53:20 GMT -5
George W. Bush would handily defeat Bill Clinton if they were the major party candidates in 2004. In a hypothetical matchup between the current president and his predecessor, 53 percent say they would vote for Bush while less than a third (32 percent) say they would vote for Clinton, with six percent saying “neither." Of course, these two candidates are only imaginary opponents as the U.S. Constitution restricts Clinton from running for a third term. In the hypothetical Bush-Clinton matchup, Republicans solidly support Bush (88 percent) compared to 62 percent of Democrats who say they would vote for Clinton. Almost a quarter (24 percent) of Democrats say they would vote for Bush while only seven percent of GOPers would vote for Clinton. 2004 Democrats Not Household Names The new poll finds most of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates remain largely unknown to the public. Being Al Gore’s vice presidential running mate in the 2000 election no doubt has helped Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (search) achieve the highest name recognition of the nine candidates, with over two-thirds able to rate him. Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (search) and New York Minister Al Sharpton (search) are the only other candidates who also have better than 50 percent name recognition. Overall, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (search) and Al Sharpton are the Democrats with the most negative public images, with both being rated unfavorably by just under half of the public ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Clinton's forthcoming memoir ''Living History'' is seen by some as a move to set the stage for a presidential run, but a new poll reveals most New Yorkers don't want the Democrat senator to make a bid for the White House – ever. The survey by Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., finds 58 percent of registered New York state voters don't want Hillary to run for the nation's highest office – not in 2004 nor anytime in the future.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Jun 6, 2003 19:10:00 GMT -5
Good point worthless, blaming Americans in general for whatever their government would be like me blaming you or South Africans in general for the actions of their government or army.
Americans are generally good people, and generally speaking are more generous than any other people. Individually we give far more than any other nation. You cannot accuse Americans of being selfish. You can accuse the government of what you like.
As for Bush, he is popular, and like him or not, he was seen as taking action against terrorists who had just brought down the world trade center and crashed 4 planes around the country. The US was wounded and Bush acted and he acted tough. If there is one thing Americans do like is a no nonsense tough leader. Does the average American understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 911? probably not, but they probably believe it and so most did support that war.
Do not underestimate the effect 911 had on the US. If we are sold a story that Bush is making the world safwer by taking out people who want to kill us, Bush will be popular. We are not evil people, we want the world to be a better place for all. Do we all understand all the issues? no.
Does any nations people? no, just like the average american, the average citizen of any nation just understands whatever they are served up by the media and government at the time.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 7, 2003 12:54:07 GMT -5
Thx for clarifying. BTW I'm not American. Goodie, although I have nothing against Americans in general, I do have an issue with the apathy of certain of them. They just seem to be totally oblivious of certtain regional, politoical, racial, social, sensitivities.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 7, 2003 13:08:23 GMT -5
Good points Who won. But IME Americans tend to be the most oblivious and naive people i have come across. Very nice they are and some that I've met, Very racist too.
And perhaps this stems from the fact that they swallow what their media and government sells them whole, as the truth. And when they're hated they don't know why.
Yesterday I witnessed a really disgusting display of anti- americanism. The venue was Roland Garousse and the occasion was the ladies tennis semi final between Saena Williams and some Belgian girl named Hennin. When Willaims was winning the crowd really boooed her. Id on't think it was she is black (although it may have had been an excuse for some to join in) but rather because she is American. They showed her no respect. Did she have anything to do with 'the war on terrorism'? No Dos she support it? I doubt it Yet she was booed
Why? Because in Europe people tend to take action. In the USa, when a man Like Michael Moore takes action by making amovie called Bowling for Columbine, most are to fearfulto support the message that he is trying to spread.
I don't hate the american public, I dislike the fact that they can allow a man to steal the presidency and then take the country to war to secure Oil rights and colonise another country for it's natural resources.
Now Americans tend to not see the wrong in that. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 7, 2003 13:34:26 GMT -5
Raptor,
I think the booing of Serena goes a bit further than simply the fact that she is American.
First of all, she has never been much appreciated by the French public due to her arrogance and total lack of feminine charm. She comes across as some brute, hammering the ball across the court. Add then to the fact that Justine Henin is Belgian, and a francophone, thus much closer to the heart of the French people. Don't forget the French public is extremely chauvinistic when it comes to sport, so having a Belgian, who after all can almost be called French (especially after Mauresmo was knocked out by Serena) taking revenge for the French Mauresmo, can only have the effect of the French booing Serena.
Personally I was all for Justine as well, particularly as I don't really like Serena, and she was the underdog on the match. The fact that Serena is American has nothing to do with it...
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 7, 2003 13:41:30 GMT -5
Yesterday I witnessed a really disgusting display of anti- americanism. The venue was Roland Garousse and the occasion was the ladies tennis semi final between Saena Williams and some Belgian girl named Hennin. When Willaims was winning the crowd really boooed her. Id on't think it was she is black (although it may have had been an excuse for some to join in) but rather because she is American. They showed her no respect. Did she have anything to do with 'the war on terrorism'? No Dos she support it? I doubt it Yet she was booed I thought it was a great match, really good tennis, the sight of a pumped up muscle bound freak (who has shown continuous bad sportsmanship and arrogance throughout her career) getting pushed all around the court was a refreshing sight. To see Serena bawling her eyes out in the press conference after the match was the icing on the cake. However, it was not anti American/anti war, feelings you saw Raptor, it was a partisan crowd cheering on a fellow French Speaker against, as I have already said, one of the most loathsome woman in tennis today. Had you seen the Agassi (USA) v’s Coria (Argentina) match earlier in the tournament, you would have witnessed fantastic tennis and the crowd giving rousing support to both payers.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 7, 2003 13:45:13 GMT -5
Henric, ha ha Great minds think alike, I was typing my reply as you were typing yours. I love the French Open, without doupt the best tennis tournament of the year. Even if today's final was a bit one sided.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Jun 7, 2003 13:59:13 GMT -5
didnt see the match, but I think there is a huge difference between supporting your player and cheering for them and booing (whatever the reason) for the opponenet. Just because you dislike that person it is a disgusting display in a personalized sport such as Tennis to boo the player.
If the French want to support their Belgian pseudo french player then good for them. I dont see how that equates or can then be excused for booing the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 7, 2003 14:08:54 GMT -5
didnt see the match, but I think there is a huge difference between supporting your player and cheering for them and booing (whatever the reason) for the opponenet. Just because you dislike that person it is a disgusting display in a personalized sport such as Tennis to boo the player. If the French want to support their Belgian pseudo french player then good for them. I dont see how that equates or can then be excused for booing the opponent. Who Won, The issue is not if the French are showing good sportsmanship or not (and I think we could all agree that it would be very surprising if they did!), but rather if their reaction was an anti-US one.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Jun 7, 2003 14:27:22 GMT -5
Fair enough henrik. Sorry I mis read your point. I was assuming wrongly you were trying to make excuses and justify the booing. I see you weren't. You were explaining it as simply not being an anti american thing.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 7, 2003 14:38:25 GMT -5
didnt see the match, but I think there is a huge difference between supporting your player and cheering for them and booing (whatever the reason) for the opponenet. Just because you dislike that person it is a disgusting display in a personalized sport such as Tennis to boo the player. If the French want to support their Belgian pseudo french player then good for them. I dont see how that equates or can then be excused for booing the opponent. So we will not mention the behaviour of the American supporter's at the last Winter Olypics or some of the Ryder Cup (Golf) match's then???
|
|
|
Post by who won on Jun 7, 2003 15:09:39 GMT -5
Yep Danny Boy
that was disgusting behaviour too.
|
|
|
Post by TC in Exhile on Jun 7, 2003 15:43:45 GMT -5
The Williams girls do come off a bit like snobs in tennis. The French crowd is not very kind a to anyone with an attitude. So you mix the unbeaten williams girls, a fraco, and a anti US attitude and you get what you saw.
Personally, i never boo just becuase it shows no class. The only time i have booed was when i just recently saw the Dixie Chicks and a girl got off a blast making fun of the protestors.
However, as one journalist said, the french never would of booed Andre Agassi. Even though he is a yankee he is loved a Roland garros.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Jun 8, 2003 1:59:25 GMT -5
Who do you think brought about change in South Africa? It surely wasn't the CEO's of large corporations, but the man and woman on the street - the people. Apathy will be your downfall. The fact remains that the American people were robbed of their democracy the day Bush came to power, and you should stop at nothing until you get that democracy back. Your vote clearly means shit, and it's time to pursue other avenues.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Jun 8, 2003 2:05:35 GMT -5
And before people start grilling me about my race a la Raptor, I am a white South African. I DID benefit from Apartheid, even though I was only 14 when we got democracy. That's why I am an advocate of affirmative action (see that other post on the forum somewhere), as an atonement (if you will) for the sins of my predecessors.
|
|